A Question Nobody Wants To Answer

[denny]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?

[BarbB]

Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.


I used to think testing too. And I took it for granted that the "best" would be the ones being tested. The suberb horsemen, unusually gifted and brave horses, the course designers with a sixth sense for what would work and what wouldn't.

Given that those descriptions no longer really apply...anyone who can make the qualifications is liable to be out there on a course designed by the bigger is better generation.....I think we have to opt for safety.

I think is the loss of a peculiar and wonderful sport.

I will treasure until I die the videos I have of Murphy Himself and Priceless and Sunfire, and Kibar Tic Toc and Three Magic Beans and Little Tricky and all the other greats, but I don't expect to see courses built for them anymore.

[Trakehner]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.

People don't want to wait to show at classes they don't belong or can't ride. X-country shortened so the warmbloods can compete, stadium less interesting and too low, again so the warmbloods can compete. People who don't belong in the show for another year or two...who won't wait.

I showed when courses were longer and a real workout, TBs were the horses who excelled, the warmbloods couldn't compete. Hunter classes seemed to all start at 3', not almost caveletti height to make people feel good about themselves.

Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.

[FlightCheck]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with "too easy for the best" right now.

Perhaps, just perhaps, after stronger "move up" requirements, etc., then perhaps we could change to stronger XC...

But I've seen too many injuries and deaths to believe in "personal responsibility" anymore.

[fernie fox]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

[sm]

I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"


Of the question asked: safety first. I think the only jumps out there should be designed with impact in mind. The Brits are working on this now.

But I do like fernie fox's answer -- I think the xc phase needs a complete overhaul, maybe just the wrong questions are asked there. It's so unnatural for the horses, it's just the wrong concept altogether.

[BarbB]

One last comment on the 'making it too easy for the best'

Even if we want it to be difficult for the best, there have to be limits. Anyone who thinks that a course should be built to be difficult for Bruce Davidson to ride around is nuts, or living on a different planet or something...:rolleyes:

[facinated]

I am not involved in eventing so my free advice is worth exactly that. But. You people should consider a zero drug tolerance for your sport. If the horses are getting killed mostly at the upper levels them make it a zero drug policy for the preliminary level and above. Only fit healthy horses would be sound and able to start.

[deltawave]

The FEI has a "no foreign substances" mandate already. I've not seen too many unfit, unsound horses competing at Preliminary level, ever. And random drug testing is routine--I've been tested, seen them at almost every show I've been to the last couple of years.

[RunForIt]

I am not involved in eventing so my free advice is worth exactly that. But. You people should consider a zero drug tolerance for your sport. If the horses are getting killed mostly at the upper levels them make it a zero drug policy for the preliminary level and above. Only fit healthy horses would be sound and able to start.

Its not drugs that are killing horses, they are hitting fences, breaking bones and lives.

[Hidden]

Facinated.. since you are not involved with Eventing - perhaps you have not been aware of the many discussions/threads and recent National Safety meeting etc..etc. So your comment does not address the issues here and makes no sense at all.

Denny - I've got to go with safety, I really want XC to be the defining thing in Eventing - the part that sets the ribbons, but with the loss of the endurance part (long format) the dressage/show jumping are now coming more to the forefront anyway. I would rather have it be not hard enough for the best than too hard for the worst because the price you pay is way to high as we have seen. This has to be a sustainable sport, and the only way to make it so is to have it be something that does not have such a horrific injury alternative for the partnership. It should test, but not on a pass/fail basis. Failure is not an option at the upper levels. This is a demanding sport, but it has to be fun. Fun to do and fun to see.
That is what sport is about right?

[Emstah]

we must make it too hard for the rest. We cannot make the XC too easy-it would completely take away what the sport is all about- even more than has already been done. By making the XC easier, we will further reward those with the big $$ who buy the fancy moving warmbloods so they can clean up in the dressage, get around the now easy/slower/smaller/less challenging XC, and jump clean around the now massive SJ. May as well just take away XC all together and have CTs every weekend :no:

I also think that if the XC is made easier, that you will have more unsuitable riders out there at the upper levels. If the D and SJ are jacked up, people are going to spend even more time in the ring schooling their tempies and much less time in the tack galloping and jumping across the country. The XC would be on the bottom of the priority list. I see this causing many more injuries/deaths of horse and rider.

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.

So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

[silver pine]

I think Denny has hit the nail on the head. The top tiny percentage of riders make everything look easy while the "rest" of the ULR's have more difficult. It;s time to have it be less challenging for that tiny top percentage and make it safe for the rest of the ULRs.

I'm disappointed that the solutions coming out of the safety summit are all geared towards the lower levels when the accidents and horse deaths are at the higher levels.
I'm not saying that all the suggestions to improve the lower levels are not valid or necessary but it all seems to be smoke and mirrors.
"Look, are horses dying during rotational falls and the response is well look at all the bad galloping at the lower levels, if we don't change that then the deaths will not stop." Seem a little disjointed to anyone else. There is plenty of bad riding out there at the lower levels and I'm hopeful that the suggestions that came out of the sumit will help that but it still does not change or affect the issues that brought us together in the first place.
WE need to get rid of the ridiculous dangerous fences that set the horses up for failure, give real ground lines and educate everyone from teh lolwt smurf to the BNT and ULR's. Or am I alone on this one???

[facinated]

Like I said, free. In other horse sports it is common practice to compete soundish horses with the help of different drugs. It is common to have a horse which would not jog sound without bute, or would feel a nagging pain and not perform as well. Often these horses are babied along during the week so they can compete on the weekends. It is great to hear that is not the case in eventing.

[sm]

Its not drugs that are killing horses, they are hitting fences, breaking bones and lives.

And pulmonary hemorrhaging from the course design, all the bouncing around on the xc course:

"... the movement of the intestines can get out of phase with the movement of the diaphragm in such a way that the intestinal mass is swinging forward as the horse is trying to exhale. This causes the diaphragm to be slammed forward and slightly upward. The diaphragm, in turn, squeezes part of the lungs against the chest wall.

"The lungs are filled with alveoli, tiny air sacs, and capillaries, miniscule blood vessels. The alveoli and capillaries are so fine and so interconnected that oxygen from the inhaled air can pass into the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide in the blood can pass out of the blood into the lungs to be exhaled. The capillaries are at their smallest and most efficient near the rear, tapered end of the lungs where they abut the diaphragm.
It is exactly these most efficient, extremely fine capillaries which are repeatedly impacted by the forward-surging intestinal mass. As they rupture under the stress, the horse's air passages become clogged with blood." http://www.thinkythings.org/horseracing/lasixinfo.html#causes

"However, it is natural to suppose that years of [competition] might leave a fair amount of scar tissue on a horse's lungs. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to consider how well older horses will be able to breathe " http://www.thinkythings.org/horseracing/lasixinfo.html#causes

I know USEF is doing a study on this, so I'm sure there will be more info to come. We need a strong cross country, just not the one we have now.

[fernie fox]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.
__________________

I toatally agree,your wording is better than mine.

[deltawave]

Woah, hold the phone there, sm. It is massively premature to correlate EIPH with the rigors of modern XC courses. A good hypothesis, yes, but nowhere NEAR proven.
Your "source" cites no veterinary journals, no research, nothing but racing editorial pieces. Before we go "deciding", it would be prudent to have the facts.

[flyingchange]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

This is exactly what Lucinda was saying at a clinic this spring. You SHOULD fear the big rider-scarer jumps. That fear is part of what makes you determined to ride it correctly and get over it. She predicts softer courses would result in MORE catastrophic injuries and fatalities.

[denny]

I think the reason the Safety Summit didn`t really come up with enough concrete proposals is because the obvious answer---- "Make XC too easy for the best." isn`t a very palatable answer, esp. for those who consider themselves in that "best" catagory.*So they wriggle, like fish on a hook, trying to have it both ways, keeping xc seriously challenging, and yet safe.*Can they have it both ways? I doubt it, really. Maybe if engineering geniuses can create inexpensive, collapsible fences, they can get close.*But for all the "personal responsibility" we hear, there`s an enormous fallacy at work.It only works if EVERYBODY exercises it. If ONE rider doesn`t, and if that results in ONE fatality, horse or rider, that`s about all it takes, one per event, just as we`ve seen all year.*Those "ones" add up to lots, as we`ve seen, all year.

[RiverBendPol]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.
__________________

I toatally agree,your wording is better than mine.




I agree with these 2 but would like to add.....I think our greatest loss came when the full format went away. I know, I know, it is my same old soap box but really, if you look at the history, the real trouble began when riders started spending less time in the tack. There are 1000 more details which, when added into the equation, add up to the mess in which we currently find ourselves.
I would suggest that a full format 3-day event be a requirement to moving up to the next level. If you want to go Prelim, you not only have to have 4 clean trainings, you must also have a clean Training level 3-day. To go Intermediate, 4 clean Prelims PLUS a clean CCI(*) full format, etc. and so on.
As Emstah has stated here so eloquently, please don't dumb down the courses. Make them big. Make them inviting. Ramp away the faces of the jumps. Put up more hedges. Lay down obvious ground lines. Forbid vertical faces. Allow and encourage a true gallop. Skinnys are fine with me. As are combinations but make the jumps understandable to the horses. Don't knock the times down, don't lower the jumps. Lower jumps will only cause the idjits to think they can fly them all. Make them big and scary. Scary to riders, easy for horses. It is not a difficult task, it is how it was in the olden times.

[Elghund2]

I don't like the trends of the cross country courses that I've seen lately with the overly technical combinations. I do think that XC should be kept as the defining element in eventing. An upper level course should be demanding for upper level riders. If you are riding in upper level eventing and think that the XC should be made easier then you are not an upper level rider or you are not on an upper levelhorse.

I do think the qualifications for moving up levels should be a little more critical. I also think that maybe recognized events should be asking more difficult questions then whether you can clear a certain height jump. Competitors should be working out issues at home and at schooling shows. The recognized events should be for those who are truy ready.

I can tell you from jump judging that you have a lot riders showing up at all levels that just aren't ready yet.

As an anology, the US Open in golf is open to anyone as long as you can pass the qualifications and the qualifying competitions. What would be wrong with having people win their way into upper level competitions?

[bip]

If xcty is made "too easy for the best", resulting in greater emphasis on dressage and sj - if a major factor in the equation turns out to be collection and the horse not thinking for itself, won't accidents get worse even on these "easier" courses?

And separately, but kind of relatedly, I think Emstah is onto something with her comments.

[Little Valkyrie]

I do agree that in the short-run, changing the courses so that they are a bit easier will ease the tension on the sport a bit; however, I think it goes back to the same old rider responsibility. We, as riders and trainers and most importantly, horsemen, need to take off our rose-colored shades and take a good, hard look at ourselves and our horses. I am guilty of being young and foolish and thinking "it won't happen to me, its just moving up to training" but then I realized that the lower levels are where habits are formed. Although my mare is absolutely brilliant xc, stadium and dressage are not up to training level standards, and I am glad that I did not move her up. We have all seen scary riders at every level. We have said to ourselves "gee, I hope that person has no intention of moving up" then they go and move up because maybe they don't realize how scary their rides are, and no one is willing to tell them. As infuriating as it is, I have seen many a rider come out of the ring after having a clear round, despite burying their horse at every fence and making it nearly impossible for their all too honest horses to be congratulated by friends and trainers on a "job well done". Trainers seem to be less willing to criticize these days in order to keep their clients and many are more willing to use "quick fixes" to get quick results to increase their payroll. And I think we all identify with this, becuase we all need a paycheck, and the bigger the better. Maybe (and I might need my heavy duty flame suit here) we need an equitation score for the stadium round. Something that rewards riders who help their horses and have smooth rounds, not those creeping rounds that result in lurching jumps that are unfortunatly becoming all too frequent at all levels. Since it is obvious that many trainers and riders out there believe that if you are going clear, you are sucessful, no matter what it looks like.

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

"Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely."

I don't think that you were wrong Denny, that you have to change your philosophy on "testing". I personally think that "testing" isn't infinite, nor is it perfectly linear - testing, and achievement, in most forms is followed by a big, fat plateau. Ask any athlete, dieter, statistician, etc. If I could draw it on a chart it would look like stairs, not an escalator. At some point the testing in XC will outpace the breeding, athleticism, skills as the sport looks to acheive the "impossible". I believe we've hit our plateau - we can't keep acheiving more complicated tests with our current set of horses, talent, skills, etc. We've been tested as a sport to our limit. Now we know it, the costs are too great. Let's back off until our breeding, athleticism, skills, etc. catch up with where we want to take the sport and we can move the testing forward again. That's my $0.02.

[RealityCheck]

(from Emstah) "...Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course..."

You put it better than I could have. Cross country doesn't need to be easy, it does need to be "testing", but I think we've gotten confused as to WHAT exactly we're testing. Dressage and show jumping are the phases that test accuracy, precision, and obedience. And while cross country does need to incorporate the training built on the other 2 phases, it is not supposed to be a test of who can jump the skinniest jump at the sharpest angle. Cross country is SUPPOSED to test the bravery of horse and rider, both of their ability to gallop and jump "across country", and the fences should not put off or scare the horses but rather invite and encourage them to jump well at speed. While I am completely in support of the long format, and I dread the fact that I may not get to a one star before it has vanished completely, I understand the practical aspects of the short format. HOWEVER that does NOT mean that we can't go back to "old school" cross country- less vertical faced fences, less horridly sharp angles, less "technical" questions, and more big, forgiving, straightforward jumps that may scare the **** out of the rider but that encourage the horse to jump well. To some this may be considered "easy", but if that's what it takes to keep this sport alive at all, so be it. LET dressage and stadium test the precision and "technical" aspects, and let cross country return to true, big, galloping courses that reward the forward-going horses and riders and teach them what it feels like to gallop in an uphill balance, rather than shaking their confidence, or worse yet, injuring them.

[Windmill Blue]

I haven't competed or considered myself an eventer for longer than I care to admit, so I've refrained from commenting on the various "what should we do?" threads since I have no recent experience, but I am gratified to read that other people share my opinion that cross-country should be a galloping exercise, rather than a stadium course with a higher potential for death. I go back to my twee thinking of eventing originating from military tests, and I think "if I came across a series of narrow duck-shaped obstacles on my way to deliver a message to the front line, I'd go around the suckers, not work out the best angle for a bending line". I don't think speed or size are the issue. Rather, we've painted ourselves into the corner of asking questions that don't leave any room for error.

On a side note, with the attention paid to breeding and training now, is it possible that we're going to develop a sport that has reached the limits of the equine athlete's body? Compare to figure skating and gymnastics... I think double jumps used to win championships in the 70s, and now the men need quadruples, and the women are beginning to bring them in. But figure skating freestyle routines allow the competitors to choose what they can do and avoid what will cause them to crash to the ice. If we have courses to test the best (and the best just keep getting better and better), what happens to the rest?

[MNP]

I don't think it is a matter of making the courses "easier" or "harder," but rather they need to be seen as an endurance type of test. There isn't really a point to having cross country extremely technical, since that is what stadium is supposed to test. If a stadium course tests a horse's agility and jumping ability, what does cross country test? Currently the same thing, except with more dangerous jumps. Each phase is supposed to test a different aspect of a horse's training and ability, but now cross country is merging into a stadium type of course and straying from its original purpose which was to test endurance in addition to natural obstacles that you wouldn't face in stadium such as ditches, banks, and water. The tricky combinations and lines will be tested, just not on cross country day. Cross country is the opportunity to do obstacles that can't be implemented on a stadium course anyway, and there is no need to jump stadium like jumps on cross country since you will be doing them the next day in the ring when the jumps come down.

[grayarabpony]

Here, here, RiverBendPol.

We humans are supposed to have big brains, right, why can't we use them? Olympic courses are supposed to allow only the best of the best to win but allow all of the teams to get around. All courses should be designed that way.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Have to question the assumption that easier equals safer. Maybe it's true, but I have my doubts. Certainly perceived risk and safety have a complicated relationship.

I think it's Atlantic Monthly this month (cover story about Google iirc) which has an article questioning truisms about traffic safety. I think it's going to b e quite relevant to our issues - but I haven't read it yet so can't summarize or extrapolate.

[ezmissg]

*But for all the "personal responsibility" we hear, there`s an enormous fallacy at work.It only works if EVERYBODY exercises it. If ONE rider doesn`t, and if that results in ONE fatality, horse or rider, that`s about all it takes, one per event, just as we`ve seen all year.*Those "ones" add up to lots, as we`ve seen, all year.

So, as always, I hate to wade in, but I'm not good at containing myself....

I went to the safety summit, and although I appreciated it more than I can tell you, I was dismayed when the conversations returned to "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" because the fact remains that you can't mandate it, and PEOPLE ARE COMPETING ANYWAY. Maybe some can't "reach" superior education; maybe some are just plain stupid -- but they are out there competing REGARDLESS. :eek:

So, from the ORGANIZATIONAL level, a finely woven net must be developed that these people can't slip through. To me, it seems that the two most direct methods are qualification and course design.

There has to be a way to make the qualifications FOR THE HORSE/RIDER TEAM to move up the levels stringent enough to slow the process down. Moving up isn't a right; it should be addressed as an earned privilege.

And, there has to be a change in course design ... not necessarily to make it easier, but SIMPLER. Difficult and complex are not synonymous. The riders of Denny's era were riding TOUGH courses, but probably the questions weren't as complex as they are today. [I agree that complexity is likely better served in stadium.]

So, Denny -- I'm not even sure how to answer your original question, though I recognize the high merit of it. I absolutely believe that courses should be made easier if we have passed the limitations of equine physiology (and that may well be true). But at this point, I think it's the human brain that is failing the test.

And, Denny -- I would so love to hear your opinion of the summit. What did you hear? What feedback did you get? Have you listened to the webcast? If so, what did you take away? But, these are somewhat rhetorical musings, as I wouldn't blame you for keeping it all to yourself. :cool: :)

[Aimee Thanatogenus]

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope the smarms at the FEI READ this.

[Badger]

I think we should start with a definition of what the endurance phase is supposed to test, and then make sure those qualities ARE being tested. In addition to bravery, scope, and jumping ability, shouldn't x-c day also be testing speed, endurance, and fitness? Then tweak the test a bit: after a classic, galloping course, add a "speed sprint" phase on the flat (with separate score) and a recovery box a la endurance (with a separate score) at the end. This would help put/keep/return the overall scoring importance of the endurance day as the most important phase of eventing, spread out the riders who are clustered after dressage, etc. And it would "test" our horses and our horsemanship without endangering them over solid fences where rotational falls are a risk. So "soften" the x-c jumping phase but rachet up the overall demands of the phase by adding tests of speed, endurance, and fitness/recovery.

And yes, I am currently competing a warmblood cross and a draft cross and I know that a speed and recovery test are likely to favor TBs, especially as you move up the levels. And you know what: that is as it should be.

[LisaB]

Agree with Emstah and Fernie.
Couldn't have put it better.

[Fence2Fence]

I think the sport can still be a testing sport. The thing is, each level the rider/horse must pass a test, and right now, if they get 'failing' grades, they can choose to continue. Sorry, but if you fail kindergarten, then you need to stay there until you learn to color within the lines.

I'm all for harder qualifications and rider licensing. I think it's going to be a rough ride until we see some of the ideas from the Safety Summit implemented.

And I don't believe there is any personal responsibility in eventing anymore.

[rileyt]

So which is more critical, safe or testing?



I think there can only be one answer to this: It has to be safe.

I say that with the full knowledge and appreciation that X-C is the heart of this sport.

[fernie fox]

What do you think of this fence,design.

Does the brush at the bottom,,carry on round to the front of the fence.

May be I am wrong,but if this fence was built out of brush and rails,why not carry it all the way to the top,instead of putting in effing solid rails above the brush.

You could have kept the same materials,dimensions and symetry but reversed them and put the brush part on top.[yes like they used to].

This fence is inviting to look at ,but unfriendly if you hit it.

http://www.horseshowphotos.com/details.php?gid=109&pid=11080

I think the rider was trying to steady the horse,and the horse was arguing,saying lets get on with it.

[Badger]

There are several other photos of that pair in the show sequence, and this was not the only fence that was jumped in an unorthodox fashion.

[Maude]

Over here lurking from the Dressage Forum. I do not jump. Never was any good at it, scares me to death and I got tired of falling off over the small fences I was jumping. That said, I have been following what is happening to our horses. IMHO, I don't think it is the courses that are so much the issue, but the qualification system to ride them. If the courses weren't a challenge, people like Phillip, Bruce, etc. probably wouldn't bother with them. BUT, something needs to be done to protect the horses. Didn't we all get involved in riding because we loved horses. Seems like in the quest for our own self gratification/ego boost we are forgetting that the horse should come FIRST! If riders/trainers, etc. are not going to be personally responsible for the safety and well-being of their horses, then the governing body needs to be. Someone has to look out for these wonderful, generous, big-hearted creatures that we choose as our partners. It breaks my heart to see pictures of some of the horses recently lost. The look of trust on their faces as they gallop on and over. We know the consequences of our actions, our horses don't. I really hope that these wonderful horses recently lost (and those lost in the past) have not died in vain.

[SmallHerd]

After all is said and done, IMO, it truly boils down to RIDER RESPONSIBILITY. That said, it doesn't appear that all riders are taking their responsibility seriously, and horses are paying the ultimate price.

By making the courses easier we would merely be dumbing down the sport. In addition, I think more unprepared riders will move up too soon. It needs to be challenging at all levels, and riding SAFELY is the responsibility of the riders and their coaches. If anything were to change at the upper levels, maybe allowing more time to complete the course would impress upon the riders that it is not all about speed.

IMO, there need to be stricter qualifications to move up to certain levels. And the governing bodies need to enforce those qualifications.

[purplnurpl]

I don't think it is a matter of making the courses "easier" or "harder," but rather they need to be seen as an endurance type of test. There isn't really a point to having cross country extremely technical, since that is what stadium is supposed to test. If a stadium course tests a horse's agility and jumping ability, what does cross country test? Currently the same thing, except with more dangerous jumps. Each phase is supposed to test a different aspect of a horse's training and ability, but now cross country is merging into a stadium type of course and straying from its original purpose which was to test endurance in addition to natural obstacles that you wouldn't face in stadium such as ditches, banks, and water. The tricky combinations and lines will be tested, just not on cross country day. Cross country is the opportunity to do obstacles that can't be implemented on a stadium course anyway, and there is no need to jump stadium like jumps on cross country since you will be doing them the next day in the ring when the jumps come down.

and I still say put a bounce in SJ for P and up. Use 1/2 rolltops or something. Don't do it on the XC course. And for goodness sakes put a triple back in Training level. A one to a two or a two to a one.
What do we all do allll the time. Bouncy bouncy gymnastics.

Also, If the XC fences were changed as to what Denny suggested the times would probably not need to be lowered. We would be able to gallop. Finally.

[imapepper]

So, from the ORGANIZATIONAL level, a finely woven net must be developed that these people can't slip through. To me, it seems that the two most direct methods are qualification and course design.

There has to be a way to make the qualifications FOR THE HORSE/RIDER TEAM to move up the levels stringent enough to slow the process down. Moving up isn't a right; it should be addressed as an earned privilege.


I totally agree with the qualification idea. What if they held 2 qualifying events in each area per year? Only judging show jumping and cross country because, let's face it, dressage isn't getting anyone killed. Judge it similar to an equitation round that would penalize too much speed, unsafe positions, and uncontrolled/unorganized rounds. Make a rider earn their card for the next level. I don't think it's necessary for Training level and below but certainly to move up to Prelim and up.

[CookiePony]

So am I to assume that a rider error/ lack of preparation caused this latest fall? I haven't heard much about the chain of events that led to this latest horse fatality, only that he fell at a fence (what kind of fence?), then got up and ran a little ways, but had broken his pelvis per this press release: http://www.bromont3dayevent.com/PressRelease15June.html

So what actually happened to cause the fall?

[tja789]

Wouldn't most fatal falls be avoided if ALL fences were collapsible at ALL levels? Courses might lose the stupid lumps of cheese and the flower baskets, but who cares? It would be expensive to replace existing fences, but wouldn't it be money well spent considering the state of the sport?

[Saskatoonian]

I agree wholeheartedly with Emstah.

I'd add a couple of things.

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Making the XC easier in the hope that people will be safer is nonsense, because it will simply encourage people who want to be competitive to spend their lives - guess where? - in the arena. Back to the problem.

I think we also need to remember how we got to current course design. Seems to me that it was concern with those big old style courses and the fatalities that resulted. It's been awhile, but I recall that the current trappiness resulted from a desire to reduce falls in favor of things like run outs. The pendulum has clearly swung too far. I would hate to see the reaction to the current state of affairs swing it to the opposite end. We need balance, and we need to recognize how we got here. I'm troubled by this mania for increased regulation because it ignores all that history, and it ignores that attempts to impose safety and good riding are not necessarily going to have the desired result.

Taking off my black cloud hat now.

[event1]

Maybe I am being too simplistic but to me, the answer to making eventing safer worldwide lies in making the dressage and stadium harder and the scores count more....and make the cross country easier. (Even at the lower levels-I went and watched Spring Bay this weekend-and some of the dressage and Stadium rounds were horrifying-and those people should not even be attempting even the lower level CC stuff). Also, make the qualifications to move up to the upper levels much harder based on an individuals qualifying dressage score, score for stadium, and so many clean CC rounds. (This process of scoring would also slow down those overzealous young riders that get to the upper levels WAY TOO FAST) With this many horse dying for various reasons....it is quite clear that the current upper level cross country courses are TOO DAMN HARD/STRENUOUS and this many horse deaths is unacceptable.:mad: I realize that eventing is not a dressage and stadium "show" but let me add that most horses do not die doing either of these two phases better...and based on what I have seen at many recent horse trials-IT IS SEVERLY LACKING. Don't believe me...go watch one for yourself-it is a wonder that more people are killed! I would like to think that the ULR would rather have dressage and stadium scores count more and have it be much more difficult to move up the levels...than to arrive at Advanced and have a dead horse. It is a "sport" for pete sake but somehow it has become life and death out there which in my opinion-is absolutely ridiculous.

[Brandy76]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?


I am bringing along an ottb, and have been out of the sport for a few years. In the process of "reminding myself" of the basics, I pulled out my old copy of the "USCTA Book of Eventing". Read the course design chapter - by Roger Haller. Amazing. Read the whole book!! It is everything Denny has been saying.

[monstrpony]

I'd like to see challenging courses for the best riders, but as long as virtually anyone can go to the top competitions, I think we're going to have to err on the side of safety.

I used to believe that riders really had to have their ducks in a row to enter something like Rolex. I've been totally gobsmacked to learn that the two horse fatalities there this year were essentially ridden by people who simply were not proven to have the experience or the personal responsibility to be riding at that level. It IS a whole different sport when proper respect for what is asked at the top levels no longer self-regulates who participates at those levels--it becomes something where safety must be the governing factor.

[Tiki]

OK, I'll play. I totally agree with Fernie Fox and Emstah, but how about this. 'Everyone' wants to see the fancy jumps, a la flower baskets and lumps of cheese, or whatever, but why not make the flower basket filled with a huge brush jump so that it may still look like a vertical, but there's no way in hell a horse can catch his knees on it and have a rotational fall? It could still be a huge, scary, attractive jump, but not a dangerous one.

I also agree with qualifications to move up. The girl who died at Galway(?) supposedly had qualified to ride at that level. How???? By paying her entry fee????? Her record was horrible, with scores in the hundreds. How on earth did she qualify??? I like the idea of a certain number of clean rounds at each level before moving up.

Make the jumps huge, but negotiable. Don't they have brush jumps in steeple chase that are 5 feet or higher? but the horse can go through the top? Still very scary to riders. There are so many ways you could 'decorate' the brush to fancy up the course - there could still be flower baskets and windows, etc, but make the courses, big, galloping courses and require qualifications to move up.

[flyingchange]

what exactly happened at Bromont with A. Bugg and Task Master? And what were run ups like leading up to the event? I haven't read anything that says exactly what happened.

For me, I think Denny's original post-Rolex thread about making the UL 3 day events INVITATION ONLY is a really, really good idea. I'd really like to see this idea turned into a true policy at the 2, 3, and 4 star levels. Hell, even the 1 star. You could still send in an application to respective events, but you would still have to be issued an invitation to come to the event at whatever level. And if the committee really wanted to send you a message, they could send you an invitation for the NEXT LEVEL DOWN from the level that you applied for in your application.

I think WAY too many parents of YRs, who pay for it all and are their kids' biggest fans, think their kids are much better qualified riders than they truely are. And you have to feel bad for the kids - because if Mom is cheering you and telling you you are the best and filling out your entry forms, etc, etc, then you could easily just go with that flow ... never really stopping and asking yourself "am I ready for this? Is my horse ready for this (with me in the irons - even though he has already done a 2 star with somebody else - is he ready to do it with ME?)?" This system would also work for the adults who just don't get it.

Besides invitation only, take away vertical faces and make the speeds line up with the courses.

[tangledweb]

I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier.

I think you are missing an important part of human psychology. If you make cross country day easier, everybody will just move up one level. People have a level of risk that they find acceptable, and they will go faster or seek bigger fences until they reach something that scares them.

[RiverBendPol]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.

[europa]

flamesuit on....just a thought:

Correct me if I am wrong but the problem seems to be that most of the issues on XC are due to a lack of technical ability on the rider's part. So, that having been said as a ex-jumper rider and hopefully again sometime in the future (horse willing) why don't they make them have to qualify via a tough stadium course to run XC? They do this at the lower levels to same time at events now.....Why now make that a pre-req for going XC? For goodness sake if you can't ride a stadium course in an enclosed area then how are you going to negotiate things over rolling terrain and with solid fences? I know that the stadium course is the culmination and everyone loves to watch that but perhaps they should have the qualifier then the XC and then a jump off in the arena for those remaining? Ideas??????

[magnolia73]

After all is said and done, IMO, it truly boils down to RIDER RESPONSIBILITY. That said, it doesn't appear that all riders are taking their responsibility seriously, and horses are paying the ultimate price.


Yup, I agree. I think that we can make the courses harder or easier and it will be no safer. You have more people than ever trying eventing, with less experience than ever riding out. I see some scary crap done in the name of "no one cares what it looks like". I'm reading an interesting book- "Schooling and Riding the Sporthorse". It is targeted to hunter / jumpers, but sure spends a lot of time on hacking out. Every "schooling session" from the earliest stages includes hacking out- walking, trotting, riding in company from day 1 included with EVERY ride. How many people go out before hitting their first XC and really practice getting used with galloping over terrain? How many people are putting lots of effort into hacking out young event prospects such that even 50% of the rides are done out on trails and in the fields? Another great point was in evaluating horses, you need a good jump simply for SAFETY. Yet how many photos from events show horses hanging legs and jumping in very poor form?

I find it ironic that at a time that eventing is exploding, we probably have fewer riders and horses than ever for whom riding out is second nature. And to top it off, we have people trying to make "eventers" out of horses not suitable for jumping because of form errors.

And I believe it affects the upper levels in what we have coming up through the ranks as young riders. These kids (and their horses) are not getting the experience of running and jumping. And how can they really have enough time to anyway? Between dressage and stadium and everything else. I don't see how a modern rider of the age of 18 to 21 can truly be prepared to handle the rigor of the highest level of XC.

I think the only solution- draw a line where you can't "fake it" XC. Anyone who wants to get beyond that needs to get a license and approval per horse. And the decision should be objective and subjective with lots of good questions and testing. A ridden test, a horse and rider fitness evaluation, a written test on how to ride in different conditions.

[Bobthehorse]

damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

This is exactly what Lucinda was saying at a clinic this spring. You SHOULD fear the big rider-scarer jumps. That fear is part of what makes you determined to ride it correctly and get over it. She predicts softer courses would result in MORE catastrophic injuries and fatalities.

I agree! Its not the difficulty thats screwing people....its often people screwing themselves by barely qualifying but moving up anyway. People are fearless without responsibility, and ambition os clouding good judgment.

I agree that course design could be changed, but not to be "easier" on the people who really shouldnt be there at all. I truly believe qualifications should be beefed up, otherwise no safety measures in world are going to keep the horses safe on course when their riders are riding beyond their ability.

[LexInVA]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.

That would destroy the business model that the has been fostered for years. Probably not gonna happen unless overwhelming public opinion forces the USEF/USEA to change.

[Bobthehorse]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.

People don't want to wait to show at classes they don't belong or can't ride. X-country shortened so the warmbloods can compete, stadium less interesting and too low, again so the warmbloods can compete. People who don't belong in the show for another year or two...who won't wait.

I showed when courses were longer and a real workout, TBs were the horses who excelled, the warmbloods couldn't compete. Hunter classes seemed to all start at 3', not almost caveletti height to make people feel good about themselves.

Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.

What does this have to do with anything? Surely creating smaller classes for young horses/riders is a good thing to build their confidence before they enter the big leagues. How is more experience at smaller heights a bad thing?

And whats with the breed thing? Some WBs have excelled in eventing for decades, and some breeds have strong eventing eventing lines. Trakehners and Selle Francais especially. And its not as if Irish Sport Horses are new to the top levels of this sport. Of course, these horses were not necessarily decipherable as "WBs", as they were all still TB "types"....but blaming eventings problems on Warmbloods is ridiculous.

[NMK]

Back when I was an duathlete, we got letters of "acceptance" from USA Triathlon to compete at different levels (National, and Worlds Long Distance/ Short Distance). Those letters were your "license" and copied/sent with your entry, like our coggins. I know it would add quite a bit of administration time and postage, but if we are to implement a qualifying system then this would be a way to monitor it. It makes me quite sad that with all the problems with safety these days that people still don't get the rider responsibility issue. To save the horses, we need to implement this qualifying system like, yesterday.


And to the previous poster that said you had to do a T 3-day to move to P, or a long format CCI* to move to I, I am all for that. Those long hours in the saddle are priceless. At the T 3-day at South Farm in a few weeks they have a mounted and unmounted clinics so you learn everything from steeplechase to getting a passport. Everyone I talked with that has done this has said it was a "blast" and they learned "a ton." Education is so key these days.

And for making XC easier? Only if it's harder to get there in the first place and done for the welfare of the horse, not to appease the riders on the edge.

Nancy

[Daatje]

I am bringing along an ottb, and have been out of the sport for a few years. In the process of "reminding myself" of the basics, I pulled out my old copy of the "USCTA Book of Eventing". Read the course design chapter - by Roger Haller. Amazing. Read the whole book!! It is everything Denny has been saying.

Thanks for the suggestion! I just picked up a used copy on Amazon.com for $6.00! Sweet! Can't wait to read through it. :)

[DLee]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.


I totally agree. :yes: It just seems that cross country at an upper level should not be an almost 'catch ride' situation.

[Ghazzu]

Like I said, free. In other horse sports it is common practice to compete soundish horses with the help of different drugs. It is common to have a horse which would not jog sound without bute, or would feel a nagging pain and not perform as well. Often these horses are babied along during the week so they can compete on the weekends. It is great to hear that is not the case in eventing.

I'd venture a guess that the average midlevel event horse is *significantly* fitter than most hunters, and at least as sound--and can jog sound with a lot less pharmaceutical assistance...

[Pferd51]

I was afraid that things might get to this point. I suggested on some long thread a long time ago that the only immediate way to deal with XC accidents was to reduce the jumping over immovable obstacles. XC would be preserved by making it largely an endurance phase. This, coupled with demanding dressage and stadium jumping, would be as testing as anyone could desire for a horse. As I think about it now, however, it might be harder than ever to find venues to put such competitions. How much room would you need and what kind of terrain would you need to have a decent XC endurance phase?

[fooler]

Yup, I agree. I think that we can make the courses harder or easier and it will be no safer. You have more people than ever trying eventing, with less experience than ever riding out. I see some scary crap done in the name of "no one cares what it looks like". I'm reading an interesting book- "Schooling and Riding the Sporthorse". It is targeted to hunter / jumpers, but sure spends a lot of time on hacking out. Every "schooling session" from the earliest stages includes hacking out- walking, trotting, riding in company from day 1 included with EVERY ride. How many people go out before hitting their first XC and really practice getting used with galloping over terrain? How many people are putting lots of effort into hacking out young event prospects such that even 50% of the rides are done out on trails and in the fields? Another great point was in evaluating horses, you need a good jump simply for SAFETY. Yet how many photos from events show horses hanging legs and jumping in very poor form?

I find it ironic that at a time that eventing is exploding, we probably have fewer riders and horses than ever for whom riding out is second nature. And to top it off, we have people trying to make "eventers" out of horses not suitable for jumping because of form errors.

And I believe it affects the upper levels in what we have coming up through the ranks as young riders. These kids (and their horses) are not getting the experience of running and jumping. And how can they really have enough time to anyway? Between dressage and stadium and everything else. I don't see how a modern rider of the age of 18 to 21 can truly be prepared to handle the rigor of the highest level of XC.

I think the only solution- draw a line where you can't "fake it" XC. Anyone who wants to get beyond that needs to get a license and approval per horse. And the decision should be objective and subjective with lots of good questions and testing. A ridden test, a horse and rider fitness evaluation, a written test on how to ride in different conditions.

Maggie - I agree with you up to the last paragraph. Don't know about that one yet and have to think about it.

Making x-c easier does not solve anything. Just like making golf courses harder did not stop Tiger from winning. Now they just design good challenging courses.

The answer and responsibility is in all of us: riders, coaches, officials, course designers, course builders, organizers, etc. There is no magic deed to make eventing right again or at least 'more right'.

In my letter to the safety committee, I listed my thoughts of what needed to be done at multiple levels - such as a summitt of older and current; ULR riders, coaches and course designers to develop a template of what an UL course should look like. The number of fences per number of meters, number of combinations and types, types of fences. To pull the best from today's and yesterday's courses in an effort to build a testing course that rewards the brave, honest horse without making the rider stay in their face. Then modify a current course & have several test rides for immediate response. Then modify again until we have a x-c template for x-c designers, builders, organizers and officials to use for reference.

I second or third the idea of requiring a LF to move up from T-P, P-I, I-A, 3* to 4*
And Denny's idea of 4*'s being invitation only is perfect. For the last 20 years we have only had about 20-25 4* rider/horse combinations at any given time. Please note I said 4* rider/horse combination. There are more 4* riders than 4* horses on any day.

Have to get back to work - great thread.

Jean Grizzell

[AllyCat]

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

I agree with fernie fox: Lets go back to the forgiving courses that reward forward riding. This showjumping over solid obstacles is not safe. Lets go for safety and watch the best clean house for awhile until we can figure out how to make this safer for everyone. (love the jumping over a stupid cheese visual because that is what this has become).

[shellesis]

This is the first year my daughter has evented although the trainer she works has evented all over the place. But from I have gathered in my little to know knowledge there does need to be some more common sense rule changes. But I am not sure making the course easier is going to be the answer. Because the horses can still get hurt or killed. But I do think there needs to be a way to guage if not only the rider but the horse is up to competing at the level they are at. Like I said I am very new to this eventing and my daughter has only done 1 event so far but will be doing at least one more maybe 2 this year.

[gooddirt]

Why keep picking on courses? I'm not buying it. We had one unfortunate aberration - Red Hills - and I'm sure it is already getting fixed. Where are the other current offenders?

Course design is like anything else. The pendulum always swings, but I'm not convinced it has swung so far that it's broken.

[Sightunseen]

I think that by making courses easier you are catering to those people who should not be riding at that level. I have seen many riders that I would pull off of course becasue I felt that for whatever reason they were not having a good day and it could go really bad, but these people just see that they are getting around with double clears so they must be doing something right. I do not think that xc should be judged as some people say, but I do think that stopping people who seem unsafe, for whatever reason be it speeding or the way the horse is jumping or whatever, would help a lot.

[Whisper]

The thing is, I feel XC *should* be challenging, and test/ask questions. However, I don't think it's a good idea to plan to make it the deciding factor in placings in general. To me, that means asking "how many horses should not be able to make time?" "How many horses should have a runout or refusal (leaving out falls of horse or rider)?"

I think the best solution is to add more options (at all levels) and/or have more courses at a variety of difficulties within a level, rather than all of them aiming for easier in the spring, and maximum difficulty in the fall.

[blackwly]

Whoever said that making courses easier will just make people move up a level was absolutely right. The problem is not the logical, reasonable riders who reflect on these things...it's the riders who don't! And those riders are just going to bump up to the level that they consider an appropriate challenge.

As for making dressage and/or stadium more challenging, well, that's exactly what we've been doing for the last 5-7 years. Where has it gotten us? Here! I agree that combinations belong in stadium courses at the lower levels (why not add a triple at novice even?) but I DON'T agree that the heights should go up. There is a big difference between being an effective SJ rider and an effective XC rider. That is why we need both phases- to ask different questions.

I'm afraid I don't have a solution...frankly, I'm not sure any of us do. But I'd hate to see the sport I love further eroded by over-simplification of the one phase that makes it uniquely challenging. If it worked to solve the safety problem then fine...but I think you'll just wind up with training riders going prelim, prelim riders going intermediate, etc.

[minniemoore]

You have to have a license to drive your car and prove that you have a basic understanding for rules of the road. If a 15-year-old can pass that test, why can't we have an appropriate test for eventers? It's obvious that we can't rely on the "personal responsibility" in a society where "it's someone else's fault" if we do something stupid. Why allow someone riding beyond their ability to destroy a sport built on horsemanship and a deep-seated desire to excel and keep the horse in the best shape possible? Let's prevent accidents rather than trying to chase down someone dangerous with a yellow flag when already on course. I agree with the "yellow flag" and "reg flag" rules, the one fall and you're done rule - but these are after something has already occurred. If you have to qualify, this is one way we can PREVENT some dangerous activity before it happens.

I also agree, that if you dumb down the courses, it only encourages people who would test the limits to begin with, and I'm doubtful it would improve safety - it could quite possibly make it worse.

I also wholeheartedly agree that we need to change the courses to be more inviting to the horse. My horse is an experienced campaigner and he is mystified when I have to pull him up mid-course for a weavy roll-back turn short-strided combination. He says "this is where we RUN and jump mom!"

The courses should be scary for the riders, NOT the horses. The courses I've seen are quite the opposite. Why in the world would you have a cut-out log with brush in it as the first fence on a BN course? Why have the first four fences on course at N be the most scary? Leave the more difficult questions for the middle of the course when the confidence is higher and a greener horse has a chance to feel good about himself before being tested.

[annikak]

Whoever said that making courses easier will just make people move up a level was absolutely right. The problem is not the logical, reasonable riders who reflect on these things...it's the riders who don't! And those riders are just going to bump up to the level that they consider an appropriate challenge. If it worked to solve the safety problem then fine...but I think you'll just wind up with training riders going prelim, prelim riders going intermediate, etc.

Totally agree-

the making of eventing easier makes me not want to do it.:no:

Part of WHY I event is because it's hard and tricky and I have to be on top of my game to do it. Do I think that having it be safer is a bad thing? Of course not, but...I do feel (and don't get me started) that a great deal of what we have seen in the past 2 years are because people made decisions to leave the the start box, and/or continue when it was not in their horses best interest. But, much like Denny said, we are FAR too PC to say so... and I get that, honestly I do.

But for Goodness sakes, look at each of the "incidents" that have happened, carefully. In some, crap happens. I feel horrible for those that it happens, but its an accepted risk in this sport. I just read that one in 10 'chaser rides results in a fall. So, yes, it's an expected risk in some horse sports. this does not take away from the horridness that happens to those good, kind riders.

But in far too many, there was a decision that was made, and it was a poor one, to jump that fence, go out on that course, with that horse on that day. Several of them took THOUGHT to do so (entries that were incorrect, horses that had soundness/medical issues before the event began, :mad:) and yet the riders/trainers still set out that day to "prove" something- be it to the selectors, or someone else, I don't give a damn. It was a poor decision. And someone said not too long ago that each and every one of them should face some sort of jury of their peers. Yes, they should. Hurt or not. And if the real story came out on a lot of them, well, guess what, we would see it's often a case of poor judgement. THAT has to be fixed and it's a huge problem. It's not new, but I think that something has changed in this world, and there are a few out there that don't think for the best of the animal. That sucks. A ribbon just ain't worth it.

Okay, back to my cave.

[Amiga]

It doesn't matter what the sport. I've seen riders competing at the upper levels who clearly did not belong at the levels in which they were competing. Just because a rider is competing at the FEI levels, that doesn't neccessarily make them "good riders" and doesn't necessarily mean that they belong there. It only means that they qualified to be there-some deserve to be there, some may have gotten there just by the skin of their teeth. Also people need to realize that not every horse is an FEI level horse or maybe the horse is not yet ready for the higher levels. We are in equestrian sports because we love horses. Do not let arrogance come before your safety and definitely not before your horse's safety. Ride within bounds.

[LookinSouth]

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Making the XC easier in the hope that people will be safer is nonsense, because it will simply encourage people who want to be competitive to spend their lives - guess where? - in the arena. Back to the problem.

.

I couldn't agree more with the first half your post! Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.
Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC. I just can't imagine it will help the problem at hand. Making stadium more difficult has nothing to do with the terrain challenges faced on XC. Many jumper riders are perfectly competent on the most technical of courses. However, that technical ability doesn't always translate to what is required at speed when going up and down hill etc....

Strict qualifying scores for moving up and invitation only for 1,2,3 and 4 star events I think would be a start IMO. The fact that any rider/horse can move up willy nilly whenever they darn well please to any given division boggles my mind. Especially given the risk and danger involved with Eventing. Yeah riding in general is dangerous...but this sport is particularly dangerous for the HORSE. We have to be the HORSE'S advocate.

[Ajierene]

From what I have seen and articles I read, at the upper levels - people who were just moving up when the long format went away - breathed a sigh of relief and said they did not have to do as much to train. The upper level riders that are numbered among the greats still train for the long format, then breeze through the short format.

So, people need to train for the long format. How do we monitor for this? Put in one or two long format venues in each region and make them part of the qualifying trials to move up. Make a successful Endurance Day or two successful ones qualifying factors - for say Prelim and up.

Put in place the red card, dangerous riding system and knock people down a level when they are dangerous, fall off, have a rotational fall, etc. When they get knocked down a level, they have to qualify to move up again, with the same rules as the first time they qualified.

[Blugal]

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.

Couldn't agree more. Competence across country can only be improved by practicing riding across country. Stop making the dressage & show-jumping harder, which just encourages more time in the ring.

Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC.

I'm not sure I agree with this. About 8 years ago, when I started seeing mini-Badmintons popping up at Pre-Training level, I thought the problem was that people were either a) too scared, b) incompetent, or c) riding a horse with limited scope, to move up to Training as far as jump heights (and so on for the Training/Prelim jump). So they stayed at Pre-training, but organizers, course-designers, and the competitors themselves wanted more challenging XC so that it wasn't just a dressage competition. Besides which, you couldn't just have everyone going clear!! :no: Pre-Training stopped being a training ground, and became an end in itself. Same with Training. Within a few years, Prelim was nealy becoming unattainable for the average good rider & horse.

I will no longer start a horse at Pre-Training (3'), whereas I could & did in the 90s. It's too technical.

[denny]

I think many of you are wiggling, like fish on the hook, trying to deny the reality.
Which is that at event after event, either a horse dies, sometimes 2, or a rider dies or is crippled.
Our sport is slowly dying the proverbial "death from a thousand cuts."
We need to take real steps to try to stop this weekly hemoraging, and we need to try things, and see if they work.
If they do, great. If they don`t, try something else.
Since nobody knows why this is happening, for sure, why not start experimenting with ideas that might work, that have at least some obvious hope of success?
Now call this "knee jerk" if you want, but doing nothing, is that better?
I ask again the question nobody wants to acknowledge or seemingly to answer:
"Is it better to make eventing`s xc phase somewhat too easy for the best, or somewhat too hard for the rest?"
Answer that question, because where this sport is headed right now, some real answers need to be found.

[Blugal]

Reading my above post, I will go with "too easy for the best".

If you're not challenged enough, go do some jumpers or dressage or point-to-points or sell your horse and start a new horse.

[Equestryn]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.


Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.


I totally agree with this. I'm not an Eventer, however I don't want to see the sport that really is the biggest test of a horse and riders ability turn into Tadpole. I think maybe there should be more levels implemented. The "Lesser Riders" shouldn't show against the best. Riders should show at the appropriate level. I'm not claiming to be knowledgeable on the Eventing topics but this is coming from a Hunter/Jumpers point of view.

[BarbB]

I answered the question. Post #2 and #7.
Shorter version:
Too easy for the best.

[denny]

Or race over timber, or try to finish the Tevis Cup, or ride jumpers, whatever.
You don`t have to find all your adreniline rush in one sport. Especially, if it keeps that sport in trouble.
Look, the question is how to reduce fatalities. That is a serious, critical question.
Business as usual isn`t going to get it done.
This is my 55th season of competitive riding, since Eisenhower was President, and my 47th of competing in events at preliminary or higher. You think I want my sport to change? I`ve been at it longer than almost anybody, and if I can adapt, so can you.
I want eventing to survive, and if that takes some changes, well, that`s what it takes.
Better than losing the greatest riding sport altogether, and if it isn`t what it was "back when", it`s still the best game in town.

[deltawave]

I'm not sure the lower levels can be lumped with the upper levels here. (I know I'm not the only one saying this)

Horses and riders are NOT dying below Preliminary level, unless there are statistics out there that are not being talked about. So making lower-level XC easier may not be what we want. Upper level courses? Probably, yes. Not EASIER as in "soft" but SAFER, more forgiving, less "ultramodern" if you will. Whatever that means. :sigh:

Make Training level (for instance) a good bit easier and what will you get? More people getting around "clear" and proclaiming--regardless of HOW they got around--"I'm ready for Prelim, yeah!"

Check some of the pictures from HT's lately? There are some truly scary rides going on out there, from top to bottom. Heck, I am probably one of them! :lol: But I have very, very conservative and strict "move up" criteria out of sheer chicken-heartedness. I'll be hanging out at Novice for a LONG TIME on my green one.

Going "clear" XC four times (or whatever) should no longer be the only criterion for qualifying to move up. "Clear" does not mean "Competent".

[ezmissg]

Or race over timber, or try to finish the Tevis Cup, or ride jumpers, whatever.
You don`t have to find all your adreniline rush in one sport. Especially, if it keeps that sport in trouble.
Look, the question is how to reduce fatalities. That is a serious, critical question.
Business as usual isn`t going to get it done.
This is my 55th season of competitive riding, since Eisenhower was President, and my 47th of competing in events at preliminary or higher. You think I want my sport to change? I`ve been at it longer than almost anybody, and if I can adapt, so can you.
I want eventing to survive, and if that takes some changes, well, that`s what it takes.
Better than losing the greatest riding sport altogether, and if it isn`t what it was "back when", it`s still the best game in town.

Denny, I am going to accede to you. If you believe it boils down to this, Lord knows that I am in no way capable of making a case against your position.

Therefore, I'll go with "easier for the rest". Statistically, it's by far the safer bet.

[LookinSouth]

I'm not sure I agree with this. About 8 years ago, when I started seeing mini-Badmintons popping up at Pre-Training level, I thought the problem was that people were either a) too scared, b) incompetent, or c) riding a horse with limited scope, to move up to Training as far as jump heights (and so on for the Training/Prelim jump). So they stayed at Pre-training, but organizers, course-designers, and the competitors themselves wanted more challenging XC so that it wasn't just a dressage competition. Besides which, you couldn't just have everyone going clear!! :no: Pre-Training stopped being a training ground, and became an end in itself. Same with Training. Within a few years, Prelim was nealy becoming unattainable for the average good rider & horse.

I will no longer start a horse at Pre-Training (3'), whereas I could & did in the 90s. It's too technical.

Interesting points. I guess then the question would be this... If we simplify what is asked XC then how will it encourage riders to improve their skills XC? Or should we just dumb it down to the point that riders can safely get away with incompetence? :confused:

[Carol Ames]

riding a horse over fences is inherently dangerous, add speed:eek: , varying terrain, and weather, and you've got an unsafe mix.

[Amiga]

Yeah, but one of our international riders was seriously injured at Red Hills during the Prelim. So we can deduce from this that accidents CAN happen and WILL happen no matter the experience of the rider, and this rider is a highly successful international competitor. Face it, Eventing is dangerous, has always been dangerous, and always will be dangerous. Heck, any time a person is even around a horse, anything can happen. I'm just saying that in the past, I always thought that Eventers were the most humble. Now I'm starting to think they are getting way too arrogant-not that other riders in other disciplines are not-they are,but when you are riding an animal that weighs probably 1200 lbs +, both horse and rider better have their ducks in a row, because when you are riding at speed, up and down hills,through woods,water and jumping ANYTHING you need to understand that no matter how much experience you or your horse has, this is and always has been an extreme sport. There is a chance that either the horse or the rider or both may end up dead in the end. So make smart decisions. Your life and your horse's life are in the balance. I want to keep Eventing going forever- I love the sport. BE RESPONSIBLE, NOT A HERO. This is the reality.

[SmallHerd]

Okay, here's my thing. Making courses easier to make them safer? I don't buy it. It's not that simple. And I'll speak to that other gorilla in the room - The Basket Jump. I saw it at Rolex this year and the year before. NO ONE had any problems with that fence, even when it was part of stadium. So based on the numbers of successful trips over that fence, any betting person would bet that it was a SAFE fence (as safe as fences at that level can be). Those that went on course walks with the pros heard that it was a straightforward fence, nothing tricky. So if the basket was a "safe" fence, how do we make the courses safer?? Shorten the fences and narrow the spreads?

I know this is just one example, but if this was a straightforward fence, how can we make courses safer?

So Denny, based on my comments above, HOW do you think we can make the courses safer?

I still believe it boils down to rider responsibility, but we know that isn't working. If that isn't working, then it is up to our governing bodies to force the issue by putting restrictions in place. But I may be wrong. :confused:

[B-Man]

[QUOTE=LookinSouth;3299276]I couldn't agree more with the first half your post! Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.
Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC. I just can't imagine it will help the problem at hand. Making stadium more difficult has nothing to do with the terrain challenges faced on XC. Many jumper riders are perfectly competent on the most technical of courses. However, that technical ability doesn't always translate to what is required at speed when going up and down hill etc....

I was trying to think of a way to express how I feel about this, and the above wrote it better than I. I'm seconding what has been said and adding my own .02
The whole reason I am involved with this sport is the inherent challenge of accomplishing the skills that each of the phases require. However, the core (or heart) of eventing is XC. If that is dumbed down while keeping the other phases the same, or worse, making dressage and stadium more challenging, it becomes something else...a glorified combined test. For the lower levels, this would be even more ridiculous, since often there is not too much change in the placings after the dressage phase (mostly in the top half of the divisions).
It saddens me that XC, which is what makes this sport so special, the ability and desire to gallop and jump, (at whatever level you are) is being looked at as something that needs to be made easier.
Lets talk making it safer, rather than easier....this makes sense to me. These have been mentioned many times on other threads, but here they are again: safer means relaxing the time, less technical questions and ridiculous looking jumps, more old school XC jumps like you would actually see out and about. Plus the cut and dried idea of enforcing qualifications, and enforcing the rules that already exist in our rule book.
I for one, don't want to be a dressage or show jumper specialist...if that were the case I would have been doing one or the other for the past lifetime. But, I've been in love with this sport since the early 80s and spent up to the present, continuing to learn the keys of all three phases.
There are ways to manage the safety issues without mangling the best part of the sport.
Holly

[oreo]

I don't know what to think right now....

Except I think the planets lined up, where the XC courses got more showjumpy (scewing the horses) and the riders got more money/ less skilled (screwing the horses again).

After all is said and done, you just can't bring a willing but not fancy horse into this sport anymore most of the time.

I know our local kids who breed at home and don't have much money, but ride several horses a day are so disheartened. They see the kids on the $60-70- 200K horses going off to YRs. Mostly based on money.

What to do? Money is taking over the sport, I think it is because some of these riders should be doing Hunters/ Jumpers, but it got too expensive.......

Maybe I'm just smarting about paying over $2k to have an eventer that I thought might be happier as a jumper go to TWO (yes TWO) shows. He isn't happier, so back to eventing. Waste of money.

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

[Little Valkyrie]

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.

[LookinSouth]

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.


Well this is shocking depending on what context they are speaking in. Horse doesn't jump good enough for the hunters...well what Hunters? The local open circuits? County fairs? Or the AA rated scene? Many horses don't jump good enough for the AA rated Hunter scene that would still be perfectly capable in the lower levels of eventing, equitation and/or jumpers.

Same goes for jumpers. There is no real division at the rated shows in the jumpers below 3'3ish. If said kid is a 2'6 hunter rider I can see why he/she may have difficulty in that division. Especially since it usually consists of riders racing around like hellions. A kid in said scenario may do just fine at the BN level in eventing. IF they are taking the time to develop the skills neccessary for riding/jumping competently in the open.

I agree though that Eventing is much cheaper than H/J's if you are interested in competing at the RATED levels. But I am not so sure we can blame the converts for the demise of the sport:)

To answer Denny's question: "easier for the best" but I think this should on only change for the upper levels. Like others have said...if we dumb down Novice/Training we'll have a whole lot of riders moving on up who are NOT neccessarily ready.
And maybe not easier...but less time requirements and technical.

[denny]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

[deltawave]

That sounds just about perfect. :yes:

[Eventer55]

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.

I was standing next to a Lower level instructor a couple of years ago when her student went hell bent for leather over 2 fences, almost lost it over one and when I gasped, the instructor said "all you have to do is get over it, it's not about pretty." :no::no::no::no:

Neither is a horse struggling to stay alive with a broken neck etc etc etc etc. . .

[magnolia73]

"Is it better to make eventing`s xc phase somewhat too easy for the best, or somewhat too hard for the rest?"


It's like the unanswerable question.

The problem is the riders. And the real problem are the riders that are overly confident in their ability. Make it easier? Fine, I will make race around, make time and move up a level. Make it harder? I won't get the hint and move down a level.

At the **** level - the top- it needs to be easier as the test has exceeded the ability of the horses to safely compete. I think that these riders are all good- testing won't weed any of them out. The horses are all good. The questions are too much for a horse brain to handle.

[grayarabpony]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.


Thank you Denny. I agree with Deltawave, perfect.

[thumbsontop]

"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.


First, why would SJ and D being more influencial result in it being easier for "lesser riders"? If I were even riding somewhere closer to these levels it would almost sound offensive. Different, yes, but not less.

As to the other point, I don't think the XC part should be easier for the best or less easy for less experienced or talented riders. I don't think it should ever be the case that you could possibly look at a cross country ride and say "that rider shouldn't be competing at this level". It happens, but THAT is what should be stopped. Keep the safe, but challenging courses, and make sure that riders who qualify can handle it.

[mbarrett]

I have stayed out of these conversations of late because I am dismayed and discouraged. I am a LL eventer and I'm beginning to doubt if I'll ever get decent instruction in order to prepare for an event. I'm about ready to pack it in and trail ride for the rest of my life.

That being said, I think a lot of folks, who are much smarter than I am, are trying to say: Make xc courses appropriate for each level. I didn't say easier. I said appropriate.

It sounds like many courses are too technical or way over the top for what is being asked at that particular level. XC should be a systematic training tool to educate and present questions appropriate for each level of horse and rider. As the rider and horses move up, the questions change as well.

That's what I think.

[annikak]

I,ike the easier...I guess.

But again, it contributes to what I have said and written a few places- Horsemanship is dying. That seems to be our issue. That is what we need to fix!

HJ is addressing it in their way, I think- the outside courses seem to be making a comeback, and they are taking a hard look abuse in their sport...if you are to believe what their magazine says.

Eventing does need to do something- but again, I am not sure it's the sport, but people. Someone mentioned Redhills- I think human mistakes were made there. Say what you will, but they walked the course, and knew it was hard. Redhills- you come prepared for an uber hard event.

So, the idea of a letter from USEA before you can move up? An endorsement on your card? Something like that? yes, expensive and time consuming. But- I like that idea a lot!

Yes- it needs to be addressed. I think its sad we are going to have to bring it down to adapting to the weaker. But, I guess it's the only way.:(

[Gnep]

I would go even farther, I would keep a list and notes on trainers, trainers and coaches whos students screw up consistently, having wrecks etc. suspend them.

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.

Yes we can not built the courses, that will test the top 20 to the limit and completly over task the rest, but on top of that we have to be able to prevent that the not truly qualified will ride.
We need a better qualification system, the natural selection process is not working anymore.

[sm]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

Agreed. Bolded part may be by inivtation only (Denny brought up By Invitation only elsewhere, I don't remember at which level). Common sense, horse sense, rider responsibility: however you phrase it, if it's lacking then it's a "no thanks, not on my watch."

[RiverBendPol]

.....A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.........


Gnep, I'm with you on this one. "...No cheeting possible..." is the key here. By the time a horse got to the 10 minute box, alot was clear about how/if they would complete D in good form. To commit to a full format 3-day took a huge amount of focus, fitness for both horse and rider and time. Now these so called CCI's can be run every other weekend, to the detriment of the horse AND of the sport.

[tx3dayeventer]

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheating possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.


You are right. The long format was a sort of natural selection. There were always HT's but to do a real 3-Day you and your horse had to be fit and sound. I guarantee that if your horse didn't feel 110% right you were not going to leave the start box. You knew you were going to be seriously injured or killed if you did.

I think in more recent years, people have become too lax. They want to win at all costs. Horsey is sore, so you jump anyways knowing there is no jog up to pass. It is for the sponsors and owners b/c they all want to see horsey win.

It is a different mentality. It is a different sport. If we want to keep our sport a sport we are going to have to figure how to do what the long format used to do, keep those out who can't do it (for any number of reasons: soundness, fitness, ability, etc).

Add: Denny is spot on, as usual.

[Jazzy Lady]

If we make the UL's easier, people will upgrade faster thinking they are preparred, AND they will ride faster around the course.

I'm all for lowering the time now for the more technical courses.

Making the fence faces more forgiving.

Upping qualifications.

Just a bit about Ashlynne. She and Task Master apparently fell at a roll top. Not a vertical, not a square table. No matter how forgiving, sometimes when the speed is great, there's nothing that can stop the fall from happening.

Regarding her xc goes before hand. Her very first run she had a run out and time. The run out was quite minor, but the horse looked to be jumping well. Her second go I know she had a fall early on, but I don't know what happened around the rest of the course. Following that, she downgraded and ran a prelim before bromont, where she won on a double clear xc. She made a poor decision to run the CIC**. Rules can't make up for riders who don't ride with their brains.

She and I upgraded at the same event. I also had a run out and time. The next event was also my second intermediate. I retired after a run out at an elephant trap. The communication was lacking and there wasn't anywhere to gain the impulsion to re-attemp the fence, so I walked off. It was a free for all out there on the intermediate course. One rider had a fall, and two stops at the SAME obstacle and got on and continued. Why?

NOTHING can regulate rider stupidity.

Dumbing eventing down is not the answer. Finding a way to make it harder for riders to upgrade could very well help.

Lowering the speeds so people aren't flying at these fences that may be in a galloping spot, but aren't a galloping fence (re-the square table ellie fell at), may help.

Softening the faces may help.

Increasing the YR age so the kids aren't pushing for a ** since they've aged out of * at 18 years old... MAY HELP.

I'm 24. I consider myself a "young rider", but I aged out of ** three years ago...

[Brandy76]

I don't know what to think right now....

Except I think the planets lined up, where the XC courses got more showjumpy (scewing the horses) and the riders got more money/ less skilled (screwing the horses again).

After all is said and done, you just can't bring a willing but not fancy horse into this sport anymore most of the time.

I know our local kids who breed at home and don't have much money, but ride several horses a day are so disheartened. They see the kids on the $60-70- 200K horses going off to YRs. Mostly based on money.

What to do? Money is taking over the sport, I think it is because some of these riders should be doing Hunters/ Jumpers, but it got too expensive.......

Maybe I'm just smarting about paying over $2k to have an eventer that I thought might be happier as a jumper go to TWO (yes TWO) shows. He isn't happier, so back to eventing. Waste of money.

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

No need for a flame suit. You are so right on. I evented since 89, then was on the fringes of the sport for the last few years - horse retired, now I am out walking courses, (new horse - green ottb)and watching, and what I SEE is saddening, and frightening.
Not to generalize, and if it comes out that way, sorry in advance- I see a lot of people with a lot of money coming to the sport from other disciplines or starting new to riding, that just go buy an accomplished horse, maybe go training once or twice, then start moving up. Rapidly. And some very SCARY riding results. And owners that have a BNR riding a horse that is maybe, say, topped out at Prelim, pushing the BNR to move the horse up (maybe they also sponser that BNR) - so what are they to do? Say no? Anger a client? Lose the business? And most BNR are solid enough to say, maybe I can get this done, anyway.
It is two common denominators - technical show jumping question over and over again over SOLID obstacles, and more money than sense.

[IFG]

I would go even farther, I would keep a list and notes on trainers, trainers and coaches whos students screw up consistently, having wrecks etc. suspend them.

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.

Yes we can not built the courses, that will test the top 20 to the limit and completly over task the rest, but on top of that we have to be able to prevent that the not truly qualified will ride.
We need a better qualification system, the natural selection process is not working anymore.

I agree with Denny and Gnep.

The long format kept the upper levels elite. With the short format, IMHO, there is no gate keeper, and that is why we find ourselves debating endlessy the lack of rider responsibility. The long format enforced personal responsibility. Your horse didn't pass the vet checks, either because you didn't prepare the horse adequately or the horse was unsound, you were out.

[Janet]

I see a lot of people with a lot of money coming to the sport from other disciplines or starting new to riding, that just go buy an accomplished horse, maybe go training once or twice, then start moving up.
Already covered by the current rules.

While a HORSE can go Prelim without prior qualifications, a RIDER needa 4 qualifying rounds at Training before going Prelim.

That doesn't change the fact that, after 4 successful Training HT, the rider may still not be COMPETENT to go Prelim. But you can't move up after going Training "once or twice".

My personal observation is that I don't see a lot of people going Prelim before they are ready. I am more likely to see people going Training before they are ready, or going Intermediate before they are ready (especially "Young Riders").

[Janet]

And owners that have a BNR riding a horse that is maybe, say, topped out at Prelim, pushing the BNR to move the horse up (maybe they also sponser that BNR) - so what are they to do? Say no? Anger a client? Lose the business? I think that most BIG Name Riders/Trainers have a big enough waiting list of potential clients that they wll have no hesitation saying "NO" to a client.

But it is the Upper Level Riders who are less well known, without a waiting list of other clients, who might be susceptible to owner pressure.

[Brandy76]

Already covered by the current rules.

While a HORSE can go Prelim without prior qualifications, a RIDER needa 4 qualifying rounds at Training before going Prelim.

That doesn't change the fact that, after 4 successful Training HT, the rider may still not be COMPETENT to go Prelim. But you can't move up after going Training "once or twice".

My personal observation is that I don't see a lot of people going Prelim before they are ready. I am more likely to see people going Training before they are ready, or going Intermediate before they are ready (especially "Young Riders").


I was generalizing, as I put in the post - I was trying to illustrate the point - that you made- but you said it better! I know about the 4 times rule, it just seems they do the minimum, and then move up, competent or not...
And EXACTLY what you said about young riders!

[snoopy]

My personal observation is that I don't see a lot of people going Prelim before they are ready. I am more likely to see people going Training before they are ready, or going Intermediate before they are ready (especially "Young Riders").



On this we agree

[Brandy76]

I think that most BIG Name Riders/Trainers have a big enough waiting list of potential clients that they wll have no hesitation saying "NO" to a client.

But it is the Upper Level Riders who are less well known, without a waiting list of other clients, who might be susceptible to owner pressure.

The reason I brought this up is that I have actually witnessed this with three different BIG name riders - the pressure, I mean. And all of these BNR's were either "Olympic medal winners/Short Listed several times" level riders. But I agree with you about the ULR that are less well known, too.

I wasn't questioning ethics, only mentioning the pressure.

[luveventing]

what if for prelim and up you MUST have a trainers signature on the entry form- this could also maybe come into play with ICP eventually where it would need to be an ICP instructor or something (of course that could be deemed unfair to some of those that are not ICP for whatever reason). and perhaps have some wording where these instructors would be protected or supported in lawsuits by USEA if it would go that way.

This would make the trainers wake up and pay attention to what is going on because their name is on the bottom line. This is how we used to do things, but years ago trainers realized it was a liability and people went on to sign themselves as the "trainer". It would also require if you want to go prelim and up you would need to ride with said trainer until that trainer felt confident in signing off.

or hell, maybe do as POny club does and have flow sheets that you get signed off on before you move to the next level. that flow sheet would be valid for say prelim level and then you would have to do a new one for intermediate. if you fall off so many times, whatever, it needs to be redone.

really, for a make it yourself person like me, this would probably make moving up financially more difficult, but if I knew what I was up against I would plan for it. and its better than not having a sport left because trainers have their heads up their asses have the time and students are left to their own devices.

[bip]

My personal observation is that I don't see a lot of people going Prelim before they are ready. I am more likely to see people going Training before they are ready, or going Intermediate before they are ready (especially "Young Riders").

Really, why is that? I think I understand Training because I consider that the first "real" level (and farther than I'll get for that very reason!) But once people get to prelim, what makes them push for Int before they are ready?

[tx3dayeventer]

bip- Its about the glory. Same reason people move up to Advanced before they are ready.

Lord knows I spent 3 full years at Prelim and did 4 CCI*s (long format) before my coach felt I was ready to move to Intermediate. He was right. I was competent at Prelim and by today's standards I was ready to go Int, but I was not ready, he was right. I was mad he didn't let me move up but my parents reinforced what he said and they flat out told me I was to listen to him or they would no longer sign the checks (very good way to make a child listen). So when he finally let me move up I was ready and finished in the top 5 in my first Open Int @ Rocking Horse with the most BEAUTIFUL XC ride, even some BNR came up to me and congratulated me on my ride. Places 1-4 were all medal-winning Olympians :D. I continued to blaze around Int without a single XC penalty (besides time) and rocked both CCI**'s (long format), including NAYRC CH**. After that even Advanced wasn't a challenge. I had one run-out at Advanced and that was due to dumb-ole me looking one jump ahead (the corner) and not jumping the rolltop far enough to one side to account for the slippery mud in the 90 degree turn to the giant narrow corner. My bad. Maresy was a superstar and cantered to the option and popped over it like it was novice. I was pissed (would have finished 2nd to Phillip without that dang runout). But moral of the story.... those 3 years at Prelim taught me to RIDE the horse.

IMHO, what people don't take into account today is everything that Prelim can teach horse and rider. Prelim is a great level that needs to have lots of time spent at it to develop the building blocks for the upper levels. I don't think I would have been 1/2 as successful at the upper levels (I & A) if I hadn't taken the time at Prelim. I think that is where we see a lot of the problems today.

[denny]

The ultimate dilemma is that the IOC rules the FEI, the FEI rules the USEF, and the USEF rules US Eventing.
Those are facts, and we can all have as many good ideas as we want, and they`ll all come to nothing if the big organizations don`t buy in, and they haven`t.

[Hannahsmom]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

I would vote for this. I agree something needs to be done and there have been some definite short term decisions made, the above would be good additions.

I do think sometimes when I read this bulletin board about safety I get this feeling "10 people died today, cancer kills people, we have to cure cancer...." approach. I hope the data for each and every major problem, fatality, injury, dangerous riding etc. will be gathered as I think there are obviously multiple things happening and each and every incident needs to be examined to reveal the root cause for potential change.

[Martina]

A couple points...

Adrenaline - The thrill of XC is what drew most of us to the sport. Not everyone is a thrill seeker either, so we are a unique bunch. Now lets think for a minute about other adrenaline sports that do not involve a live animal, like mt biking and skiing, etc., and the attitude of those who participate at a high level. They (me included) simply get a greater thrill the closer we get to the edge... speed, obtacles, difficult situations. The difference is that when you are on skis, flying down a steep double black w/ trees and moguls, the only one at risk is you. I think, unfortuntely, that with the influx of new riders to the sport of eventing, a lot of riders have the same attitude, not realizing that the horse is at risk too.

I met a guy recently who is not a horse person, but is aware of eventing. He is an extreme sport enthusiast. He mentioned to me that if he ever picked up a horse sport it would be eventing because 'it would be so cool to jump over huge brick walls'. This is the attitude that scares me a little, because I don't think it is that far off of a lot of eventers out there.

My other point is... what if there was a judging element included in the cross country phase for rider balance and form in the approach and over fences... scary, I know, but I wonder...

[BlueRidgeEventer]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

Denny - (I hope you don't mind my summary) so what your saying is:

1) Leave the lower levels as they are, except utilize the Dangerous Riding Penalties to help riders better understand how to (and not to) ride xc (i.e. dealing with the yahoos).

2) Increase what it takes to make the move up into and within the upper levels.

3) Determine what type of issues are serious enough to de-qualify a rider from competing at an upper level and start bumping people back down to requalify. (NOTE: I see this being a sticking point because one extreme will argue one elimimation and you're out; the other extreme may argue that a few eliminations aren't so serious, that it needs to be something like a fall. Then we get stuck on a definition and go nowhere with it).

4) Get rid of the type of fences known to cause fatal issues.

5) Either change the courses back to open and gallopy OR slow down the required speeds. (NOTE: Would it work to have both options? Meaning, could some courses be open and gallopy with the current speeds and other courses choose to stay more technical, but be required to have slower speed requirements?).

In my opinion, Denny has presented the perfect answer (at least to start things out), and it doesn't seem like it would be very hard to start (and start RIGHT NOW). Why in the world can't those in charge see that an immediate attempt to right what's going wrong doesn't have to be so difficult (or stuck in committee, or any other lame reason for making an immediate decision to do something). If we could at least start trying something, we would be closer to knowing what will, and what will not, work to make our sport safer.

[Janet]

Really, why is that? I think I understand Training because I consider that the first "real" level (and farther than I'll get for that very reason!) But once people get to prelim, what makes them push for Int before they are ready?
For the Young Riders, it is because they want to get to the NAJYRCh before they age out.

[rivenoak]

I would go even farther, I would keep a list and notes on trainers, trainers and coaches whos students screw up consistently, having wrecks etc. suspend them.

Amen. :yes:

The pain the the pocketbook will be an incentive to get students to straighten up & fly right. Or, get kicked out the trainer's barn door.

Which necessitates the Watch List for those who DIY. You have to be able to sanction them, as well.

[gahawkeye]

From Martina...

"My other point is... what if there was a judging element included in the cross country phase for rider balance and form in the approach and over fences... scary, I know, but I wonder..."

This was brought up at the Safety Summit -- to designate a few fences on course that could be judged for a 'harmony' score -- didn't go over too well, but proposed as an optional thing for organizers to offer. Make it a really desireable award -- like "Best Conditioned" or "Best Turnout", etc. Way to award good cc riding above just 'going double clear'.

[InVA]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.

People don't want to wait to show at classes they don't belong or can't ride. X-country shortened so the warmbloods can compete, stadium less interesting and too low, again so the warmbloods can compete. People who don't belong in the show for another year or two...who won't wait.

I showed when courses were longer and a real workout, TBs were the horses who excelled, the warmbloods couldn't compete. Hunter classes seemed to all start at 3', not almost caveletti height to make people feel good about themselves.

Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.

What Trakehner said...

[Crazy_Eventer]

kind of along the lines of rewarding good riding in addition to penalizing dangerous riding, what if points were deducted from your score for good riding? That way even the crazy yahoos who are chasing the ribbons withtout regard for saftey would be forced to shape up in order to place-thoughts?

[findeight]

Something that disturbs me is the way some of these crippling rider injuries are thrown off as "she'll bounce back" or 'we can't wait to see him next year".

Guess what, real life is not like that. Not some fairy story where the human body goes back to exactly what it was before. By the time it is realized the rider is NOT coming back, the horror of the fall and the injuries have faded from memory and there is little connection in the minds of most.

But you reach a certain age and you do remember the falls and connect the dots in realizing you never saw that rider agin and they recently "retired". Or you see them and realize they really are not what they were before the fall. I hear these kids today talking about these badly injured riders back good as new in short time and cannot help but think that is part of the problem-we, as a society, just don't grasp the bad stuff and want to gloss it over. Nobody wants to state the obvious, that this type injury lingers for life.

I know this is not about the horses but I really think it feeds the notion of immortality in the younger competitor and maybe creates an absence of fear when there SHOULD be some there.

Maybe if some of these young Pros realized the real cost of a bad fall, they'd be more careful and not take uncalled for risks competing out of their depth.

[wannabegifted]

sorry, didn't read through the whole thread,... but if fitness is an issue for rider AND horse...what about points or a score at the three-day events for fitness in the vet box?

[sm]

The ultimate dilemma is that the IOC rules the FEI, the FEI rules the USEF, and the USEF rules US Eventing.
Those are facts, and we can all have as many good ideas as we want, and they`ll all come to nothing if the big organizations don`t buy in, and they haven`t.

And the USEA members rule the purse strings. Right now, the USEA call to action is to unite as one. I'm impressed that there is unity.

If Kevin changes that call to action, with a firm plan in mind (we will lead not follow, Valley Forge, etc), then that becomes a different ball game. Strassberger is behind change, and I would never underestimate his talents to assist that voice for change... nor do I underestimate your immense talents, Wofford's, the list goes on...

As far as I'm concerned, Kevin and Company should take all the time needed to make the right decision. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to give him a solid Plan B on what XC should be.

[swift]

Denny;
You need to look at the qualifications as well, a quick check of the prior results of the horse that died at Bromont is very revealing. How is it that at an FEI event there can be over 120 penalty points on cross country on the previous 2 outings before Bromont and still the horse is qualified? This wasn't a speed or course design problem, this was a qualification/rider/coach problem! this combination should never had been allowed to to even enter this event!

[WSL]

I will not claim to be an eventer but I used to do a bit of XC with my old horse and it is my goal to do the lower levels with my new horse if he is able. Basically, I am going to put in my 2 cents and even though I don’t know much, I hope to learn something here. I totally agree with the invitation only concept for the upper level events. It is not a rider’s “right” to compete at some of these events just because he/she technically qualifies to, nor is it fair for the horse that was doing well at the previous level but is still developing the skill set needed for their current level. Riders also need to take responsibility for knowing when their horse is maxed out. Yes, he may have the scope/heart/endurance etc. and the rider may feel that there is still potential but the whole package is what is critical. Sometimes potential is just that – potential. It isn’t a given that the horse will perform at its highest level for every rider. There are some horses that in spite of their “potential” will never fully utilize it and that is OK. They are animals, not machines. I am not saying that it is impossible to unlock the potential in a tough horse but sometimes it is just a matter of the fit of the horse to the rider. It takes true horsemanship to realize and accept this. Regarding the technicality of the courses I will just say this – enough is enough! Leave more of the difficult technical demands to the stadium phase because there is a reason that those jumps are not solid. It is perfectly acceptable to pose a challenge that is not able to be met by every horse and rider but lets not endanger their lives to an unnecessary extent by facing them with totally unforgiving XC courses. Don’t make it easier, per say, just leave certain challenges where they belong – in the stadium round.

This suggestion is probably way out there and not at all feasible but it did pop into my head while reading this thread. I own a greyhound and have learned a bit about how their grading system works. Fido runs in the top three at X number of D level races in a row which qualifies him for C level. Fido has to do the same thing to advance to B but if Fido is unable to place in the top 3 at least once after X number of races at the new level, he drops a grade. This cycle continues until retirement or until he grades out (i.e. not competitive at even the lower levels). My question is this; could a system utilizing some of these concepts be used in eventing? I know it is necessary to qualify in order to move up, but what about developing some minimum requirements to stay at the current level and if the criteria are not met the horse and rider must move down to develop their skills and re-qualify before trying again? My hopes would be that this would force the teams to become more competent before competing, rather than just competing X number of times without any success. Obviously, placing in the top 3 is not the answer but what about having to have a set level of points achieved at each event and if this is not attained, the team has X more chances before being graded down to work on their skills at the previous level? It would put more responsibility on the riders to actually have themselves and their horses ready for the event rather then just entering because they can. I am probably waaaay off with my recommendations here but the deaths that we have had in this sport have gone too far. It is a risk to work with horses in any avenue but we all would like to see the unnecessary risks diminish. How can we increase the accountability of the two legged competitors? It is too bad that common sense seems to be so uncommon.:no:

[Keep1Belle]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?


Is it possible to have good solid courses fair course at each level and a rider must complete each level 3 to 5 times before moving on to the next.

So now we would have to determine "fair" courses by criteria:types of fences, speed, etc

And "completing" level needs to be determined, by faults accumulated etc. NOT just not being DQ'd. And maybe you have to "apply" to compete at the new level. yes I know, that means more paper work, but its a way to make sure people are qualified.

that way if something does happen its more likely to be a freak accident, which is sad, but easier to accept than a rider and horse not qualified, meeting their demise

I think this way the riders at each level are still being challenged and once you master the level you move to the next. because you have mastered one level you should be able to safely challenge youself at the next and when you appear to master that a few times, NOT just once you are prepared to move on to the next level and so on.

Am I off base here??

[minniemoore]

I like the idea of the Fido idea...the only thing is that eventing is so competitive, I wouldn't want to drop down a level because I wasn't in the top 3. I don't want to have to go down a level because I'm not placing, I should only go down a level if I'm having a high percentage of jumping penalties over a certain period of time. For heavens sakes, I was at Novice for 7 years and only last year was I placing, and except for the first two years I was finishing without jumping faults on XC and stadium. I'd hate to think that even though I was safe and finishing clean I would've had to keep dropping down to BN because my dressage wasn't competitive. And I think when you first move up to a new level, it's understandable to have a few penalties while you figure out the new questions. Where do we draw the line on what's too many before being forced to drop back down a level - 40 or 60 or more? At two events or three? We should also take into account why the horse was WD, R, or E - was it a Technical E? A Technical E shouldn't factor into being forced to drop down a level...

[AM]

I'm thinking it is time to drop out of the Young Riders program for period of time. If that incentive is driving riders to move up too quickly, then maybe we should remove that incentive. I've heard DOC say several times that he didn't ride his first intermediate course until his early twenties and all his peers who were doing the young rider thing were no longer riding.

[Jazzy Lady]

I still think YR ages need to be changed. Make 23 the intermediate age, and 20 for prelim, or 21, and the minimum age should be 16 or 17, not 14. I don't doubt that there are great riders below the age of 16, but judgement is often not so great at that age.

[Brandy76]

I'm thinking it is time to drop out of the Young Riders program for period of time. If that incentive is driving riders to move up too quickly, then maybe we should remove that incentive. I've heard DOC say several times that he didn't ride his first intermediate course until his early twenties and all his peers who were doing the young rider thing were no longer riding.

Or, flame suit on - NO YR programs, only something like "up and coming" riders - no age limit - just divisions to encourage those coming up the ranks, regardless of age. Very general outline there, I know, just green light thinking!

[silver2]

Something that disturbs me is the way some of these crippling rider injuries are thrown off as "she'll bounce back" or 'we can't wait to see him next year".
That bothers me too. There is a lot of peer pressure in horse sports to be tough and push through injury but if you've breaken you neck twice in a year you do not need to rush back into competition. You may need to seriously consider not ever riding again, at least over fences.

A friend of mine broke her back three times as a YR. THREE. She was not a great rider and never should have been at that level. Another one had 5 or 6 serious concussions in a year, including two very serious ones (ambulances, seizures) in the span of a week. All of these injuries occured at competitions or under the supervision of trainers/ coaches. I'd like to say that it took until middle age for the consequences of those injuries to catch up with them but sadly it didn't, more like mid-twenties. They aren't going to post here because they don't ride anymore.

There is being young and fearless and there is being pushed to fulfill some ridiculous ideal with no thought for the future. Guess what- your coach does not have to live with your future. You do.

[KSevnter]

That bothers me too. There is a lot of peer pressure in horse sports to be tough and push through injury but if you've breaken you neck twice in a year you do not need to rush back into competition. You may need to seriously consider not ever riding again, at least over fences.

A friend of mine broke her back three times as a YR. THREE. She was not a great rider and never should have been at that level. Another one had 5 or 6 serious concussions in a year, including two very serious ones (ambulances, seizures) in the span of a week. All of these injuries occured at competitions or under the supervision of trainers/ coaches. I'd like to say that it took until middle age for the consequences of those injuries to catch up with them but sadly it didn't, more like mid-twenties. They aren't going to post here because they don't ride anymore.

There is being young and fearless and there is being pushed to fulfill some ridiculous ideal with no thought for the future. Guess what- your coach does not have to live with your future. You do.

Where were these kids parents??? That is beyond disturbing. It is like the parents are more than happy to write the checks and live vicariously through their kids successes but lose sight of the fact that they are parents and the number one priority is their child's welfare.

In the grand scheme of things, most YR's go on to do other things (even the great ones like Molly Bliss...who is a doctor now). These parents need a reality check...guess what the odds are your kid isn't going to the Olympics. You might want to protect their health and their brain so they can earn themselves a living after the glory of eventing is over.

[Crazy_Eventer]

I don't know if anyone saw the article on Eventing USA Online (the blog segment on useventing.com) called "Taking Beginner Novice Seriously" but kind of applying that idea to the YR discussion, if we want to reward talented YRs, maybe it shouldn't be about how fast you get to the highest level and should instead be about rewarding the elite at each level.

Speaking from a young rider's perspective, something I've noticed in all the jr's and yr's is that there seems to be the idea in YR's (and some parents I might add) that BN-T aren't "real" levels in eventing and that they are only steppingstones to prelim+. If we encourage YRs to take the lower levels seriously and reward them for exellence in the lower levels, there won't be as much pressure to move up to prelim to become "a real eventer".

[Jumphigh83]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for

our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?


All great ideas....but so what if the xc is a little slower? could save lives. Let the technical expertise of the horse/rider combination shine through in dressage (sometimes thought to be a necessary "evil" for event riders!!) and/ or a more technical stadium phase? I am certainly no expert on eventing (though I play one on this board much to many's chagrin)but I know what I see. There has to be a more strict filtering process to avoid the participation of less than qualified riders at the upper levels. They are in DANGER. If they don't know it, we do. Proficiency testing maybe? I guess that is why I get so excited about those who want to continue after a fall (he spooked...he tripped!!) If you cant sit a spook then what about that giant unforgiving log water dock bank combination? Or the vertical face jumps..one misjudgment can result in chesting the jump and a (gack!!!!!) rotational fall. I say make the xc bit more forgiving and make stadium and maybe even dressage more weighty. I dont want to see an end to eventing, I want to see an end to horses getting hurt because riders fail to acknowledge their shortcomings.

[Carol Ames]

rather than make the levels/courses easier; make the jumps/ fences themselves more forgiving

[Carol Ames]

was it GM or Jack le gofff, who was quoted saying; he could build a course at 18"'and have no one get around it:eek:? I'm sure Denny remembers:winkgrin:

[Carol Ames]

i think we need to stifle the the tales of "yesteryear"about the Olympic rider who got/was taken out of the hospital bed, put on a horse and galloped across the e start and finish of SJ, so the team could finish, in the medals;

[Pferd51]

One of the big differences between the sport now and then is all the lower levels. Although there doesn't seem to be a safety problem in those levels, does their presence facilitate the participation of underprepared rider/horse teams in the upper levels? If you could only start at Prelim, would the group of participants be different than it is now? I am an adult lower-level rider, and appreciate the opportunity afforded by these events. But is there a downside to the gradual introduction of competitive difficulty, especially starting so low? Is it too easy to think you can move up under these circumstances, when you might never stick with it long enough to compete if you had to start at Prelim? Is there a way to instill the same kind of mindset without killing off the only levels I will ever ride? I'm just trying to see if thinking about safety at the upper levels and participation at lower levels as somewhat conflicting situations will help develop new ideas.

[LookinSouth]

I don't know if anyone saw the article on Eventing USA Online (the blog segment on useventing.com) called "Taking Beginner Novice Seriously" but kind of applying that idea to the YR discussion, if we want to reward talented YRs, maybe it shouldn't be about how fast you get to the highest level and should instead be about rewarding the elite at each level.

Speaking from a young rider's perspective, something I've noticed in all the jr's and yr's is that there seems to be the idea in YR's (and some parents I might add) that BN-T aren't "real" levels in eventing and that they are only steppingstones to prelim+. If we encourage YRs to take the lower levels seriously and reward them for exellence in the lower levels, there won't be as much pressure to move up to prelim to become "a real eventer".


Amen! This goes back to the discussion awhile back about rewarding Mastery at ALL levels. It seems to me that the "move up" bug is kind of unique to Eventing and I truly believe that mindset is part of the problem. I just don't see it in the Hunters/Jumpers (Ammy's or Juniors in a huge rush to move up once they've hit the 3ft divisions anyway). Most spend all their time in one division until they age out....in most cases YEARS. Considering the fact eventing is a fair bit more dangerous it is really quite puzzling that in eventing it is not the same.

[Jumphigh83]

Jumphigh83, one of the reasons eventing is in this pickle is BECAUSE of the increased technicality of the dressage and show jumping phases.

Jim Wofford: Eventing Lives in the Balance (http://equisearch.com/horses%5Friding%5Ftraining/english/eventing/wofford%5Feventing%5Flives%5F051408/)

USEA Blog - Great Jim Wofford Article!

How so? I have never seen a horse do a rotational fall in the dressage ring or the stadium phase...no one(horse/rider) was ever killed or maimed in those phases. The jumps fall and dressage well that is either done with skill or simply done (or not)...I dont subscribe to that being the "problem" with eventing (all due respect)

[Crazy_Eventer]

I think what the previous poster was trying to say is that by making dressage and stadium harder, riders have spent more time in the ring and less time out on the trails learning how to ride crosscountry. (at least that's how I took it-correct me if I'm wrong)

[Ajierene]

Amen! This goes back to the discussion awhile back about rewarding Mastery at ALL levels. It seems to me that the "move up" bug is kind of unique to Eventing and I truly believe that mindset is part of the problem. I just don't see it in the Hunters/Jumpers (Ammy's or Juniors in a huge rush to move up once they've hit the 3ft divisions anyway). Most spend all their time in one division until they age out....in most cases YEARS. Considering the fact eventing is a fair bit more dangerous it is really quite puzzling that in eventing it is not the same.

The moving up bug is not unique to eventing. The difference is that in dressage you can try a 3rd level test on a 1st level horse and just score horribly and really embarrass yourself. If you are immune to that kind of embarrassment, go ahead and have fun.

If you move up to quickly in jumping, the result is a lot of down rails and bad scores. People still do it, though.

In the same vein - other people spend years in one level in eventing, perfecting the level before moving up.

In eventing, eventually you have a bad fall and may kill yourself or your horse. How long did Laine Ashker and Eleanor Brennan 'get away' with moving horses up to quickly before their injuries? One went to Badminton, the other ran Rolex a few times. Maybe they started out good and just got ahead of themselves, but the same happens in other sports, and may have happened with the rider at Bromont, but in the other sports, it much more rarely ends in catastrophic falls.

[PangurBan]

I think many of you are wiggling, like fish on the hook, trying to deny the reality.
Which is that at event after event, either a horse dies, sometimes 2, or a rider dies or is crippled.
Our sport is slowly dying the proverbial "death from a thousand cuts."
We need to take real steps to try to stop this weekly hemoraging, and we need to try things, and see if they work.
If they do, great. If they don`t, try something else.
Since nobody knows why this is happening, for sure, why not start experimenting with ideas that might work, that have at least some obvious hope of success?
Now call this "knee jerk" if you want, but doing nothing, is that better?
I ask again the question nobody wants to acknowledge or seemingly to answer:
"Is it better to make eventing`s xc phase somewhat too easy for the best, or somewhat too hard for the rest?"
Answer that question, because where this sport is headed right now, some real answers need to be found.
__________________

I'm late to the party, but I've read through ALL the threads. Denny, I think you are on the money, and for sure SOMETHING new must be tried. And I am old enough to remember you on Victor Dakin, doing the Victor-Dakin-shuffle...
so I've seen both formats and a lot of water under the bridge.

Last year I had a girl ride with me from Europe. I asked her if she was competing in her home country. Not yet, was the reply. Before she could get her 'competitive license', she had to demonstrate proficiency over a 4' show jumping course and in a level 3 dressage test. That license would then let her enter the show grounds at the lowest levels offered... but she had to gain the qualifications before she could even come out to play. I know for a fact that qualification requirements that tough would stop MOST of the eventers over here from EVER getting into the ring... but perhaps we should be considering something similar.

In the dark ages when I showed hunters, the 1st year greens started out at 3'6. Now the shows are down to 2'9 classes, and that's where the big entry numbers are. I used to bring horses out to begin their event careers at the Training level, because that was as low as it goes. Now we're seeing divisions of Pre-Training; one below PT, and one below that... soon we'll have dumbed it down to a Virtual course, where you trot round between flags and imagine what the fences look like. That lets a lot more people pay entry fees, but it doesn't do much for education or teaching what real horsemanship is all about.

Injuries happen below Prelim -- and plenty of them. They are often not as spectacular as the UL wrecks, and the horse rarely gets hurt, because at the lowest levels, the horses rarely fall, but we see a lot of kids/adults get carted off to hospital with breaks, fractures, concussions, etc. I remember being taught 'how to fall', but I don't think a lot of folks learn that anymore.

Insurance and law suits have also reared their ugly heads -- riders who ride stupid and get hurt have the right to sue for their injuries -- and they do, naming the organizers, designers, coaches, TD's, helmet and vest manufacturers, etc. -- everyone who ever walked past them while they were undersaddle it seems like -- because in our current societal climate, SOMEONE HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE and IT IS NEVER THE PERSON AT FAULT. At least, that seems to be the lawyers take on injuries. Perhaps we need to take away the ability to sue if you are injured.

Making the courses easy will in the end encourage riders to move up more quickly, and just let the horses run. We've already got a good crop of young and youngish riders who think they really understand what the sport is about because they've gotten around Prelim courses on talented horses. That is what youth is all about -- we are too soon old and too late smart, as the proverb goes. I know that MY understanding of a fit horse changed drastically the first time I got up on a friend's 4* creature and we went out for her last preparation gallop pre-Badminton. I thought until that moment that I knew how to ride fit, forward and keen horses... after all, my Prelim and Intermediate horses were tbreds, track-specialists, fast and feisty, jumping clear and picking up ribbons. Lord was I uneducated! But until you've been there, you really don't know.

Qualifications to Preliminary and above do need, I think, to be MUCH tougher to get, and just about as hard to keep. I really like the invitation only approach to 3 and 4 star. Mind you, that's more work for someone out there -- organizers already have the right to refuse an entry, but for them to do the research to find out the track record of the competitor is just one thing too much for most secretaries to be asked, and then someone has to make the call. And then that someone is 'responsible' -- and then the lawyers start to lick their lips. After all, if you get invited to a 4* and then you get badly hurt, someone with a law degree is going to argue that you weren't ready to be there and should not have been invited, etc. etc.

so it IS about personal responsibility. And about starting to tell riders NO. That's not popular in today's society, where we try to ensure that kids are never told that word, but are always to be encouraged and supported no matter what, but in fact, there are only a few riders who SHOULD be at upper levels. Just as there are only a few people who should be at upper levels in figure skating, shot put, tiddly winks... The Olympic games are not open to all comers, and even of the great athletes that are accepted, only 3 come home with medals. We had a rider a few years back that fell frequently, at Prelim and 1* -- she managed to break her neck, not just once, but twice, by riding so dreadfully. Everyone was so supportive and encouraging and she is now 'coaching' because she can't compete, although she's walking and is hugely lucky. much luckier than many. But nobody wanted to ever say to her, You are a danger to yourself and to your horse.
At the last even she rode, I walked past her as she went into stadium -- and watched her mare take out three oxers by the roots. I then said to her coach that I was horrified by her riding, and his reply was very laconic. "No, he said, I fixed her at the last competition." Well, I replied, she don't look too fixed to me... and a few minutes later the ambulance went screaming out onto course. Should I have tried to stop her riding? By what authority? As a spectator??? Talking about carding riders is a good plan, but a lot of officials are reluctant to do so. And a lot of officials are dressage riders acting as ground jury, who are not necessarily the best trained to understand how XC rides, so there's education needed everywhere.

So one of the questions has to be do we want everyone to be able to play at the top level of the game? Because if we do, then yes, we'd better start dumbing it down and softening all of it. Or do we want to have a vibrant sport with a large lower base and a narrowing pyramid up to the really superb few.

Denny was already a medalist when I was beginning to event. I thought those team riders were just one step down from the lesser gods. I watched everything they did with their horses, and came home and tried to figure it out. I read everything I could find on the subject of the sport and came home and tried to put it into practice. It was pounded into me by my coach the amount of time needed to be spent on the horses' backs just getting them fit, months and months before we ever got to the first competition. Now we're lucky if we see people at the barn more than 4 days a week, for an hour at a time, because of jobs/school/commuting distance/etc. Problem is, if your schedule doesn't let you do the whole job, then you can't do the sport at the higher standard. that said, the horses will usually let you get away with cutting the corners for quite a while before the wheels come off.

anyway, that's my rant. I'll back up Denny's suggestions.

[oreo]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.

YES! PLEASE!!!!

I 100% agree - but how do we differentiate the riders who CAN ride a horse who CAN do it, from those who can't?

I wish I knew the answer to that. Its a matter of knowing. Those who know, know, those who don't know, don't know. And won't listen until they crash and burn.

[denny]

I have a question.

If a xc designer is creating a course, is he/she bound by very specific rules/guidelines about what he/she can build (say from USEA/USEF/FEI), or does the xc designer have a wide degree of personal choice. (Janet, some other rule maven?)

Because there are only about 10-15 xc designers in the whole of North America, aren`t there, who design the majority of the courses?

So aren`t these relatively few individuals both the problem and or the solution to many of eventing`s troubles?

Because an overly technical xc course with big vertical table-type jumps doesn`t just fall out of the sky. Someone consciously creates it.

So another question is "what is the training process, philosophical framework, that creates these creators?"

And can the bad apples be gotten rid of?

[ss3777]

This GHF debate and really the whole eventing crisis reminds me of a quote from a favorite movie…………
"Attitude reflects leadership”

Really great leaders figure out how to get the majority of the fish swimming happily in the right direction, some leaders just figure out how to kick some of the “naughty fish” out of the pond. Great leaders work with dissension. How else do things change?
Off the soapbox, gotta try and work on my personal responsibility=ride smarter, safer and at the appropriate level!

[gooddirt]

I have a question.

Because an overly technical xc course with big vertical table-type jumps doesn`t just fall out of the sky. Someone consciously creates it.


Hey Denny,
You frequently refer to vertical tables which is a little puzzling to me because they're not supposed to be out there.

How do you define a vertical table? Can somebody post pictures of them?
Glenn

[groom]

Because there are only about 10-15 xc designers in the whole of North America, aren`t there, who design the majority of the courses?

So aren`t these relatively few individuals both the problem and or the solution to many of eventing`s troubles?



Please stop trying to place "many of eventing's troubles" in the laps of ALL course designers. You have a guilded reputation, sir, and many people take your opinion as gospel.

You are making the allegation that the top 10-15 CD's are responsible for "most of eventing's troubles". Really?

You are making it very easy for unprepared riders to shirk their personal responsibility and place their failures at the feet of others. On a 2800 meter Prelim course, the CD's has about 5 minutes and 23 seconds of "the student's" time. If a reckless or unprepared student fails the test - who is to blame?

[Gnep]

good question,
yes there are guide lines and rules on what one can do. But they are broad.
It depends on the CDs philosophy. I only know one CD that always has the education of the horse and the rider as his philosophy and considers for whom he is designing the courses, who will come to the HTs.

What gets more and more rare is Designers and Builders who have actually competitif riding experiance, while Designing and Building.

When I built, I not just run a chain saw I actually ride the jumps in my mind, sometimes I built come back later look at the monstrosity ride it and than tear it down, because it rode like shit in my head.
I know a few designers that are still active and they do the same, but most designers are not active any more or have never ridden and it shows.
And especialy those are very protective of their designs even if they suck big time, it would help if rider reps had more input and power to have changes made.

[magnolia73]

I don't think course designers can protect the clueless from themselves.

Honestly- watching just the warm up at many events is eye opening. To expect designers to accomodate people safely who can't even properly canter down to a simple vertical is asking for a miracle.

Bottom line- there is a point (prelim?) where horse and rider need talent, excellent skills and experience to be safe. Anyone that thinks training and novice levels somehow don't matter does not have the experience to run prelim. I look at the massive prelim jumps and they make me ill. Because I have experience missing my distances- I know it is no joke. (Sadly my skills and talent fall short...). It is scary for me to watch people in training and prelim warm up making mistakes I make.

Yeah, maybe some people get lucky and have horses that cover their butts- but that luck eventually runs out when the jumps get too big. I honestly do not think there is a thing a course designer can do to make a course safe for these people.

[Janet]

I have a question.

If a xc designer is creating a course, is he/she bound by very specific rules/guidelines about what he/she can build (say from USEA/USEF/FEI), or does the xc designer have a wide degree of personal choice. (Janet, some other rule maven?)
Currently , they are bound by the rules, and the guidelines are just that, guidelines. In all cases, safety concerns can trump the rules and guidelines. At least one of the new task forces has been talking about making the guidelines into rules.

Because there are only about 10-15 xc designers in the whole of North America, aren`t there, who design the majority of the courses? There are 36 USEF licensed (25 r and 11 R) course designers. But many of the T and below courses are designed by people who have taken the training course, but are not licensed.


So aren`t these relatively few individuals both the problem and or the solution to many of eventing`s troubles?

Because an overly technical xc course with big vertical table-type jumps doesn`t just fall out of the sky. Someone consciously creates it.

So another question is "what is the training process, philosophical framework, that creates these creators?" The process of becoming an r or R course designer is similar to the process for becoming a TD or judge- experience, apprenticeship, training, exam, reccomendations. An r course designer is required for Prelim, and R for Intermediate and Advanced. To design for T and below, the course designer needs to take the training course once every 3 years, but does not need to be r or R.

I took the recent CD Training course to give me more insight as a potential TD. It was taught by John Williams and Denis Glaccum, and there was a LOT of emphasis on "how the horse sees the jump", and safety.

And can the bad apples be gotten rid of? I guess it would be the same as bad judges or bad TDs. But given the small numbers, it would probably be more productive to work on training the "bad apples" (if there even are any) to be "good apples".

[octavian_jazz]

How so? I have never seen a horse do a rotational fall in the dressage ring or the stadium phase...no one(horse/rider) was ever killed or maimed in those phases. The jumps fall and dressage well that is either done with skill or simply done (or not)...I dont subscribe to that being the "problem" with eventing (all due respect)

Did you actually read the article? If so, you obviously misunderstood it. Even the title, "Eventing lives in balance" should tip you off to what Jimmy Wofford was trying to say. It's not the danger in the actual dressage and stadium phases, but instead, it's the effect that the increased technicality has on the whole balance. The higher the level of dressage, the more responsive the horse and the more they wait for the rider to tell them what to do because they are so in tune with the rider's aids. So, instead of thinking for themselves on cross country day, horses obediently wait to be told what to do, but if the rider makes a mistake, the horse is no longer thinking for itself and the results can be disastrous. However, if the horse is thinking for itself, it may know better than to take that early spot, pick a better spot, and compensate for the rider's mistake. There could be a lot of examples, but it really just comes down to the horse being able to think for itself and get itself out of trouble instictively. Which is why, in that article, the video of the Grand National and the horse jumping without a rider was mentioned.

At least that's how I interpreted it.

[Janet]

How so? I have never seen a horse do a rotational fall in the dressage ring or the stadium phase...no one(horse/rider) was ever killed or maimed in those phases. The jumps fall and dressage well that is either done with skill or simply done (or not)...I dont subscribe to that being the "problem" with eventing (all due respect)
I am afraid that is simply not true.

Caroline Treveranus (Weir) was indeed severely "maimed" in the show jumping phase at the Eventing World Championships, and I have known of people killed doing dressage.

As for rotational falls in show jumping, they are generally not as dramatic as rotational falls in cross country, but they DO happen. They are the reason for safety cups.

[JER]

How so? I have never seen a horse do a rotational fall in the dressage ring or the stadium phase...no one(horse/rider) was ever killed or maimed in those phases. The jumps fall and dressage well that is either done with skill or simply done (or not)...I dont subscribe to that being the "problem" with eventing (all due respect)

What Janet said about SJ falls. Kim Meier's serious injury was due to an SJ schooling fall.

And serious injuries/deaths do happen in the SJ world. According to USEF stats as of 2003, h/j competitors accounted for more than 55 percent of head injuries reported at sanctioned shows, while eventers accounted for 25 percent.

[denny]

If so many riders are talking about xc becoming more technical, and they certainly are talking about this, then WHO is creating these technical courses?
Again, those courses didn`t fall out of the sky.
If we can figure out the "who", then we can ask them "why?"

Hence my question about directives from USEF, FEI, etc. If the xc designers are bound, by rules, to create highly technical questions, that`s one thing.

If they are taking it upon themselves to do this, that`s something else.

At these design seminars, are budding xc designers advised NOT to create the kinds of flowing, positive courses that riders seem to miss so much?
I ask as a genuine question, not as a criticism. Because there is a difference between many modern courses, and those from, say, 15-25 years ago. People, individual human beings, made those differences happen.

Were they told to? Did they just think it up?

[vineyridge]

Will the FEI listen to the ODCG (Old Dead Cavalry Guys) and just the OGs like Denny and JW if the issue of too much and too high level dressage is put as a safety issue? Or will they just de-emphasize XC more. I know that EVERY SINGLE great trainer from Littauer to Klimke to JW has stated flatly that too much menage (upper level dressage) work saps a horse's ability to think quickly on XC. Yet the FEI has increased the difficulty of their upper level dressage tests. Why? This IS a safety issue, but it isn't treated as one.

It's just like having jumping into and out of water identified as dangerous in safety study after safety study. But the CDs have added more and more water obstacles to courses.

Who is listening? Who cares?

[flutie1]

"... I don't think course designers can protect the clueless from themselves."

This is a fabulous quote, and I plan to steal it, use it and claim it was mine!
:-)

Seriously, it exactly echoes what Mike E-S said after Lainey's fall at Rolex - "We can't design for that."

We ALL bear the responsibility to clean up our acts - and it goes way beyond moaning for the sanctity of the good ol' days. Hell, they weren't THAT good!

Flutie

[Janet]

Hence my question about directives from USEF, FEI, etc. If the xc designers are bound, by rules, to create highly technical questions, that`s one thing.
No, the rules don't mandated "highly technical questions".


At these design seminars, are budding xc designers advised NOT to create the kinds of flowing, positive courses that riders seem to miss so much?
I ask as a genuine question, not as a criticism. Because there is a difference between many modern courses, and those from, say, 15-25 years ago. People, individual human beings, made those differences happen.
I can't speak for the others, but the course I went to DID emphasize flowing, positive courses.

[flea]

I was watching a video yesterday in which Lt. Col. Weldon spoke saying the challenge of Badminton is to create a course in which the best will come out on top, but the less able will not be eliminated or feel like they have wasted their time. It was an older video and did not say the less able will not be killed! I thought that was an interesting way of putting it but of course the video went on and did not tell how they were going to do that!!

[grayarabpony]

AS IF most of these eventing horses are actually doing correct dressage.... anyone want to take that into consideration?

[Windsor999]

For those who were not at Bromont the fence in concern was a sloping front and back round top spread that was not square in any way. Not related to any technical question just a very OLD FASHION question on a flowing line.

The issue was a rider coming down TOO fast without taking a check!!!!(Over the speed required for the level) and the horse took off far too early.

The overall course was not over technical and allowed space for horses to move on, the real reason for not making the time at Bromont in the one and two star courses is fitness as there are some long gentle climbs.

This was an OLD FASHION question with no frills and the RIDER got it wrong in the eyes of the people who watched it happen, NOT the course designer in this case!!!!!

[Copper]

AS IF most of these eventing horses are actually doing correct dressage.... anyone want to take that into consideration?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but just how is that going to save their lives on xc?
I'd love to hear your take on it.

[Janet]

Denny,
From the front of the course design training session

"Throughout the planning and construction, the course builder should keep these basic principles in mind.

Never try to trick the horse or rider.

There is no need to be an innovator.

Only build what you truly believe to be suitable.

If in doubt about a fence, don't use it.

Follow the rules and guidelines; do not cheat.

The good horse, well ridden, should make the horse look easy.

What will happen to the less good horse with a bad rider?

Educate the horse to the next level."

[BarbB]

I was watching a video yesterday in which Lt. Col. Weldon spoke saying the challenge of Badminton is to create a course in which the best will come out on top, but the less able will not be eliminated or feel like they have wasted their time. It was an older video and did not say the less able will not be killed! I thought that was an interesting way of putting it but of course the video went on and did not tell how they were going to do that!!

That tape didn't explain, but if you can get any of the older Badminton tapes where Col. Weldon was the course designer, he does a course walk at the beginning of the tapes or narrates with the first rider and explains each element, how it builds on the previous ones and relates to the ones coming up and what options are offered and why. He explains why if a rider is using too many options they should pull up and when a horse that is doing well should take an option for a mental break.

I think there are too many modern courses that are not really "courses" they are collections of obstacles, with little relationship to the other collections of obstacles in the same field.

ps. I have offered that quote up several times on the course design threads and been ignored. I think many people don't get it.

[pluvinel]

I think the reason the Safety Summit didn`t really come up with enough concrete proposals is because the obvious answer---- "Make XC too easy for the best." isn`t a very palatable answer, esp. for those who consider themselves in that "best" catagory.*So they wriggle, like fish on a hook, trying to have it both ways, keeping xc seriously challenging, and yet safe.*Can they have it both ways? I doubt it, really. Maybe if engineering geniuses can create inexpensive, collapsible fences, they can get close.*But for all the "personal responsibility" we hear, there`s an enormous fallacy at work.It only works if EVERYBODY exercises it. If ONE rider doesn`t, and if that results in ONE fatality, horse or rider, that`s about all it takes, one per event, just as we`ve seen all year.*Those "ones" add up to lots, as we`ve seen, all year.

The example quoted above is a classic description of the "Tragedy of the Commons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The Tragedy of the Commons is the description of the conflict between individual interests and the common good.

The reason it is called the "tragedy of the commons" is that this concept dates back to Medieval times when animals were brought to graze on the town "common." Since no one was responsible for "the common" everyone took advantage and eventually the common was overgrazed and destroyed.

Basically the concept is that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through self-interested exploitation.

Today, the concept is applicable as we discuss global warming. Who owns the air? In eventing the question would be who "owns" the right to compete?

[lstevenson]

I'm late to the party, but I've read through ALL the threads. Denny, I think you are on the money, and for sure SOMETHING new must be tried. And I am old enough to remember you on Victor Dakin, doing the Victor-Dakin-shuffle...
so I've seen both formats and a lot of water under the bridge.

Last year I had a girl ride with me from Europe. I asked her if she was competing in her home country. Not yet, was the reply. Before she could get her 'competitive license', she had to demonstrate proficiency over a 4' show jumping course and in a level 3 dressage test. That license would then let her enter the show grounds at the lowest levels offered... but she had to gain the qualifications before she could even come out to play. I know for a fact that qualification requirements that tough would stop MOST of the eventers over here from EVER getting into the ring... but perhaps we should be considering something similar.

In the dark ages when I showed hunters, the 1st year greens started out at 3'6. Now the shows are down to 2'9 classes, and that's where the big entry numbers are. I used to bring horses out to begin their event careers at the Training level, because that was as low as it goes. Now we're seeing divisions of Pre-Training; one below PT, and one below that... soon we'll have dumbed it down to a Virtual course, where you trot round between flags and imagine what the fences look like. That lets a lot more people pay entry fees, but it doesn't do much for education or teaching what real horsemanship is all about.

Injuries happen below Prelim -- and plenty of them. They are often not as spectacular as the UL wrecks, and the horse rarely gets hurt, because at the lowest levels, the horses rarely fall, but we see a lot of kids/adults get carted off to hospital with breaks, fractures, concussions, etc. I remember being taught 'how to fall', but I don't think a lot of folks learn that anymore.

Insurance and law suits have also reared their ugly heads -- riders who ride stupid and get hurt have the right to sue for their injuries -- and they do, naming the organizers, designers, coaches, TD's, helmet and vest manufacturers, etc. -- everyone who ever walked past them while they were undersaddle it seems like -- because in our current societal climate, SOMEONE HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE and IT IS NEVER THE PERSON AT FAULT. At least, that seems to be the lawyers take on injuries. Perhaps we need to take away the ability to sue if you are injured.

Making the courses easy will in the end encourage riders to move up more quickly, and just let the horses run. We've already got a good crop of young and youngish riders who think they really understand what the sport is about because they've gotten around Prelim courses on talented horses. That is what youth is all about -- we are too soon old and too late smart, as the proverb goes. I know that MY understanding of a fit horse changed drastically the first time I got up on a friend's 4* creature and we went out for her last preparation gallop pre-Badminton. I thought until that moment that I knew how to ride fit, forward and keen horses... after all, my Prelim and Intermediate horses were tbreds, track-specialists, fast and feisty, jumping clear and picking up ribbons. Lord was I uneducated! But until you've been there, you really don't know.

Qualifications to Preliminary and above do need, I think, to be MUCH tougher to get, and just about as hard to keep. I really like the invitation only approach to 3 and 4 star. Mind you, that's more work for someone out there -- organizers already have the right to refuse an entry, but for them to do the research to find out the track record of the competitor is just one thing too much for most secretaries to be asked, and then someone has to make the call. And then that someone is 'responsible' -- and then the lawyers start to lick their lips. After all, if you get invited to a 4* and then you get badly hurt, someone with a law degree is going to argue that you weren't ready to be there and should not have been invited, etc. etc.

so it IS about personal responsibility. And about starting to tell riders NO. That's not popular in today's society, where we try to ensure that kids are never told that word, but are always to be encouraged and supported no matter what, but in fact, there are only a few riders who SHOULD be at upper levels. Just as there are only a few people who should be at upper levels in figure skating, shot put, tiddly winks... The Olympic games are not open to all comers, and even of the great athletes that are accepted, only 3 come home with medals. We had a rider a few years back that fell frequently, at Prelim and 1* -- she managed to break her neck, not just once, but twice, by riding so dreadfully. Everyone was so supportive and encouraging and she is now 'coaching' because she can't compete, although she's walking and is hugely lucky. much luckier than many. But nobody wanted to ever say to her, You are a danger to yourself and to your horse.
At the last even she rode, I walked past her as she went into stadium -- and watched her mare take out three oxers by the roots. I then said to her coach that I was horrified by her riding, and his reply was very laconic. "No, he said, I fixed her at the last competition." Well, I replied, she don't look too fixed to me... and a few minutes later the ambulance went screaming out onto course. Should I have tried to stop her riding? By what authority? As a spectator??? Talking about carding riders is a good plan, but a lot of officials are reluctant to do so. And a lot of officials are dressage riders acting as ground jury, who are not necessarily the best trained to understand how XC rides, so there's education needed everywhere.

So one of the questions has to be do we want everyone to be able to play at the top level of the game? Because if we do, then yes, we'd better start dumbing it down and softening all of it. Or do we want to have a vibrant sport with a large lower base and a narrowing pyramid up to the really superb few.

Denny was already a medalist when I was beginning to event. I thought those team riders were just one step down from the lesser gods. I watched everything they did with their horses, and came home and tried to figure it out. I read everything I could find on the subject of the sport and came home and tried to put it into practice. It was pounded into me by my coach the amount of time needed to be spent on the horses' backs just getting them fit, months and months before we ever got to the first competition. Now we're lucky if we see people at the barn more than 4 days a week, for an hour at a time, because of jobs/school/commuting distance/etc. Problem is, if your schedule doesn't let you do the whole job, then you can't do the sport at the higher standard. that said, the horses will usually let you get away with cutting the corners for quite a while before the wheels come off.

anyway, that's my rant. I'll back up Denny's suggestions.


Lots of really good points here.

[lstevenson]

Hey Denny,
You frequently refer to vertical tables which is a little puzzling to me because they're not supposed to be out there.

How do you define a vertical table? Can somebody post pictures of them?
Glenn



There are TONS of them out there! They may not be totally straight up and down in front, but they are too vertically faced to be really safe to ride at speed (when the horse meets it wrong). IMO fences should be sloped more severely as the jumps move up the levels with each increase in speed required, to allow the horse time to get his front end up in the tight spot. And they are definitely not.

[denny]

That "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS" concept mirrors something several of us were talking about recently, on the topic of why "personal responsibilty" is a great theory, but a lousy reality.
We were driving, and we proposed what would happen if all the drivers on I-89, and if all the people in Vermont, were suddenly to know that there were NO POLICE anywhere, nor would there be any for the next 3 months.
The cautious drivers would probably stay cautious, the average drivers would speed up a little, and the angry/thrill seeking/wild/aggressive/drinking while driving---take your pick---They would FLY!
Very soon I-89 would be a nightmare highway, with accidents all over the place.

In the towns, robberies and acts of violence would rapidly escalate.

Personal responsibility---take not driving after drinking---- works for those who are personally responsible, works a bit for those who are coerced/pressured/shamed into it, but doesn`t work for those who drink and climb in their cars.
And we know there are tons of those people. And we also know they know they aren`t supposed to.

So I can`t buy "personal responsibility" as the magic answer to eventing`s problems.
Great in theory, but that`s about it.

[OwnedbyOliver]

I don't often post on this board, though I frequently read. I'm a middle aged amateur adult, who has now eventing again at the lower levels after years away from the sport for a variety of reasons. (though I have continued to ride and compete regularly in other venues) Like others of you, I watched Denny in awe as a teenager. I actually started riding with Karen Stives back when no one had heard of that name. (though now I'm really dating myself... many of you may not remember who she is!<g>)

I really don't know what the answers to the huge problems in eventing are. But I do know they need to be fixed. And if someone doesn't come up with an answer soon, the eventing community may find themselves in the middle of a battle with outside forces that they don't want to have.

I've heard the term "personal responsibility" bandied about. Denny has rightly pointed out that some people are NOT going to behave responsibly if you give them any wiggle room at all. When those people are endangering their own lives, I suppose you can say it's a case of Darwinism at work. Maybe they need to be removed from the gene pool. But when they are endangering the lives of animals that trust them, I find it absolutely appalling. And I am NOT an "animal activist". Wait till PETA or a group like that picks this up as a cause!

Several breed organizations, notably Saddlebred and Tennessee Walker learned the hard way, that if they were not going to police the humane treatment of their animals, the humane societies were going to do it for them. The Arab people learned from the mistakes in the other breeds and started to police themselves before the axe could fall on them. And in those cases, much that was done to the horses was definitely cruelty, but it rarely caused the death of the animals involved.

Here, our sport seems to have turned into a gladiator sport. Another big event this weekend? Check to see what horse dies at this one. That clearly isn't the intent of anyone IN the sport, but look at how it appears to those OUTSIDE the sport. The thrill of victory or the agony of... death. The news of who WINS each of these events gets lost in the outpouring over those who have been killed or seriously injured.

It makes me sad to see what has happened to this, IMO, most exciting of all horse sports. But the community as a whole better find a way to at LEAST make it safer for the horses, or an outside agency is likely to step in and enforce restrictions that are much harder to swallow for all of us.

Karen

[CoolMeadows]

OwnedByOliver, PETA is already investigating the rash of deaths in eventing. What little "improvements" have been made are too little, too late. Eventing has devolved into an embarassment for all horse sports.

[canterlope]

Denny, that's why I think we need to expand the "definition" of personal responsibility in relation to Eventing. If we include the notion that part of the personal responsibility of everyone who participates in this sport is to keep not only themselves and their horses safe, but also every one else as well, then "personal responsibility" will help.

It really burns me when I hear people say after a rider crashes and burns that they knew it was going to happen because that particular person was an accident waiting to happen. If you knew it was going to happen, why the heck didn't you say something, or, at the very least, alert someone who could do something to help advert the calamity.

[BarbB]

Even if you could count on everyone for 'personal responsibility' you would enter into the shadow area of exactly what that is.

There was a BNT in this area who routinely sent riders out on course that made everyone else close their eyes and pray. I remember in particular a young girl being sent out on her FIRST Novice xc on an unpredictable horse wearing spurs for the first time EVER. He decided at the last minute that she needed them. Needless to say there was a wreck, no one was seriously hurt but the girl's confidence was shattered and it was months before she jumped again.

If anyone had mentioned 'personal responsibility' to this trainer he would have been furious. He constantly told people that the way to learn was to try and learn thru hard knocks. That's how he learned and he made it to the top of the sport(not a US rider). He thought his riders were soft and needed to toughen up and gut it out.

I'm sure he is not alone (although hopefully a dying breed). How do you legislate 'personal resonsibility' to people with this kind of attitude? HE thought he WAS behaving responsibly, he was teaching the way he was taught.

The answer is...you don't. That is not the solution to eventing's problems.

[canterlope]

OwnedByOliver, PETA is already investigating the rash of deaths in eventing. What little "improvements" have been made are too little, too late. Eventing has devolved into an embarassment for all horse sports.Samantha, Eventing has not devolved into an embarrassment for all horse sports. That honor was reserved for the Hunter/Jumpers who killed their horses for insurance money.

[lstevenson]

Samantha, Eventing has not devolved into an embarrassment for all horse sports. That honor was reserved for the Hunter/Jumpers who killed their horses for insurance money.



Just ignore her. She obviously takes great pleasure in trolling. :rolleyes:

[ezmissg]

If so many riders are talking about xc becoming more technical, and they certainly are talking about this, then WHO is creating these technical courses?
Again, those courses didn`t fall out of the sky.
If we can figure out the "who", then we can ask them "why?"

Hence my question about directives from USEF, FEI, etc. If the xc designers are bound, by rules, to create highly technical questions, that`s one thing.

If they are taking it upon themselves to do this, that`s something else.

At these design seminars, are budding xc designers advised NOT to create the kinds of flowing, positive courses that riders seem to miss so much?
I ask as a genuine question, not as a criticism. Because there is a difference between many modern courses, and those from, say, 15-25 years ago. People, individual human beings, made those differences happen.

Were they told to? Did they just think it up?

Denny, that's a really good question. We had a conversation about this at the summit (during course design) when my friend told about her daughter riding a Novice XC that contained a coffin --as part of a combination, nonetheless. She was being coached by a BNT who walked the course with her and sent her to her rider rep. The girl was essentially blown off. The BNT went to the TD, and was blown off as well. CMP commented "If that's happening, it must stop because that's just someone dicking with the rules". Not only did it happen, but when they returned to the same venue a couple of months later, the course had not been changed at all. This topic also applied during the discussion about officials because many people feel that no one is listening to any grievances from the riders.

So, I think the answer is that "they are just thinking it up" and no one has been able to "shoot it down". :no:

[groom]

Denny, that's a really good question. We had a conversation about this at the summit (during course design) when my friend told about her daughter riding a Novice XC that contained a coffin --as part of a combination, nonetheless. She was being coached by a BNT who walked the course with her and sent her to her rider rep. The girl was essentially blown off. The BNT went to the TD, and was blown off as well. CMP commented "If that's happening, it must stop because that's just someone dicking with the rules". Not only did it happen, but when they returned to the same venue a couple of months later, the course had not been changed at all. This topic also applied during the discussion about officials because many people feel that no one is listening to any grievances from the riders.




Why did they choose to return to that venue?

[Gnep]

ezmissg,
Because of that specific reason, I put in for a rule - change concerning rider rep and this rule change included that a short report concerning the exchange between rider rep and GJ must be filed with the USEF or USEA.
My rule change asked for RR at every show, even the BN to P shows and that the RR is a member of the GJ a voluntary official ( no pay ).
Officialy this rule change was turned down, but parts of it, as the Report Form, have been handed over to commitees, were it is now collecting dust, same with having RRs at every show.

The biggest problem is accountability of the current officials and naturaly that they hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them.

I feel strongly that the course designs have to be reviewed, the clustering of extrem technical questions, without let up, the placing of the so called take a breath or let up jumps.
They are far to often just place holders and placed without any considerations how they fit in with the rest of the course.

I think the idea of designers as CMP that the more over technical courses are saver because they tech question slow down the speed is wrong. Yes speed gets taken out during the techs but than it is far higher between the techs, catch up time, it makes the courses more dangerous.
We have had straight faced jumps for ever and did not have the same amount of probs as today. It is not the jump, it is where it is placed and how it stand with in the flow of the course.
Better course design could eliminate half of the crashes.

There is one more problem, which led Reed and me to file for a rule change, it got shot down, that the CD has to be at the show. Most CDs never see how the courses they have designed ride. They can not make changes on the base of that, they are working blind with very litle input from the riding side.

[JAM]

If it was the Horse in Sport video, where I recall him saying the same thing, I also recall him saying that he tried to imagine what would frighten him as a rider, and that's what he built. I also recall (though this is a dimmer memory) him being quoted as saying (in describing what he liked to do when building a course), "scare the pants off them."

I was watching a video yesterday in which Lt. Col. Weldon spoke saying the challenge of Badminton is to create a course in which the best will come out on top, but the less able will not be eliminated or feel like they have wasted their time. It was an older video and did not say the less able will not be killed! I thought that was an interesting way of putting it but of course the video went on and did not tell how they were going to do that!!

[ezmissg]

Why did they choose to return to that venue?

Proximity...relatively speaking ;) At "only" a 7-hour drive, it's one of the closest from where they live and even closer for the BNT, who was going to be there.

Beyond that, the daughter and the horse have each competed higher, but they are a new team, so they dropped back down while they get to know each other. So, it wasn't a problem for THEM, but the mom wanted to prove the point that it's not RIGHT according to the rules; how can we expect young riders to respect the rules if the officials don't? And, how can it be safe when "new riders" don't expect the question and may not have schooled for it?

[Larksmom]

I recently read in COTH, the real paper mag, about an event recently, where a rider was eliminated from the competition [can't remember which one] for bad/reckless riding. Do any of you know anything about this? I couldn't find another word about it, and don't know what happened.
I remember reading that a rider got up after a BAD fall at Rolex, and tried to remount, and was prevented from doing so by jump judge. Rider later found to have a concussion. Have we started red carding? Can we do this? What about litigation? Should riders be encouraged [forced] to sign waivers?

[CoolMeadows]

Samantha, Eventing has not devolved into an embarrassment for all horse sports. That honor was reserved for the Hunter/Jumpers who killed their horses for insurance money.

Diane, bringing up the horrific actions of a small percentage of scum from another discipline that occured over a decade ago does not mean eventing gets a by for the 10 horses it's killed over the past three months. Currently, it's eventing that is the horse killer, not H/J. This mentality has been showing up in many eventing threads - Andrew Hoy's alleged use of spiked boots being one where a poster said it was sad to see this trick "learned from the Jumpers" showing up in eventing. Another poster saying Eventing's rash of deaths is somehow the fault of riders not good enough for the Hunters or Jumpers showing up to try Eventing. The current problems are Eventings and the talking in circles and throwing insults towards other disciplines is ridiculous and counterproductive. My apologies if my views make you think I'm a troll. I'm sick of reading about gruesome deaths and the minimal reactive changes it's caused.

I agree that beefing up the totally inadequate qualification system and bringing back some more traditional courses that encourage good, forward riding and aren't designed to take a horse's heart away (or make it just stop beating altogether) would be a small start. How many more have to die before it finally happens?

[PangurBan]

Denny, I am old enough to remember when every "new" fence on a big course was 'test ridden' -- sometimes by the CD him/herself. Of course,I always wondered about the lucky sod who got the job of riding down to the newest 'creation' just to prove it could be done :)

And, yes, the quote about not being able to protect the clueless from themselves is something to be posted on very wall!

As course design has changed, a huge factor of "cute" has been introduced -- we now have to have themed fences, from the skinny little pottery fence at Athens that tripped so many horses to the carved ducks in water fences, and woven waves at Badminton. (I like the woven waves... they are kind, and inviting, and forgiving... except for the little detail of the humungous drop into water that follows them) I think we are teaching/encouraging the CDs to build courses that have wonderful "eye appeal" for spectators.

It was Frank Weldon, I believe, who insisted that the fences should be rider frighteners, but be inviting to the horse's eye. Now we seem to be building things that are pretty to the spectator's eye, and will make a lovely photograph on the wall, regardless of what they look like to the horse.

Who did this? Well, Denny, I guess we did, collectively and slowly. Everybody wants their course to be the nicest looking, most spectacular, to draw a crowd and be distinctive. ENough already... I can live without the fancy chainsaw carvings quite nicely, if the courses are educating my horses correctly and encouraging good forward riding for my riders.

Maybe we should be insisting that the CD's ride over every fence they create... or at the very least that they have had riding/competitive experience to a high level. Of course, I feel strongly that the TD's should also have been higher level riders. North of the border, they've got TD's who have never staggered around a pre-training course, but they're the ones making the approvals on the courses for Prelim, Intermediate, etc.

Experience still counts for a lot.

And going back to the quote about protecting the clueless, how do we educate riders that just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you can. The higher levels are something that should be hard to attain, and need work, committment and excrutiating attention to detail. One of the quotes talked about 'no more buying high level horses and just going' -- well, keeping in mind that riders have to start somewhere, and packers will continue to pack around the inept (god bless those horses), there is something to be said for recognizing one's current limits.

It's a very very hard balancing act, and one that I doubt will ever be legislated -- after all, you can't legislate common sense, and the only way to get experience is to go out there and do.

And that would go for course design as well.

Has anyone done a correlation study on the courses that have been producing the bad accidents and who were the CD's for those courses? You'd think the FEI would be looking at this, but who knows.

[Jazzy Lady]

PangurBan - Excellent posts. You brought up some very good points.

When the whole red hills thing hit the fan, somebody went through and found where the most accidents were occuring, and at the time it was on CMP's courses. Ocala having a major accident at every event and then Red Hills on top of that... but now more is added. However, when you have such bad riding and poor choices like Bromont and Rolex, can you really put those courses or designers under the microscope?

[canterlope]

The current problems are Eventings and the talking in circles and throwing insults towards other disciplines is ridiculous and counterproductive.So let me get this straight. What you are basically saying is it is perfectly acceptable for you come on this board and throw insults like "Eventing has devolved into an embarrassment for all horse sports" at my main sport, but when I throw one back at yours I'm being ridiculous and counterproductive. Humm..., nope, I'm just not buying what you are shoveling.

If you want eventers to seriously consider what you have to say, calling us all horse killers and the scourges of the equestrian world is not the way to go. The insensitive manner in which you have presented your case on this BB is nothing short of a complete turn-off and makes it difficult to see you as anything more that a troll stirring the pot. Is it no small wonder, then, that some of the valid points you have managed to raise when not ripping us a new one have gotten lost or ignored?

You'd get a lot further by extending a compassionate helping hand up as opposed to continually throwing us under the bus and then kicking us when we're down.

[Twomanydawgs]

If I'm not mistaken..Cool used to be a eventer...she does raise valid points...maybe if some of you would stop and listen before immediately screaming foul, you might actually learn something. Denny is another one who makes alot of really good observations...:yes:

[riderboy]

So let me get this straight. What you are basically saying is it is perfectly acceptable for you come on this board and throw insults like "Eventing has devolved into an embarrassment for all horse sports" at my main sport, but when I throw one back at yours I'm being ridiculous and counterproductive. Humm..., nope, I'm just not buying what you are shoveling.

If you want eventers to seriously consider what you have to say, calling us all horse killers and the scourges of the equestrian world is not the way to go. The insensitive manner in which you have presented your case on this BB is nothing short of a complete turn-off and makes it difficult to see you as anything more that a troll stirring the pot. Is it no small wonder, then, that some of the valid points you have managed to raise when not ripping us a new one have gotten lost or ignored?

You'd get a lot further by extending a compassionate helping hand up as opposed to continually throwing us under the bus and then kicking us when we're down. Well said. CM is a bomb thrower with no discernable higher ambition then to condemn our sport.

[canterlope]

If I'm not mistaken..Cool used to be a eventer...she does raise valid points...maybe if some of you would stop and listen before immediately screaming foul, you might actually learn something. Denny is another one who makes alot of really good observations...:yes:TMD, I know that Cool used to be an eventer. She lives not far from me and used to belong to the local EA that I was and still am a member of as well. I met with her parents when they first moved to the Roanoke area and Cool was still a junior. So I know who she is and what she used to do.

I also conceded that she has made some valid points. But if you will go back and read the majority of her posts on the Eventing forum, they are riddled with scathing, contemptuous remarks that make it difficult to accept she has the best interest of the sport at heart or is attempting to do anything other than kick eventers when they're down. And I don't think putting up with them for this amount of time before finally making comment is anywhere close to immediately screaming foul without listening to what she has to say.

[PangurBan]

might i say, "settle down?" None of the equestrian sports gets a gold star when it comes to lacking poor behaviour... The jumpers have their 'moments' (spiked boots, rapping rails, the list goes on) and have had their injuries (Skelton and Cone both broke their necks in the past several years... there are tons more, but this isn't a shopping list); Dressage has its 'moments', too... (Rollkur springs to mind as just one); Endurance riding (several horses died in Spain, there's more we just don't hear so much about because it's a smaller sport over here and doesn't get a lot of press), Reining usually has its horses washed up and without hocks by the time they're six...
The point is not that any of these disciplines are bad -- the point is that the horses are ALWAYS ridden by people... and people screw up, people get greedy, people make bad life choices. If they didn't, the lawyers would all be out of business and every marriage would last happily ever after.

right now, in this forum, Eventing is in the spotlight, and we are trying to determine where the target is so we can find the fix. It won't be one simple target. And it WILL be up to people to make it better.

There's no question that the numer of accidents and fatalities to both horses and riders has become way beyond anything resembling acceptable. One of the things about this sport is that it involves non-humans -- there is a very low tolerance out there in the wider world for us hurting our equine partners.
That's good. Keep in mind that people get killed in all sorts of sports, from skiing to bungee jumping (although I cannot find any reference to fatalities in table tennis) and one can argue that those accidents, too, are unacceptable, but they are 'solo' injuries limited to the participant who cheerfully signed the entry forms. I can't believe that PETA isn't storming the gates...


It's not all CMP's courses. It's not just about CD. It's about riders, riding badly. It's about courses that are getting fancier to look at but are punishing to ride. It's about more money in the sport, which always brings with it the element that feels that because they paid x amount for a horse, they should get their money's worth. It's about a society that doesn't want to say No to kids, so encourages them to go out there and try stuff they've not fully prepared for -- and in part that's about a society that no longer understands horsemanship.(hard to do, when we've lived with the car for so long... most folks don't even understand the rules of the road :winkgrin:)
It's a whole lot of stuff.

You can't fix bad riding. Bromont, Rolex... all the others. Bad riding will fix itself. Stupidity is its own reward. Sadly, the reward is often a crippling injury or fatality -- for rider and/or horse... and that "fix" is not acceptable risk in this day and age (nor should it be)


You can't fix the kind of thinking that wants to use spiked boots, heel soring, tail nerving (western pleasure), gadgets of all descriptions... You can legislate and institute fines, but you can't control what's going on at home, behind the barn, out of sight.

You CAN fix society, but it's a damn hard slog. and you CAN make it a lot harder to get to the top. Everest is still Everest, and despite how hard it is to climb, people keep on wanting to try. Making something hard doesn't make folks give up on it. In fact, there's something really magical about attaining those heights when they're really hard to attain. Something that isn't there when just anyone can go, provided they've got the resources. (I would add that yes, it is now possible for you, me, or Cousin Joe's dog to go up Everest, for the paltry sum of $80,000 US... of course, having Sherpa's phsyically drag you for most of it, and feeling your brain slowly explode because you weren't physically ready and couldn't properly acclimate, well, that's the price the Mountain won't negotiate on... those folks would be better to stay at Base Camp and get their picture photoshopped onto the summit... deep down inside, they know they didn't Earn the Mountain, as the climbers say.')

Maybe we all -- whatever the discipline -- need to get back to thinking we need to 'earn the mountain'

[LisaB]

I think CoolMeadows has perfected the snark as good as her hunter wiggle butt.
*SIGH*
I think there's a few cd's where I distinctly note in my brain and not enter their events. They are bad designers. Sure, I put in an eval form and made suggestions on how to tweak some of the assinine questions they put forth. But, they continue to get paid and I will not enter. So, the entries are typically lower I found too. Org. are scratching their heads (that they sit on) wondering why low entries while other events have waitlists.
Anyway, yes, rider responsibility is paramount. ALSO, know course design and jump construction! Some folks applaud these designers and these riders really don't know what they are talking about.
When in doubt that it's a crappy course, withdraw! Hospital bills is more expensive than that entry fee.

[Fence2Fence]

You CAN fix society, but it's a damn hard slog. and you CAN make it a lot harder to get to the top. Everest is still Everest, and despite how hard it is to climb, people keep on wanting to try. Making something hard doesn't make folks give up on it. In fact, there's something really magical about attaining those heights when they're really hard to attain. Something that isn't there when just anyone can go, provided they've got the resources. (I would add that yes, it is now possible for you, me, or Cousin Joe's dog to go up Everest, for the paltry sum of $80,000 US... of course, having Sherpa's phsyically drag you for most of it, and feeling your brain slowly explode because you weren't physically ready and couldn't properly acclimate, well, that's the price the Mountain won't negotiate on... those folks would be better to stay at Base Camp and get their picture photoshopped onto the summit... deep down inside, they know they didn't Earn the Mountain, as the climbers say.')

Maybe we all -- whatever the discipline -- need to get back to thinking we need to 'earn the mountain'

I think it was rileyt who suggested that eventer's need to read the book "Into Thin Air" about the catastrophe on Everest about ten years ago. I did read the book, and because PangurBan mentions Everest, I thought I would second the recommendation.

Eventer's need to get over their egos and 'earn the mountain.'

[SmallHerd]

PangurBan,

All I can say is WOW. That was an excellent post and I totally agree.

[Legatus]

I think it was rileyt who suggested that eventer's need to read the book "Into Thin Air" about the catastrophe on Everest about ten years ago. I did read the book, and because PangurBan mentions Everest, I thought I would second the recommendation.

Eventer's need to get over their egos and 'earn the mountain.'

I read Into Thin Air while recovering from my minor "amputation" in Afghanistan, and I third the recommendation.

I have long been interested in mountain climbing as a sport. I instantly saw the parallels between the two sports and have since thought that Ed Viesturs would make a great keynote speaker at some USEA function. Having tried three unsuccessful trips up Annapurna, before finally making it--he understands that somedays you just need to call it quits. His track record indicate that his safety-minded approach to climbing has not hindered him in his pursuit (more Everest summits than any other non-Sherpa, climbed the 14 highest mountains in the world without supplimental oxygen, etc).

Anyway, I see a lot of comparisons between the sports and think cross talk may be good for both.

[Sightunseen]

I think it is going to be hard to "fix the sport". Until it is no longer possible to buy a horse to just take you around people are going to be riding over there heads. And I am not talking about everyone, or even everyone that buys a made horse, but I have seen many a rider who I was like OMG, they are going to die! and that is not something that someone should be thinking. I think another problem that we have is people pushing horses to do more then what they *should* be doing just because the horse is willing.

[Jumphigh83]

Cooly doesn't have to throw 'bombs' at eventing...the rest of the free world will see that for themselves. She is one of the few brave enough to stand up and say "this is broken...fix it" I would say that is doing something to insure the future of eventing. Instead of putting your defenses up and screaming at her you might want to take what she says to heart and make some changes before they are made for you. You cant keep killing horses and expect outsiders to look favorably on your sport.

[Ghazzu]

Cooly doesn't have to throw 'bombs' at eventing...the rest of the free world will see that for themselves. She is one of the few brave enough to stand up and say "this is broken...fix it" .

Oh, please.
There are *scores* of posts on this forum *alone* saying that things need fixing.
She is certainly no voice in the wilderness.

[canterlope]

Oh, please.
There are *scores* of posts on this forum *alone* saying that things need fixing.
She is certainly no voice in the wilderness.Exactly!

I get the impression that Samantha and others like her think that the committee members of the USEA and USEF who are dealing with Eventing's current issues have their heads either stuck in the sand or up their, um, well, you know, and are oblivious to these issues. This is so not the case. They all know that something needs to be done and welcome useful help when it is offered. But they certainly don't need the kind of "help" Samantha continues to offer on this board.

I also get the impression that these same people think the USEF and USEA aren't addressing the issues in a timely manner and that the committee members are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs ignoring the fact that something needs to be done as quickly as possible. Short of shutting the entire sport down or passing rules in a knee-jerk fashion, it takes time to determine a course of action that will address the issues without introducing unintended consequences detrimental to the sport. And, there are a lot of people putting in a lot of time and energy right now to come up with solutions in the quickest possible time frame. It certainly doesn't help their cause to receive constant criticism from people who think they have all of the answers, but haven't stopped to consider whether or not those answers will solve problems without creating new ones.

It will always take more time to act in a quick and smart manner than it will to act in a quick manner alone. Given the complexity of the issues Eventing is facing, I would think anyone who will be affected by decisions made would prefer quick and smart rather than just quick. But if this is not the case, just let the committee members know that all you want is action with no thought so they can pass a lot of knee-jerk rules. This may or may not solve the problems, but at least it will get done it a very short time frame which appears to be the only gauge some people are using to determine the appropriateness of the committee members' actions. Just don't call them horse killers or the embarrassment of the entire horse world when you make your request, though. That may slow the process down by a few seconds.

[denny]

But Canterlope!? Those big, wide, totally or nearly vertical tables, or tables in disguise???
Does someone have to Albert Einstein with advanced degrees in physics of motion and velocity to KNOW they are bad news?

Really, why didn`t the Safety Summit just declare a moritorium on them? Tell the organizers, TDs, etc, "If there is one, put a big row of haybales in front of the damn thing, until you have the time/money to replace it."

I know you guys are trying, but of all things, THAT, and lower speeds are INSTANTLY doable.

Why wait?

I am not being snarky, just frustrated by inaction.

[Hannahsmom]

Denny, what is stopping the Organizers, TDs, CDs from doing what you suggest without an official rule? It sounds like there is enough noise now that if the Rider Rep or the TD or organizer said 'do it' and it was ignored or overriden, that that could be elevated pretty quickly.

The event I rode at recently had people saying "well, here's a roll top, another roll top, a coop, and yet another roll top" and I turned to the person and said would you prefer "here's a vertical table, another table disqused as something else, another table, a yank and turn to another vertical table, etc"? And it was the most galloping, flowing course I've ridden in a LONG time. And this course had NOT been that way in the past. I do think things can be done immediately, but it will take riders, the organizers, etc. to enforce it instead of a 'rule' for now.

[denny]

Hannahsmom, the problem isn`t the careful, thoughtful, knowledgeable officials/TDs/organizers, is it?

They will have seen and anticipated the problem, and already changed it.

But, yes, it can be changed locally, but only if the right people agree.

Don`t get me going on some certain white tables that have been getting riders for years, but won`t seem to go away!

[Vuma]

(Sorry if you're seeing this post for the second time. I originally posted this on the "What does technical mean to you" post last night, but in light of the two post above re: tables from Denny, (thank you Denny!) maybe I should have posted it here instead. It answers both of my own question of "what is too technical on courses today" and what can be made "easy for the rest" to reduce rider/horse injuries/deaths as described in this post.)

I feel “technical” can be summed up quite simply…

As Denny wrote on the “A question nobody wants to answer” thread….

“NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level.”

One painfully obvious point I feel is being overlooked regarding “technicality” which ultimately HAS been affecting both horse and rider safety is max spread tables. The stats published earlier this year show staggering rider deaths at tables resulting in nine of eleven rider deaths over an eighteen month period worldwide. (Was it by CMP in PH Jan. or Feb.? Can only remember the numbers published because they were so shocking. Sorry I don’t have a reference and if my memory is failing me someone please speak up.)

If nine rider deaths have happened in the past eighteen+ months over this very type of fence, why not eliminate this type of fence? This is technicality at its best! More importantly, how many horses have died at this type of fence in the same time period? Two that I know of recently, but how sad that I can’t find those stats. We accept this risk; our horses do not.

Forget combinations on bending lines to drops into water over painted ducks, etc, etc, ect. Tables have PROVEN to be a safety menace and leave MINIMAL room for error. Even on a rider's best day and a horse's best day mistakes are made by “both”. Quiet obviously, as the ICP Show Jumping Symposium article from Eventing USA Magazine clearly shows, a horse's average take off distance and landing distance is closer to the jump face over a spread fence. (Reference Volume 37, page 52 - "Take-off and Landing Distances from a Vertical, an Oxer, and a Triple Bar") When the element of a vertical solid face of a table at maximum spread is included in this equation “with” cross country speeds, the margin for error is simply too narrow. Add a ditch/ground line at a 30-35 degree (?) angle to the jump face and you have the Footbridge at Rolex; a dangerously unnecessary fence which “assisted” in the death of The Quiet Man. Add another example, as Denny noted, of tables which “include picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile” and you get Frodo Baggins…gone forever. Now we all know that these jumps were ridden proficiently by other riders on course that day. (You see where I’m going with that.) BUT, if these fences weren’t so “technical” might these horses still be with us today?

It wasn’t the technicality of impulsion needed or the related distances of the sunken road…

it wasn’t the technicality of the hidden bounce (or was it a 1-stride?) or hidden water from the brush into water…..

it was the technicality of the tables that helped to make this year’s Rolex one we might all like to forget.

[canterlope]

But Canterlope!? Those big, wide, totally or nearly vertical tables, or tables in disguise???
Does someone have to Albert Einstein with advanced degrees in physics of motion and velocity to KNOW they are bad news?

Really, why didn`t the Safety Summit just declare a moritorium on them? Tell the organizers, TDs, etc, "If there is one, put a big row of haybales in front of the damn thing, until you have the time/money to replace it."

I know you guys are trying, but of all things, THAT, and lower speeds are INSTANTLY doable.

Why wait?

I am not being snarky, just frustrated by inaction.Denny, here is an issue I'm facing right now that sort of talks to your concern.

In a few weeks I will be the TD at an event. Because I've TDed there in the past, I know they have one of those tables like you are talking about on the Preliminary course. It is already at the maximum base width allowed for the level, so I can't throw a bunch of hay bales in front of it to soften its face.

The table is a permanent obstacle as well, so merely pulling it off the course and replacing it with a different jump is not an option. Removing it from the course and having riders go around it is a risky proposition. The track where the jump is located is extremely narrow, there is usually corn planted and growing right up to the edge of the track, and the footing in the corn fields is never good. Either the riders would manage to squeeze through the opening between the jump and the corn field by the skin of their teeth, hang a knee or worse on the jump if they're too far to the left, or risk pulling a tendon or suspensory if they're too far to the right and get bogged down in the bad footing. Even if the riders manage to squeeze through unharmed, the flow of their runs will be disrupted and they will have very little time to get back into the swing of things because the next jump is a very short distance away and is also permanent so it can't be moved to give the riders more prep time.

I could ask that the entire loop where the table is located be removed, but the facility has very limited space and there is no room to lay an alternate track. The course would then be well below the minimum distance and number of obstacles allowed for the level.

I could also ask that the jump be ripped out completely and another built in its place, but the event runs on a tight budget and it is doubtful that it has the funds to cover the replacement costs. And if the jump could be replaced, chances are the footing around it would not be settled enough to safely jump out of it by the time the event is scheduled to run.

So what's the appropriate course of action to take in this situation? I haven't yet figured this out, but will definitely be consulting with the organizer, designer, and PGJ to find an acceptable solution. And because the Safety Summit did not declared a moratorium on this type of jump, we will have the flexibility to figure what is ideal for this particular situation instead of having to impose a blanket ruling that may or may not create more problems than it resolves.

[Hannahsmom]

Denny, here is an issue I'm facing right now that sort of talks to your concern.

I could also ask that the jump be ripped out completely and another built in its place, but the event runs on a tight budget and it is doubtful that it has the funds to cover the replacement costs. And if the jump could be replaced, chances are the footing around it would not be settled enough to safely jump out of it by the time the event is scheduled to run.

I'm not Denny but can I make a suggestion? Rip the jump out, don't place a jump there this year. If it is in fenceline, replace with a gate after the event. Would that work with the budget? Yes, it's one less jump but surely the XC would still be challenging.

[gooddirt]

Modify the jumps to round off the front. I've done that to several of my jumps. It takes much less time and material than building a new jump.

[imapepper]

Modify the jumps to round off the front. I've done that to several of my jumps. It takes much less time and material than building a new jump.

I was thinking along the same lines but since I am not very handy I am not sure how difficult of a project this might be. Couldn't it just be made into a bench or something similar?

[Twomanydawgs]

Well said Denny..those are two things they CAN do something about right now...and some posters wonder why people are getting frustrated and asking WHY are they not doing something???????????

[flyingchange]

I'm not Denny but can I make a suggestion? Rip the jump out, don't place a jump there this year. If it is in fenceline, replace with a gate after the event. Would that work with the budget? Yes, it's one less jump but surely the XC would still be challenging.

I second this. You could even have a table-demolition party and invite competitors to come and drink beer while the table "gets his" from a tractor. Participants could take turns wielding crowbars with it. Sort of reminiscent of the printer-demolition party in the movie "Office Space." Could be lots of fun and, in fact, therapuetic for many people.

[Janet]

I'm not Denny but can I make a suggestion? Rip the jump out, don't place a jump there this year. If it is in fenceline, replace with a gate after the event. Would that work with the budget? Yes, it's one less jump but surely the XC would still be challenging.
The place where a PERMANENT table has just been removed is not a place I would want to gallop over. And it sounds as if going "around" is not an option.

[sm]

Really, why didn`t the Safety Summit just declare a moritorium on them? Tell the organizers, TDs, etc, "If there is one, put a big row of haybales in front of the damn thing, until you have the time/money to replace it."

I know you guys are trying, but of all things, THAT, and lower speeds are INSTANTLY doable.

Why wait?

That's what puzzled me about the COTH write-up of the safety convention. "Eventing Looks Inward At USEF/USEA Safety Summit" read to me like the problem is somewhere out there and everything including CD is correct that's been done to date. Here's a quote that illustrates my point, this theme seemed to run throughout the convention:

"As it turned out, the ideas discussed revolved not around changing the sport but becoming better participants. In the end, the focus was primarily on rider responsibility and education and enacting sensible safeguards to save those without enough of either from themselves."

Ideas proposed to fix things include stuff like institute a licensing system, improve post-incident forms to collect more useful information, require that riders carry catastrophic health insurance, have 500 instructors certified through USEA’s ICP program within two years, offer guidelines on rider fitness...


Just checking in to all threads here and seeing if anyone had the same WTF reaction as I did.

[lstevenson]

What exactly was said about tables at the summit?

[sm]

thank you for bringing up the same point much more concisely. I couldn't find anything at all in the article.

[DuffyAgain]

Tear the freaking table down. If you can't replace with some other SAFE jump in time and the footing is suspect, make it so that they have to TROT through there - or freaking whatever. Aren't there other trappy areas on XC courses that must be negotiated safely? I know it's not the same thing, but I've ridden some three phase events. One of them had a boggy area. Most galloped through. I trotted. We ALL survived.

[Saskatoonian]

So Canterlope, sounds like this table's been in place for awhile. Do you know what problems it's caused? Thanks.

[denny]

Too many people have jumped on "rider responsibility" as the great panacea.
Which it IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE.

Why? Because the responsible people will exercise it, and the irresponsible people will not.

It`s an idea like Communism, great in theory, no good in actuality.

There is a whole contingent of eventers who want safety, but don`t want to change any fundamentals of the sport. Well, guess what? You can`t have both.

Which is precisely why this is the question nobody seems willing to answer-----Should it be a bit too easy for Phillip Dutton, et al,(the best) or too hard for Joe Blow (the least)?

If it`s the first answer, the best don`t like it.

If it`s the second answer, the least get hurt, or they hurt their horses.

So pick one.

[Fence2Fence]

What exactly was said about tables at the summit?

From what I remember, there was a consensus that there wasn't just one type of jump causing the problems... and a lot more solid data was needed.

[petit fromage]

Seems too many of us want this safety "question" to be an ESSAY question, not MULTIPLE CHOICE even when the choices are obvious.

I question the effectiveness of the safety summit outcome. For instance, fall of rider equals elimination. How sensible. BUT, how many of the high-profile accidents would have been prevented by that rule change? None, you say? Well??? Problem not solved?

[Brandy76]

Change the courses back. No ducks, no cheese, etc. No multiple questions that break horses' hearts.

We've always known our event horses are brave - I'm sure we all agree that bravery is now NOT defined by jumping a duck, then a quick turn to this, or that, etc.

Why, exactly, do they need to be technical? Isn't that what showjumping is for? Yes, maybe a technical question here or there - as in one or two on xc.

What difference does it make- other than causing the current catastrophe? It is possible to make the courses demanding without being lethal. I mean, why did all these technical questions even start appearing? Were the courses too easy? Too many ties after xc? No. Just. Because.?!

Denny is right.

The dangerous riding part is tough to police, but at least we can start with the courses.

Technical + complicated+ related tricky distance+ light to dark+ terrain+ speed + SOLID all at once fences, or all the fences= the end of our sport.

[LisaB]

To be a total PITA, Canterlope, why would you have corn field and bad footing so close to a jump, especially prelim? If a horse were to say, be a retard, and total freak and run out, it would hit nasty corn field?
If I saw that on course, I would wd and not enter again.
And that's what I'm saying Denny. If it's a bad course designer, call them out on your eval and don't enter. Unfortunate, but that's what we've got to do. Until the org. gets a new designer or designer gets a kick in the pants, what else can we do other than not enter and kvetch about it?
I mean that's what I do. I've got a wonderful venue right at my doorstep. I haven't entered in that event in 2 years because they don't have a good course design. It irks me to no end to have to do that because I do want to support the event but not at the expense of me and my horse.

[Atigirl]

I agree with eliminating the vertical face tables and changing the times. But I also think that horses/riders need to requalify for falls/refusals at the prelim and above levels. That would have prevented a few of the recent disasters

[fooler]

In response to canterlope's issue:

I officiated at an event where we were facing extreme heat. I suggested reducing speeds on Prelim & Trg as well as possibly removing one loop to shorten the course. After discussing with the PGJ, we left the speeds & track alone - why?

Competitors were there for a qualifying run and changes to speeds or number of obstacles would make their qualification questionable. No big deal unless you were one of the affected competitors.

Just to let you know most officials are looking at all angles.

Canterlope - is it possible to remove the fence & replace with portable (borrowed if necessary) or use hay rounds/bales at an appropriate height+width? Buys time for this event & allows organizer time to replace w/ proper fence. Good luck

[CoolMeadows]

I think CoolMeadows has perfected the snark as good as her hunter wiggle butt.
*SIGH*
I think there's a few cd's where I distinctly note in my brain and not enter their events. They are bad designers. Sure, I put in an eval form and made suggestions on how to tweak some of the assinine questions they put forth. But, they continue to get paid and I will not enter. So, the entries are typically lower I found too. Org. are scratching their heads (that they sit on) wondering why low entries while other events have waitlists.
Anyway, yes, rider responsibility is paramount. ALSO, know course design and jump construction! Some folks applaud these designers and these riders really don't know what they are talking about.
When in doubt that it's a crappy course, withdraw! Hospital bills is more expensive than that entry fee.

Lisa, I have never been a hunter rider. Since it's come down to personal insults, I do stand off green horse's backs. As they develop, I begin to sit. It works better for me than hamfistedly grinding into a sore backed, sore hocked horse who has been jammed into a "frame" rather than allowed to freely and gradually develop and then condemning an entire breed for soundness/mental issues. YMMV

Eventing is currently an embarassment to those of us involved in horse sports. Sorry for not sugarcoating but that IS what it is. Yes, other disciplines have had their ugly days but right now it's eventings turn and it keeps on going. UL eventing IS killing horses (10 in 3 months since March 15 '08). So there have been some modifications to rules and noise about rider responsibility, but as has been pointed out, policing rider responsibility will be difficult to enforce and invites an extremely high level of liability to volunteers and organizations. The type of people who most need policing due to a lack of common sense are generally the same type who will look to sue because they were "allowed" to ride at a certain level, or "allowed" to continue and consequently killed Pookums or seriously injured themselves. Putting more stress on an official's subjective opinion could lead to catestrophic legal issues in the future. Stringent qualifications would help weeding out those who don't belong and doing something concrete like removing the vertical faces and addressing speed would be a (relatively) easy start to addressing safety on course. Practical, common sense ideas that would at the least show the level of deep concern that I'm sure all feel; why is it is such a struggle to impliment them? Come on eventing, quit waving the red cloth at PETA.

[Jumphigh83]

^5 Cooly! Well said. I have always found that when they cant reinforce their argument, they resort to raising their voices. (Esp with personal attacks) You make excellent points and the eventing community would be well served to heed the message before the "animal rights" groups do it for them....all this is very distressing...I never counted but 10! Wow. That is just too many!

[pwynnnorman]

Aw, come on, Betsy, Samantha (It is Samantha, isn't it?): I feel your arguments and concerns leave out hugely positive aspects of the sport simply because you haven't been all that involved in it. I think that is one of the real challenges the sport faces: explaining itself to the uninitiated in such a way that what is admired about the sport can be appreciated by more outsiders. IMO, if you admire at least certain aspects of the sport, you'll be more tolerant of the issues it faces and the complicated, time-consuming process it is going to take to resolve them.

[flea]

What is with the "they"? I assumed yall were eventers and joining in the discussion to honestly try to help guide toward solutions. However, that last post using "they" sounds like that is not the case. It sounds like a line drawn in the sand and everyone choosing up sides. Insults have been thrown on both sides, choosing better wording on both sides would help keep the discussion on track everyone!

[pwynnnorman]

Speaking of animal rights groups...

Geez, I sure hope if someone happens to recognize the kind of videotaping some of those groups do occurring at an event, that person gets someone else to video alongside--or at least take related pictures. There have been a few cases where videos have been cut in such a way that the context of what was viewed was no longer apparent, creating an entirely different-seeming situation.

Would that animal rights groups could be invited into eventers barns to see for themselves how coddled many/most horses (especially UL ones) are.

[Janet]

What is with the "they"? I assumed yall were eventers and joining in the discussion to honestly try to help guide toward solutions. However, that last post using "they" sounds like that is not the case. It sounds like a line drawn in the sand and everyone choosing up sides. Insults have been thrown on both sides, choosing better wording on both sides would help keep the discussion on track everyone! Betsy/Jumpinghigh83 is a jumper.

[magnolia73]

I think people are working diligently towards solutions. Part of the problem is defining the problem- I believe Denny's question illustrates the puzzle. We make it easier, we encourage dangerous riding, we make it harder, we still have egos who will get in over their heads. It sounds like there are some jump redesigns needed and they are making the pins available to events.

The less simple fixes will take time and logistics. For something subjective that sets "license" standards it will take time to develop standards, measurements and committees. It sounds like anecdotally that officials are doing all they can do to enforce safety.

It is easy to get all frothy and judgey about eventing, but there are some good eggs and some bad eggs. My trainer is so conservative and takes things so slow- she is the opposite of Yahoo. And there are some bad eggs- and in every discipline they do horses wrong- some of the deaths just aren't immediate and public.

This is not a situation being ignored- it is simply a challenging matter. If you look at the deaths- perhaps 3-4 were riders being reckless, a couple were a simple slip on a turn or bad luck over a jump and several were due to the internal workings of a horse. You have some different dynamics at work and one solution will not fix all.

[subk]

Stringent qualifications would help weeding out those who don't belong and doing something concrete like removing the vertical faces and addressing speed would be a (relatively) easy start to addressing safety on course.
I realize you like to beat the same drum over and over and that is certainly your prerogative, but you would get a lot more respect around here if you would at least recognize that already much has been initiated in terms of rule changes, rider awareness, policy change and the initiation of multiple scientific studies. Suggesting where we should START when addressing these issues when our sport is already well past the start flags on the issue is insulting to us and exposes your ignorance as to just what has already been put in motion.

[PangurBan]

Too many people have jumped on "rider responsibility" as the great panacea.
Which it IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE.

Why? Because the responsible people will exercise it, and the irresponsible people will not.

It`s an idea like Communism, great in theory, no good in actuality.

There is a whole contingent of eventers who want safety, but don`t want to change any fundamentals of the sport. Well, guess what? You can`t have both.

Which is precisely why this is the question nobody seems willing to answer-----Should it be a bit too easy for Phillip Dutton, et al,(the best) or too hard for Joe Blow (the least)?

If it`s the first answer, the best don`t like it.

If it`s the second answer, the least get hurt, or they hurt their horses.

So pick one

Denny, there's a Plan C. Like Goldilocks, where the porridge (course) is too hot/hard; or too cold/easy... or just right.
But before we get there, we have to salvage the sport we've got -- so yes, for now since we can't rely on rider's being responsible (some will, some won't, and some will think they are when they aren't) or horses being prepared, I think we need to soften the fences.

Just my opinion, but I'm guessing that a horse or rider fatality in Beijing will not go down well with IOC, or with China's huge publicity machine.

Get rid of the damn vertical tables. Do you remember when we jumped over hay feeders, nightmarish things with false ground-lines? And we flipped enough horses that the powers that be decided it would be better all round if we changed the outline of the fence, and you don't see them anymore.

Then we filled in corners, so that horses drifting didn't do the cartwheel over the back of them (at least at a lot of levels, we filled in corners)

Canterlope, the chainsaw is your friend. Embrace it. Cut off the back section of the table, so it is no longer at maximum width, and slope up the front of it. There's ways to make fences smaller/narrower/whatever and people who can help you do just that. Maybe stick a couple of potted trees at the back edge, so the horse's eye gets drawn up and out over the width while you're at it... just a suggestion, which doesn't stand for much without actually seeing the fence on the ground.

But Denny, if you insist that the choice is black or white, chocolate or vanilla, no other option, you are changing the sport in ways that won't be evident for a few more years, and we might not like the result. That said, we have to do SOMETHING... and if softening the courses and leaving the horses/riders alive is the only short term fix, then that's where we have to go right now.

I kind of feel this is like putting a harsh bit on a horse who's pulling -- it is a fix that may work in the short term, but it isn't really going to solve any of your problems...

[indigoecho]

If you look at the deaths- perhaps 3-4 were riders being reckless, a couple were a simple slip on a turn or bad luck over a jump and several were due to the internal workings of a horse. You have some different dynamics at work and one solution will not fix all.

I do agree with this, but it does trouble me that every single one of these deaths came during cross country. The reason I say this is because one of the excuses people like to throw out is that some of these things could happen anywhere (arterial ruptures, internal bleeds, slipping and falling). I think that is very true, but somehow UL cross country courses are bringing bad luck situations to tragic ends. I don't think we can chalk it up to coincidence anymore. When was the last time a horse dropped dead from an internal bleed or a fall during a GP dressage test or Grand Prix jumping round? I am sure it has happened and will happen again sometime in the future, but it doesn't happen with the regularity that it does in eventing. I guess this is why I have to agree with Denny that personal responsibility and stiffer qualification is only going to go so far. I think that right now there is too little room for error (or bad luck) and they need to change the courses. I also liked someone's suggestion that they do a speed phase and an endurance phase, and adjust the jumps accordingly. That is a good idea.

[Vuma]

[B]
I kind of feel this is like putting a harsh bit on a horse who's pulling -- it is a fix that may work in the short term, but it isn't really going to solve any of your problems...

I agree with what you say, but our problem is immediate. The "unprepared" horse is already running away in this case, the cliff is on the horizon and we are in need of a very harsh bit.

I never thought I would suggest making xc "easy for the rest", but we're behind the ball here. What other "immediately effective" options do we have?

[silver2]

When you talk about responsibility you have to look at what people see as their responsibility. Like it or not, the responsibility or most trainers and coaches is to make their business profitable and to facilitate their clients goals. The responsibility of most upper level riders is to their sponsors or owners. Some lucky riders are essentially their own owners but most are not.

So we have the responsibility of the governing organisation. Is their responiblity to provide the leigon of amateur and junior riders with a fun experience at what is a hobby for them or is to to build a competitive international team? I think we are already seeing a natural split developing there, right around Prelim where many facilities, coaches and officals concentrate on the lower level amateur, hobby end of things. At the higher end the goal is obstensibly to field a competitive national team. But what are the tools? We no longer have a hand picked team that is selected and nurtured along and instead we are using what amounts to a "last man standing" approach. Now everyone obstensibly has a chance of qualifying which is THE express ticket to a professional career, and no one has ANY incentive to stand down. In fact most people have a disincentive as they have gambled the house on making it in a given timeframe. You may as well go for broke. It inevitably leads to the situation you have today.

If you want people to make good decision you need to provide them with incentive. Punitive incentives will have less utility than positive ones, always. If you gave everyone who made it around with no jumping faults and within 1 minute of the optimum time their entry fees back I bet the crazy riding would decrease dramatically ;)

Think of how dumb the average person can be and then remember that, at any given time, half of us are dumber.

[denny]

I am an experimenter. Rather than do nothing, as weekend after weekend brings a new disaster, I think we should think about what MIGHT help, and try it.
So:
1.TRY no more tables, obvious horse flippers when we riders miss big time.
2.TRY slowing down about 20 mpm at prel and up, especially if
a. xc is technical, not "flowing"
b. Footing is bad, say from rain
c. It`s very hilly, and time is really hard to get, encouraging the yahoos, of whom I am sometimes one!
d.other
3.Tougher qualifications of the PAIR---Instead of "x" number of clear goes at the next lower level, make it "y".
4.Follow endurance`s lead. Let any horse death trigger an immediate inquirey, where BLAME CAN BE ASSIGNED, and punishment follow. No more "Poor baby, you lost your best friend", if the rider`s actions caused that death.
5.Ramp up the Rider Rep program to every event, every level
6.Instruct all TDs to be on the lookout for tricky/trappy situations that can trick/confuse a horse. Esp those with ill defined groundlines.
7.Institute a "You just lost your riding license at this level" program for "conspicuous failure" at a given level.
Make rider reapply at next lower level.

I don`t think any of these are Draconian measures. We could start NOW.
We could see if accidents lessen in frequency.
If not, try some other things.
Why wait?

Over time, this sport will either find its way or it won`t. Let`s try to buy some time.

[PangurBan]

Denny, that's the kind of time I'd be more than willing to help buy.

I think those are all excellent and immediate 'fixes' that could be tried. I agree, none of them are draconian.

the only one that would be a little tricky to start up tomorrow would be the rider license for a level, which would require a little work and housekeeping at the administrative level, but heck, that is what administrators are for.

I say, go with it!

[gooddirt]

If you want people to make good decision you need to provide them with incentive. Punitive incentives will have less utility than positive ones, always.

Really? I think shaming people who act badly is pretty effective.

[canterlope]

So Canterlope, sounds like this table's been in place for awhile. Do you know what problems it's caused? Thanks.It has been in place for quite a while. The three times I've officiated at this event, the jump has caused one refusal. No falls, no eliminations, just one refusal. I believe the success rate at this fence has much to do with its placement on the course. It follows closely after a technical combination that requires both the horse and rider to really focus and balance. They carry this focus and balance over to the table and tend to jump it very well as a result.

Removing the fence completely without replacing it is not an option because the course is already at the lowest number of obstacles allowed for the level. And Lisa, it is located where it is because, as I said before, the facility has very limited space and they have done the best they can with what little room they have.

Removing fences, cutting out loops, and/or making other changes to courses is often seen as a quick and easy way to address issues like this, but making alterations to already established courses is definitely a double edged sword. While they don't always get it right, our course designers do a pretty darn good job of "reading" the facilities and optimizing the overall design of their courses. Coming in at the last minute and making changes to their design can lead to other problems that are not apparent until the competitors get out on the course.

I will be the first to admit that I am very cautious when it comes to altering cross country courses because I've been badly burned twice by doing so. The first was on a course that was at the upper end of the length allowed. The riders felt that it was too long given the time of year and asked that a loop be cut off. The loop in question circled around a steep hill which allowed the track to stay fairly flat terrain wise with a gentle curve around to the next part of the course. Cutting off the loop meant that riders would have to make a sharp turn after jumping the last fence before the loop, run straight up and back down the hill, and then make another sharp turn to get back onto the original track.

I didn't want to make the change, my PGJ didn't want to make the change, but the riders were adamant that the change be made. We ended up making the change after the rider reps told us that the majority of the competitors were saying they would withdraw if the loop wasn't removed. It proved to be a bad decision because three horses ended up slipping and falling trying to make the turn before the hill, two more fell trying to make the turn after the hill, and most of the horses who finished the course were blowing harder than normal because they lost their wind running up the hill and never had the chance on the rest of the course to get it back.

The second was on a course that included a bounce out of the water. The first element was a small log on top of a small back at the water's edge and the second was a medium sized roll top. It was located near the end of the course heading straight back to the barns. The course designer knew that the horses tended to pull a bit through that part of the course and jump big out of the water because they thought they were heading back to their buddies in the stabling area. Taking this into account, he set the the two elements near the upper end of the accepted distance range for a bounce.

I thought it was fine the way it was, my PGJ agreed, but, again, the riders complained it was too long. At their insistence, we ended up pulling the second element in two feet. Those two feet proved to be critical because the bounce rode horribly without them. Just as the course designer had predicted, the horses pulled and jumped big out of the water. This caused them to land way too close to the second element. One horse chested it and flipped (thankfully was unhurt), several riders fell when their horses stopped because they just didn't have enough room to get their front legs up, and several more were eliminated due to three refusals. I would estimate that 90% of the competitors either had penalties or rode very badly through the bounce and we all breathed a big sign of relief when cross country finished up with no major catastrophes at that question.

In the end, while broad sweeping moratoriums may appear to be the answer at first glance, I think we need to examine the issues on a case by case basis. There are just too many unique factors that come into play and it is impossible to address them all with a "one size fits all" approach.

BTW, Denny, I believe I know the specific jumps you referred to in a previous post. Are they big, white, extremely vertical, build to maximum specs, and have caused more problems than just about any other jumps out there? If so, I absolutely hate them. The last time I officiated at the venue where they're located, thankfully they were not being used. But I told the organizer I would remove them if I officiated there again and the course designer included them on the course.

[pdiddy]

What are the requirements to become a TD? Just curious.

[LisaB]

Yup, Canterlope, totally understand.
At Loudon, training level, there's this silly little log at the bottom of a hill, 3rd fence in. On the landing side, there was gravel and a little drop then you had to turn right to go through the stream crossing. Sounds darned simple, eh?
Well, it was. The problem is the riders didn't know how to answer the question. If you went at it straight, all the horse saw was the back of the prelim chevron on the landing side. Couple that with a downhill approach, and there were a lot of refusals. So most riders picked on their horses down the hill, the horse was inverted and not happy and then they went straight and the horses basically said, 'f- that!'.
All you had to do was head down the hill early and bend from left to right and it was the easiest jump on course.
By the time the jr. divisions went, the parents and riders were in such an uproar, the td acquiesced and withdrew the fence.
I thought that was stupid. If the rider can't see the question, then ask someone. Ask the td or a pro.
Okay, so there were mistakes made on course. Is there somewhere in the report where you can quantify this? Like jump #9 caused 4 refusals, 2 falls. It was such and such question with x strides set at x feet. Originally, jump was set at x feet.
Make a learning experience and then use those statistics to counter rider reps concerns?

[Jumphigh83]

I am an experimenter. Rather than do nothing, as weekend after weekend brings a new disaster, I think we should think about what MIGHT help, and try it.
So:
1.TRY no more tables, obvious horse flippers when we riders miss big time.
2.TRY slowing down about 20 mpm at prel and up, especially if
a. xc is technical, not "flowing"
b. Footing is bad, say from rain
c. It`s very hilly, and time is really hard to get, encouraging the yahoos, of whom I am sometimes one!
d.other
3.Tougher qualifications of the PAIR---Instead of "x" number of clear goes at the next lower level, make it "y".
4.Follow endurance`s lead. Let any horse death trigger an immediate inquirey, where BLAME CAN BE ASSIGNED, and punishment follow. No more "Poor baby, you lost your best friend", if the rider`s actions caused that death.
5.Ramp up the Rider Rep program to every event, every level
6.Instruct all TDs to be on the lookout for tricky/trappy situations that can trick/confuse a horse. Esp those with ill defined groundlines.
7.Institute a "You just lost your riding license at this level" program for "conspicuous failure" at a given level.
Make rider reapply at next lower level.

I don`t think any of these are Draconian measures. We could start NOW.
We could see if accidents lessen in frequency.
If not, try some other things.
Why wait?

Over time, this sport will either find its way or it won`t. Let`s try to buy some time.

OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE VOICE OF EVENTING!
Thank you Denny for having the stones to actually take a pro active stance and risk the vitriol here. Good for you! I have had MANY great horses that came from event backgrounds. I love event horses. By speaking up for them I am somehow wrong, uninformed and unfit to have a comment. I stand four square behind the proposals put forth here.

[Vuma]

I am an experimenter. Rather than do nothing, as weekend after weekend brings a new disaster, I think we should think about what MIGHT help, and try it.
So:
1.TRY no more tables, obvious horse flippers when we riders miss big time.
2.TRY slowing down about 20 mpm at prel and up, especially if
a. xc is technical, not "flowing"
b. Footing is bad, say from rain
c. It`s very hilly, and time is really hard to get, encouraging the yahoos, of whom I am sometimes one!
d.other
3.Tougher qualifications of the PAIR---Instead of "x" number of clear goes at the next lower level, make it "y".
4.Follow endurance`s lead. Let any horse death trigger an immediate inquirey, where BLAME CAN BE ASSIGNED, and punishment follow. No more "Poor baby, you lost your best friend", if the rider`s actions caused that death.
5.Ramp up the Rider Rep program to every event, every level
6.Instruct all TDs to be on the lookout for tricky/trappy situations that can trick/confuse a horse. Esp those with ill defined groundlines.
7.Institute a "You just lost your riding license at this level" program for "conspicuous failure" at a given level.
Make rider reapply at next lower level.

I don`t think any of these are Draconian measures. We could start NOW.
We could see if accidents lessen in frequency.
If not, try some other things.
Why wait?

Over time, this sport will either find its way or it won`t. Let`s try to buy some time.

I agree with your proposal. This would certainly fall along the lines of "easy for the rest" which many will not like. I may be ignorant for saying this, but I don't feel as making xc easier will necessarily mean all unqualified riders will push up the levels faster because of it. The riders that would push themselves up a level before being ready are going to do so anyway. (And in time with stricter qualifications required this can help sort itself out, but it's not a concept that can be made into reality in a timely manner.) Instead, I foresee easier xc courses adding more weight to the Dressage and SJ from a competitive standpoint. I don't know of any recent fatalities in Eventing competition in those two arenas. The negatives to this? Well, we'll certainly be fostering more beautiful & effective SJ rounds and classically correct Dressage tests. Not a bad thing! If we're truly striving for immediate safety measures that can be easily implemented, which at this point is and should be paramount for our future, who could argue with your proposal?

[RiverBendPol]

....... Instead, I foresee easier xc courses adding more weight to the Dressage and SJ from a competitive standpoint. I don't know of any recent fatalities in Eventing competition in those two arenas. The negatives to this? Well, we'll certainly be fostering more beautiful & effective SJ rounds and classically correct Dressage tests.........
I heartily disagree that far improved dressage and SJ are a good thing. It will mean even LESS time is being spent in the tack out of the arena. Riders need to spend more time out in the wilderness, NOT in the ring.
Otherwise, Denny, as usual, you've hit that old nail square on the head again.

[LisaB]

Vuma,
we've increased the difficulty of sj and dr. And look at where it's gotten us! You're way off. So, we lose more of the essence of eventing, the x-c.
Are you sure you're not a mole for the FEI? ;)
There's a lot posts where you're just dead wrong. But I greatly appreciate your input. It helps us with the impending questions set forth from people who don't understand eventing.

[Brandy76]

Why does making the courses more flowing, less technical, less mouse heads, seem to be interpreted as "too easy"?

It seems most of the people here seem to get that - why is it the powers that be feel that more technical is best? I am still stuck on that basic question - did it just become "fashionable" to make courses more and more technical, and now if a course is, well, normal,flowing, a real XC course, it is deemed too easy?

Technical + tricky+ too many related distances + SOLID OBSTACLES = disaster - again, it seems most of us here get that, I don't get why those that design the courses, or whoever dictates the new "Fashion" doesn't.

As someone here said, we can fix that now. Yes, there would be cost involved, but it cost them to make them that way, I can't imagine building a real, inviting xc course, would cost more than carving ducks and making cheese jumps. JEez.

[Vuma]

LisaB – Slow down! Making SJ and D harder is NOT my intention! It WILL BE, however, a direct consequence of an easier XC round when it comes to competition whether you like it or not! We’re talking about making the XC easier for immediate safety reasons. You are either going to fall into the “easy for the rest” or “challenging for the best” camp and I am sticking with Denny on this one. And if the side effect is that people begin to have better SJ and D rounds because of it in order to be competitive, what the hell is wrong with that? The top rider/horse combinations at EVERY level, BN-A have competent SJ and Dressage rounds and they are not the ones crashing and burning. Period! (By the way, your personal attack and implication that I am wrong in many posts and don’t understand Eventing just means that you feel you are omniscious in regards to the sport. So, let’s appoint you the leader and see where we go! I’ll jump off the boat first, thanks very much.)

Riverpol…How could anyone argue that "far improved" anything is a bad thing? I'm a bit confused on the riding in the arena vs. riding out argument that keeps popping up. No one is suggesting that you spend all your time in the ring as opposed to riding out. School your shoulder in or lengthenings during trot sets. School flying changes, or transitions in and out of canter lengthenings within your canter sets. Pick a flower, fence post or tree as your imaginary jump during your canter sets and ride to the distance. Though you obviously don't want to do these exercises ad nausea, use the terrain and the forward thinking of the horse to school these movements. They will improve, both for horse and rider, SJ and Dressage AND XC. Most of these tools (and countless others) are the same tools you are going to need xc anyway, and the others will only build a better base.

If you're creative you can school many things out of the arena while getting in your conditioning work, riding over terrain and keeping the horse forward. We can't/shouldn't school xc fences even remotely as often as the work both in the arena or out. But we can be schooling (both physically and mentally) the way our horses and ourselves will be approaching those fences when we are riding to them.

Certainly our horses need mental and physical breaks and I'm not suggesting that every moment spent in the saddle be one in which you could half pass at will. I would, however, suggest that if someone is simply trotting or cantering across the countryside looking at their watches and taking in the scenery, and not ever throwing in some basic schooling, it might be that they are not using their time in the saddle that wisely. For many, a better SJ and Dressage round are needed to be competent at their current level…whether they like it or not, and if the trend becomes more dominate for these two disciplines (as it already has) they will have to kick it up a notch.

[denny]

These various ideas that I`ve listed aren`t necessarily mine or any one person`s, but rather a compilation of ideas from lots of people.
But I listed ones which seem reasonable of some success, doable, and practical.

I don`t hold much hope that they will be promptly enacted. Big, bureaucratic organizations move about as swiftly as a lame snail.

First this committee has to study it, then it gets modified by some other group, and if and when it (the idea) finally gets into general usage, weeks, months, years have passed.

Like calling all these "knee jerk reactions" Give me a break. We were talking about these same things when Neal Ayer was USEA President.

[silver2]

Really? I think shaming people who act badly is pretty effective.
Why? I've never seen that work in any walk of life.

If you want people to ride more carefully and stay longer at the levels on their way up provide them incentives to.

[short strided]

[QUOTE=Brandy76;3314718]Why does making the courses more flowing, less technical, less mouse heads, seem to be interpreted as "too easy"?

I have never evented, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I have to agree with the question I quoted above. My impression of the cross country phase was that it was based on forward, bold and brave. The nature of the obstacles themselves, large, solid, on varied terrain, etc. presented enough difficulty.

I may be over simplifying, but the need to micro manage overly technical questions on course really overshadows the carefree rebellious vibe the sport exudes and seems to be the antithesis of its roots.

[gooddirt]

Why? I've never seen that work in any walk of life.

If you want people to ride more carefully and stay longer at the levels on their way up provide them incentives to.

How?

[Jumphigh83]

How about living to tell about it?? Seems like a powerful incentive.

[LisaB]

Okay, back to Canterlope's situation. It's got me thinking :eek:
So, I've ridden plenty of solid tables in my life. The only ones where I've had trouble (including an almost flip) are ones that don't go all the way to the ground. It's open like a true table that you sit at. It's mean at best, like those blasted hay feeders that I was happy see go.
So, her table in question rides well because it's placed well and probably is constructed well that it doesn't surprise the horse with the width as they are in mid-air.
I still think the table question is valid on x-c. I just think it needs to be in a stricter accordance with design aspects that we have not defined.