Needed-A shift in thinking about horse falls

[denny]

For as long as I can remember there`s been a tacit acceptance of horses falling during the xc phase of eventing.

If you go to any big event, almost certainly at least one horse will fall, and often several.
We know this before we go, which means even though we don`t like it, we accept the strong posibility of it.

And when those falls result in the injury or death of some nice horse, there`s a flood of sympathy for the rider and the owner of the horse.

But I believe it`s time for eventing to create a paradigm shift, so that falling horses are simply not acceptable in modern eventing.

I can think of any number of fairly Draconian measures to help bring about such a shift, including automatic suspensions for riders who have a horse fall, up to, and including fines and longer suspensions when the fall or death is determined to be the "fault" of the rider.

But since those who make the rules are frequently the same people having the falls, or their connections, I doubt my ideas would fly.

Way too many nice horses pay eventing`s price each year. In just the last several weeks, 2 of England`s very best riders have lost advanced horses, adding to a long list of horses who died in 2008 alone.

Isn`t it time to finally say "enough?"

But if so, how?

[poltroon]

So Denny, are you thinking that riders aren't careful enough, and so hard sanctions against them would make horse falls less common, or are you thinking that if the riders faced hard sanction that they would be more active in finding a solution for the sport?

[denny]

Poltroon---A bit of both.
If we could make our top riders TRUE advocates for horse safety, it would eventually impact all manner of things, like xc design, speeds, pressing tired horses, entering events a horse or rider isn`t really ready for, etc, etc.

[kookicat]

Which other rider lost a top horse? I'm behind on all the news :(

I'm not sure what can be done to stop horse falls IMO. There will always be riders out there who are willing to take risks. :no:

[denny]

Zara Phillips.

[kookicat]

Zara Phillips.

Damn, I'd forgotten that :(

[Toadie's mom]

Hasn't the short format been around long enough to get bottom line statistics on injuries, deaths, falls (of all horses and riders) compared to the long format? I'd include this latest debacle (the 1/2 day event that Mary King was in) in the short format category. Just compare the last 3 yrs of long format, with the 1st 3yrs of short, or is that not considered statistically viable yet?

I think I know where Denny stands, and I'm on his side.

[Classic Melody]

Denny, I agree with you that absolutely no horse falls should be acceptable. But in Mary King's case, to take that example, we lauded her (or at least I did) for a gutsy, inspiring Hong Kong ride in the rain; while I don't know what happened today, I'm sure she rode with the same bravado and poise. Only this time, either she or her horse made an error in judgment, and he paid for it. It could have happened in Hong Kong. But luck was on her side then.

For no more horse falls to be acceptable, I am finally thinking that we need to radically change what eventing is. I used to be against the idea of collapsable XC jumps. I thought it ended the essence of eventing. But you know what? If the essence of eventing is that horses pay for mistakes with their lives, then I not only reject horse falls as unacceptable - I reject eventing.

They say that converts are the most fervent believers - and as a hunter rider turned eventer, I think it's true. But the last year has really shaken me. I don't think I can continue to support a sport where horses die as a matter of course - at the upper levels, no less, where the pros are supposed to be better and know more than little old me. I can't defend it to my fellow horsemen in different disciplines, even when I think the training and horsemanship I have witnessed in eventers is singularly without peer - but generally it is a massive fail.

Collapsable jumps. Made of rugs stuffed with ping pong balls, I don't care. Just don't want to see any more horses dying.

[Gnep]

I think we see far greater risk taking since the short format came on line, less preservation

[RunForIt]

Y'know, the reality is, that this sport can kill a horse as well as a rider. Several threads ago, someone posted the fact that eventing as a sport seems to accept that if a horse loses its life during an event - that's ok because its simply the way of eventing (I've paraphrased here but know that I've kept the true gist of the statement), and horse died doing what it loves.

I may walk away today.

[poltroon]

The way I see it, this sport cannot continue unless the fatalities stop. And I'm a devoted eventing fan.

It seems to me that that's about as draconian a consequence as they get.

[magnolia73]

It's just really sad and really takes the enjoyment out of the sport. I guess it is fun to watch a NASCAR crash, but with horses it is just sad. I hope that courses are not being designed with the hope of tripping up horses and riders.

Hopefully there will be change from within or soon there will be change from the outside. But as someone who is a nobody, I don't feel like there is anything I can do. I certainly don't have any solutions beyond make it easier if the best are struggling to come out with neck and horse intact. It's still impressive even if the difficulty gets knocked back a few rungs.....

[magnolia73]

It seems to me that that's about as draconian a consequence as they get.


And I find it disturbing that at least 2 riders suffered near fatal falls this year and are already back in the saddle competing at challenging (for anyone) levels. I'm not so sure they appreciate or understand the risk enough to be charged with the determination of acceptable risk for their horses.

[kdow]

I'm not sure what can be done to stop horse falls IMO. There will always be riders out there who are willing to take risks. :no:

Then there needs to be some kind of system to penalize stupid risk-taking. Maybe just that jump judges need to be more aggressive in terms of identifying dangerous riding?

I think an element of this is also to do more to encourage people to withdraw if there's any question as to the well-being of the horse. (I don't just mean if the horse takes a bad step, I mean also in cases where the horse just feels NQR or isn't riding the way he usually does.) If you read the threads addressing upper level riders who've had horse problems, there's often a lot of talk excusing them from responsibility due to competitiveness or adrenaline, and I think we need to STOP thinking that's acceptable. At any level, the rider's number 1 priority MUST be the welfare of the horse.

If you are someone who gets so caught up in competing that you're unable to remove yourself from competition when it's best for the horse that you do so, then so sorry, so sad, I don't care how good you are at riding, you are not qualified to be an upper level rider. There's more to responsibly competing than being able to stay in the saddle and get the horse from A to B.

(I should add that I know there will still be relatively random incidents where a horse is going fine and takes a bad step and suddenly is very injured- that happens. That happens with horses turned out, with no rider at all. We'll never have a perfect record with ANY equestrian sport. But it could be a heck of a lot better than it is.)

[poltroon]

I think that if a horse or rider had died at Hong Kong, (given the string of earlier fatalities) that eventing would be finished as an Olympic sport. I think everyone who loves this sport, but especially the ULR who depend on its inclusion in the Olympics, needs to understand that deep in their hearts.

I have tickets for the WEG. I'm not pulling my daughter out of school and spending all that money to see ANYONE die.

We have to do whatever we can to make sure that the horses and riders come home safe, even if it's an overreaction. (And somehow we have to make sure our changes don't make things worse.) If it means cross country is dramatically simpler, then so be it. If it means fences break away, so be it. If it means the entire cross country course is made of brush-type steeplechase jumps, then so be it. Clean rounds for everyone is fine for a year or two while we figure this out.

[denny]

As I said, this idea that falling horses is simply an integral by-product of eventing cross country is nothing new, and can`t/shouldn`t be blamed on the short format.

Probably this somewhat callous attitude derives in part from our cavalry heritage, when horses were simply expendable commodities. I read that one common denominator of most Civil War battles was the sight of hundreds of dead horses on the battlefield.

No other non-racing horse sport that I`m aware of condones horse falls, and maybe we can learn from them.

Certainly this instant communication/internet phenomenon brings what was formerly more hidden directly to front page news.

Another positive side to a paradigm shift re. horse falls is that this would also greatly lessen the chance of human fatalities and crippling injuries. Everybody falls off. It`s when we get fallen ON that the worst things so often happen.

But this would be a BIG shift, going against a long history, and I`m not sure how it could be accomplished.

Thoughts??

[kookicat]

Flame suit firmly on.

I don't think it ever will happen. Or at least without changing eventing beyond recognition. I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

There's just so many factors that can cause a fall. I can't see a way to remove or minimise all of them.

[snoopy]

Damn, I'd forgotten that :(


Not to pick on you at all but rather using this staement as an example. Fatalities are becoming common place so much so that we "forget" some of those that have happened fairly recently. Not a good sign for our sport when we are willing to forget so soon.

[starboard]

Do you think that Mary King is feeling indifferent about the loss of her beautiful horse this evening?

The generalization that top riders are not advocates for their horses safety and well-being is disturbingly untrue and unfair.

[flyingchange]

I watched Oliver Townsend's "XC" at the Express Eventing show .... That is not eventing to me. To call that eventing XC is actually insulting at best. Probably more accurately described as disturbing. I read that the footing was grass on a thin layer of topsoil placed on moveable pallets and that this little "issue" was causing horses to be nervous. DOYATHINK???

What makes me sad and a little disgusted is all the riders who think it's such a great idea. WTF.

The worst part for me is that when I saw the headline for Call Again Cavalier's death, I basically shrugged/felt nothing. I'm used to it at this point.

[ZEBE]

****************Flame suit firmly on.

I don't think it ever will happen. Or at least without changing eventing beyond recognition. I could be wrong. I hope that I am.***************

Well I'm zipping my suite on too.. and personally, I watched the video's on U tube of Extreme Eventing.. .. and.. well for me...
this was "changing eventing beyond recognition" and there was a horse death at a "big technical fence". (Did the horse fall? not sure if I caught that). In any case if putting big solid fences in an indoor stadium with "man made" footing" made it any safer for the horse.. I don't buy it.

Barbara C-K

[Peggy]

It's been a culture of the discipline for some time, pre-dating the short format, as far as I can tell. When I evented I had no aspirations past prelim b/c it seemed to me that if you competed at that level, eventually the horse was going to fall. Nothing against those who did it, but not my choice. And keep in mind that this was the prelim of 10+ years ago and not the prelim of today which, based on what I read, seems to be more technical.

Agreed that something needs to change but I can't figure out a quick way to legislate sanity. It's not just a matter of going back in time b/c the falls happened in the good old days too. Were they as many and as serious?? That I don't know.

Now, a combo of horses and locale have put me back in the hunter/eq ring. I love the challenge of a good hard eq course, or even really hard flat class (yes, they exist). The judging may make you want to die occasionally, but it's relatively safe. But there is nothing like galloping cross country...

[magnolia73]

The generalization that top riders are not advocates for their horses safety and well-being is disturbingly untrue and unfair.


And that comes up every time this occurs. I think the honest answer is that they do care, but perhaps don't consider the fact that it could happen to them next. I think eventers on the whole are more risk tolerant than the other jumping disciplines. I don't think it is negligence or being mean or uncaring. They are not really even advocates for their own safety. Honestly, I would think some level of denial of the risks would be needed to have the confidence to get around at Rolex.

It has happened over and over again this year with no real outcry from riders at that level. It does appear that the death of a horse, while they may mourn and try to take steps to prevent it, is considered a part of eventing. The casualty list is pretty big- 2 at Rolex, RedHills, multiple riders almost being killed, Zara Phillips horse.... I know there are others.

So what are the riders doing to change things and protect their horses? I have read many quotes from riders at these events in the press stating that "the course was the most difficult ever". It seems to me like the bar keeps being raised and is perhaps now too high- time for riders to start scratching and demanding relief for their horses! There are still underprepared riders making bad decisions being coached by the top riders who just let it go....

[LISailing]

I don't think that all falls can be avoided, however I do believe that riders or horses with repetitive falls should be scrutinized. It does not seem like the USEF, USEA, riders (both upper and lower levels) are able to face the responsibility that they all shouldar for the horse's welfare. Maybe there should be a reward established for rider's who recognize that it's not their or their horse's day and voluntarily retire. I am most impressed with those rider's that suppress thier egos and recognize that there will be another day.

The problem as I see it is that the three fundamentals of horsemanship (riding, care, and an inate kinsmanship) are broken. Few professional eventers really acknowledge the complete picture because they are so focused on making a buck to pay the bills. You may disagree with me,but sitting sideline to the spectacle of "runway" trot outs it seems that it was less about the horse and more about rider. Again, my respect to all those riders who handled their own horses prior and post presentation and were workman-like rather than pathetic interpretation of a runway fashion model.

And for what it's worth I am utterly disgusted with the extreme eventing format!!!! Stupid, and obviously designed to get more bang for the buck!

If eventers are seriously interested in grandstanding then I suggest they support more jumping derbys.

[RunForIt]

I'm saying this because I believe it to be true...eventing is relatively safe for horses to Preliminary. After that, the game is for the riders and the horses may have to be sacrificed.

convince me otherwise.

[Summies182]

I think that the easiest change that should be made is the jump judges. A girl that I work with, who does not ride, used to jump judge and we were recently talking about this exact topic. She said that the instructions given to her and the other judges were so vague at the events she were at that she was not sure how to act. She said that there were multiple riders that were "borderline", but she did not know what she could or should do so she just ignored it. She remembers one girl whose horse almost fell at her jump then continued to have bad jumps after that, but was allowed to continue. If jump judges were required to go through some sort of training or were just instructed better berfore events then maybe some of the riders who are obviously having issues could be stopped. Also, maybe some type of collective remarks in both jumping phases, like in dressage, could be used to encourge more quality jumping and to somehow penalize poor jumping even when the horse and rider make it to the other side on all fours. Ultimately I think that alot of the problems are poor horsemanship, we need to think about our horses before every jump and not what ribbon we could get...

[pk1027]

I'm saying this because I believe it to be true...eventing is relatively safe for horses to Preliminary. After that, the game is for the riders and the horses may have to be sacrificed.

convince me otherwise.

I agree. After Prelim it seems eventing becomes more dangerous for both rider and horse. Prelim seems enough of a challenge, both with height and complexity. Pushing that seems to be pushing the chance of problems.

It seems though that the speculation about eventing dangers between CIC and CCI are put aside with the death of Call Again Cavalier. This was a completely different type of event for both rider and horse.

I don't know really what to think, but I do know that thinks are getting a bit out of hand.

[3dayeventing]

I totally understand this sport has a high danger factor! I took some time off after witnessing a horrific death of a young rider. I am now slowing entering back into the scene. At a much slower speed and maybe I will stay at the lower levels until changes are made. I am no longer in a hurry, its strange, GOD sent me a message that day and it has forever changed my view on life! As a mother and a wife I cant be selfish.

[JER]

But I believe it`s time for eventing to create a paradigm shift, so that falling horses are simply not acceptable in modern eventing.

I can think of any number of fairly Draconian measures to help bring about such a shift, including automatic suspensions for riders who have a horse fall, up to, and including fines and longer suspensions when the fall or death is determined to be the "fault" of the rider.

But since those who make the rules are frequently the same people having the falls, or their connections, I doubt my ideas would fly.

Way too many nice horses pay eventing`s price each year. In just the last several weeks, 2 of England`s very best riders have lost advanced horses, adding to a long list of horses who died in 2008 alone.

Isn`t it time to finally say "enough?"

But if so, how?

denny, I agree with you.

David O'Connor said that we had to 'get rid of the horse falls' numerous times at the 'Safety Summit'.

But oddly enough, the rules/policies enacted in the wake of that conference do not address horse falls at all. The one-fall rule is about riders. The Watch List is about riders. The dangerous riding penalty (yes, I know that's been in place for a while) is about riders.

But the penalty for horse falls -- elimination -- hasn't changed. At FEI events, we've seen dangerous riding leading to a horse fall (and in one notorious case, the death of the horse) and no further penalty like a red card or suspension.

We need a mandatory set down period for horse falls -- for both horse and rider. For horse deaths, there should be a mandatory autopsy and investigation which could lead to further penalties.

Zero tolerance, no exceptions. It has to be this way if the priority is the welfare of the horse.

[denny]

JER, I think there have been no protocols developed because it could negatively impact those who have the power to create those protocols in the first place.

This may be the toughest sell of all, getting those elusive "powers that be" to buy into a paradigm shift.

[Coppers mom]

I think that falls will always happen, but they should be freak accidents, not regular occurrences.

I don't think that the levels build on each other anymore, and that's when accidents happen. When a horse is introduced to something new at a large height and in a hard to negotiate situation, how can we expect them to come out of it well? Even the lower levels aren't as inviting as they were 4 years ago. Course designers seem to be forgoing the building block concept and focusing more on being able to say "Well look at how hard my course is!".

It used to be that the best course designers were the ones who made courses that were challenging but fun. Now, it seems as if the designers are measuring skill on how few finish. That's sad, because it should be the best who gets around, not the luckiest.

[olympicdreams04]

Go go gadget flame suit. Denny, being someone that makes a living riding racehorses and living and breathing racing, I do not feel it is fair of you to say that racing "condones" the death of horses. While it is a reality because of the fraility of a horses limbs, the breeding that caters to speed and not soundness, and the sheer number of horses across the nation running races, no one in racing wants to lose a horse if only for purely financial reasons. Racing in no way, shape, or form condones death of horses. Lots of changes, including medication regulation, the banning of toe grabs, the institution (slowly but surely) of track vets at every track, and so on and so forth are being instituted to try to reform things. This leads me to my next point. While many, many things can and likely will be reformed, the dangers of eventing come down to two principle points: rider responsibility, or lack there of, and innate fraility of the equine body. People will be stupid and the will pay a price. While I certainly understand the costs of putting on a event, pehaps changes like getting ones entry fees back or atleast a free entry to the next show would encourage people to scratch more often. That's really beside the point, though. People will run for all kinds of reasons and they will make mistakes and they will fall. Horses will misjudge a distance, ignore their rider, or simply take a bad step and they will fall and die. This is the sport. I have had one horse die and one horse break his leg and have been involved in the death of many others. After watching the tapes of both of my personal horses over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, nothing could be done. The death occured at a ditch and wall where the horses hind end slipped out from under him and he literally yanked his knees up above his nose and buried his nose into the top of the wall, breaking his neck instantly. The broken leg occured over the smallest little training level log upon landing. He simply look a bad step. Reality is harsh. Tons of other instances come to mind. Kildonan Tug was galloping on a gentle slope and in the blink of an eye his hoof went one way and his forelimb went the other. Nothing could have been done. High Scope simply misjudged the back rail of an oxer and put his legs down to soon, ending his life and seriously injuring Bruce. Reprint jumped like a hunter with square but low knees and this style, coupled with a big, big corner, put he and Ralph on the ground, nearly ending Ralphs life. My baby horse, just last year, was jumping stadium at Rocking Horse and in his Novice inexperience, left one knee a little lower at the first element of a double and fell after catching a rail between his legs. The list goes on and on with both safe and fatal outcomes and a simple fact: nothing can be done. Do we need to do something to address rider responsibilty? YES! But I think that at the end of the day, we either accept the danger of the sport and keep going, or become a sport relegated to the history books.

[n2dressage]

I'm a big wimp. I have only evented to Novice and that was several years ago. I'm trying to get back to things with my grand goal being Training. Even the lower level course have gotten crazy compared to when I went Novice not even a decade ago. BN and N used to be cute logs and passes thru water and one sided ditches and little banks. Now there are stone walls, 2 sided ditches, drops into/out of water, trakehner lookalikes and general fences on hard terrain for either green horses/riders. I go to Rolex every single year and there are more and more falls or horses not finishing well every year. Old courses used to be big galloping fences and now they are more technical fences that are closer together that require a slower speed than people are willing to take them at based on optimum time for the entire course. Every level needs to take it back to basics a little bit at the very least. I think if we want to make things harder for the competitors at the top then the other two safer phases could be beefed up a bit... but is making it harder for the top level riders necessary? Why can't everyone be happy with more horses/riders have clear, successful shows instead of making things so difficult that horses and/or riders are having slip ups on course and getting hurt? Having more horses go clear on XC is a GOOD thing!

[Mach Two]

Many years ago, I was walking an advanced cross country course with my wonderful coach, an advanced rider. I was only doing training, but would walk the higher courses with my coach to hear his comments and to learn. We came up on Sally O'Conner, who was TD'ing that horse trial. The advanced division was just starting, and a rider I knew was on course, riding 'way over his head, on a generous, brave horse that kind of threw himself over the fences in spite of some scary riding. Sally said something like "It's guys like this who make me wish I could keep some people from entering Intermediate and Advanced." (I am paraphrasing...I don't recall her exact words) I asked my coach later if a TD could see someone riding badly and make them pull up, and he said "technically, yes..."

True, riders need to take full responsibility, but if they do not, are officials going to step in and say "no" in the warmup? And certainly, a rider like Mary King does not get to her level by being irresponsible.

But in some cases...like a horse with knees that hang....what is that kind of horse doing in the upper levels? That's not making sense.
Or has upper level eventing gone from a galloping sport to a hunt and peck technical sport, so that impulsion and "forward" are not as important?

It's kind of a sad state of affairs that we tend to say "it's part of the game" when a horse falls. No it's NOT...Denny...in the old days, how many times did you, and Mike Plumb, and Jim Wofford and Tad Coffin have horses fall at the upper levels?? I'll bet the horse falls were very few and far between, for the good riders and horses. But back then, you guys had to make horses...you probably all hunted...and had cross country riding experience that went deeper than a few clinics or XC schools.

I am out of eventing now, but wonder if some kind of rider approval system needs to be further or more strongly implemented? Watching many of the YR divisions used to scare me to death...when did having parents who could BUY an advanced or intermediate horse qualify anyone for riding even at prelim?

[Bugsey_2007]

:confused:

Here we go again. :confused:

What a cheap shot using Cavalier's injury and death to have another go at eventing. What they were doing wasn't even a proper horse trial.

I don't know anyone in eventing who "accepts horses" falling and injury and death. That is if you actually mean that people in the sport think its o.k. or tolerable. Its not even common place. Everyone I know does their very best to prepare the horse and themselves so that sort of stuff doesn't happen. It might be different there though.

Yes there needs to be personal responsibility. That means horses and riders must be fit and up to the job and maybe even having another serious look at how riders and horses qualify to go up the levels. There are some awful riders competing and there's a lot of horses not up to it.

Yes people should consider what eventing is about. Is it about creating something that looks fast and exciting for people watching or is it supposed to be a good and fair trial for horse and rider. I don't like the idea of this eventing inside stuff that Mary was competing in though I understand how it's tempting to do it with the prize money and chance to showcase what you do. But don't go thinking it was eventing and go slamming eventing because of that incident.

Yes those who are well into the sport know that it's a high risk sport with inbuilt danger. The way some go on about eventing on this board, you'd change it so much that it was just some sort of stupid dumbed down show jumping. Then again, maybe not even that because they sometimes fall and get injured and die doing that so maybe you'd just suggest we own them and let them be lawn mowers.

[kookicat]

Not to pick on you at all but rather using this staement as an example. Fatalities are becoming common place so much so that we "forget" some of those that have happened fairly recently. Not a good sign for our sport when we are willing to forget so soon.

Nah, in my case it's the rest of the stuff going on in my life that made me forget. I've had health problems, ill parents, crap at work.

A horse death isn't something I'd usually forget.

[Ajierene]

I agree, Denny. It is not a short format issue, it is an ongoing issue. If you were to most appropriately compare statistics, it would have to be the accident rate of the first few years of the long format, to the first few years of the short format. How long did it take for competitors to adjust from the original format to each new evolution of eventing?

Also, if the competitors of the past are still being lauded for risky riding, such as broken ankles, collarbones, concussions, releasing themselves from the hospital for stadium jumping; then new competitors are more likely to ride with more risk.


It is time to start saying "you know that time so-and-so fell off and got back on to finish cross country with a broken ankle? In retrospect, that was a pretty stupid move."

"You know that time so-and-so checked himself out of the hospital to jump the stadium round so his team had a chance at an Olympic gold? Well, that was really risky on his part."

OK, I cannot remember the actual names of the situations, but the above are two examples of lauding risky/bad behavior I have seen on these boards where the competitor is still lauded for the behavior. How much different is the accident Darren Chiaccha had? He actually waited before competing again. He was much more likely not to be on any pain killers that could have hindered his judgement as well as injuries in a much greater state of repair. I am not condoning Darren's actions as much as putting them in a different light.

The culture has to change to where these incidents are not looked on in favor. In the first half of the century when eventing was directly linked to cavalry skills required during battle, risky behavior could be seen as heroism because it could have saved lives. Risky riding to get the win is never a good idea.

People like Phillip Dutton, Zara Phillips, Darren Chiaccha - they have been riding so long, statistically they should have an accident. People like Laine Ashker and Amy Tryon seem to be in such a rush to be viewed in the same light as the 'greats' that they are in more accidents.

Harsher penalties are a great idea, but the culture needs to change as well.

[IFG]

As I said, this idea that falling horses is simply an integral by-product of eventing cross country is nothing new, and can`t/shouldn`t be blamed on the short format.

I am a lower level rider, so all I can do is conjecture, but I have been watching the upper levels since Chesterland in 1986. Is it possible that the long format weeded out the less careful horses who were more likely to fall? Isn't it possible that the glut of deaths and injuries we are now seeing is due to more less talented, less careful horses at the upper levels?

[LisaB]

I like the last bit you said, Ajirene.
I've been contemplating where the line is drawn. What becomes acceptable and what doesn't. Look at the latest between Mary King and Zara. Mary has had horses die under her. But she's acceptable because they've been really true accidents. With the number of rides under her belt and her ability to pull up makes it so. Sure, she's done some incredible saves and rides and we love her. Zara on the other hand, seems to have forsaken the welfare of the horse in order for the win. She's not Mary nor William nor Toddy. She's trying to be in that circle of the greats. How does she get there? Does she have to have a horse die under her because of a bad judgment call and then learn and grow from such a grievous error? I think these are 2 good people. I think Zara will definitely learn and grow and hopefully be one of the greats.
Then there's others whom I have a great disdain for. The will not learn, nor back off. But you look at all these riders objectively and how are you doing to tell one person they are okay and the other not?
I'm with Denny, right now, if a horse falls, you're out. It's unfortunate because the Mary's of the world suffer the consequences.

[snoopy]

Nah, in my case it's the rest of the stuff going on in my life that made me forget. I've had health problems, ill parents, crap at work.

A horse death isn't something I'd usually forget.

Was not having a go at you, sorry if you saw it that way peddle. Just using your post to make a point.

[zagafi]

denny, I agree with you.

David O'Connor said that we had to 'get rid of the horse falls' numerous times at the 'Safety Summit'.

But oddly enough, the rules/policies enacted in the wake of that conference do not address horse falls at all. The one-fall rule is about riders. The Watch List is about riders. The dangerous riding penalty (yes, I know that's been in place for a while) is about riders.

But the penalty for horse falls -- elimination -- hasn't changed. At FEI events, we've seen dangerous riding leading to a horse fall (and in one notorious case, the death of the horse) and no further penalty like a red card or suspension.

We need a mandatory set down period for horse falls -- for both horse and rider. For horse deaths, there should be a mandatory autopsy and investigation which could lead to further penalties.

Zero tolerance, no exceptions. It has to be this way if the priority is the welfare of the horse.

Yep, he did say that repeatedly. Then went on to talk about how riders now (the up and comers--clearly this was who was being discussed) have to "substitute" education for experience. Most of the discussion seemed (to me, at least) focused on the lower level riders who don't have the "experience", yet the lower levels are not the ones experiencing horrific falls and horse deaths. I honestly don't recall a whole lot of discussion on how to prevent the upper level tragedies from happening.

[broodmare]

In an honest well intentioned attempt to expand the fan base/spectators, increase the number of competitors, increase the number of upper level events, increase the toehold in a variety of countries and climates and stay in the Olympic games what was a smallish Northern European sport has morphed in the last 15 or 20 years into something quite different. Sadly the current model is not working out so well as evidenced by numbers of accidents, falls and deaths.
One area that has not been discussed as much would be to change to culture so that riders must conserve their horse on Saturday in order to be able to compete on Sunday. The original cavalry model. This will bring down speed and risk taking like we haven’t seen recently. It will also require some real courage and leadership from Ground Juries. In the last 10 years or so, there has been pressure on Ground Juries to be lenient on Sunday morning because it was perceived that spinning too many horses was bad for the sport. And it certainly makes the competitors mad as hell to have given their all on Saturday and get spun on Sunday. If we shift the paradigm and require that the horses look good, really good on Sunday morning, then the responsibility goes back to the rider to leave enough in the tank, not run them so fast, and not take the same kinds of risks. This will also trickle back to the course designers to create more forgiving courses. The current fashion in course design, to set so many jumps off turns, and use extremely technical questions as a means of slowing riders down is detrimental to the horses and may lead to some of these accidents. I don’t think the designers are looking to create tricks, I think it is just the current trend to use technicality as a way to slow down riders and sort through a bunch of lovely well trained horses. If we give the riders a real reason to slow down, return to the more straightforward fences, and the flowing course design, we might get to reduce some of the disasters.

As a part of making the Sunday jog more consequential, we will need to eliminate the IV fluids and much of the veterinary intervention on Sat night. We all know that the fluids make the horses feel better. OK, but the point is to conserve your horse, don’t take the risks, ride with the long term goal in mind, and the competition will reward horsemanship, not risk taking. At present we have a system where in order to win, the rider needs to go fast enough to run the horse just about to the bottom, and then puff them back up again over Saturday night with 20-40 liters, mess with the shoeing because their feet hurt, and pray on jog strip (“he’s fine, he’s just stiff”), and then jump with a minimum number of rails. (There is a further discussion on IV fluids at the bottom)

Finally, back to the Ground Jury during XC. The ground jury has all the power, so now they need to use it. No one enjoys pulling riders off course or giving out yellow cards, or giving penalties to riders at the finish who arrive with exhausted horses BUT riders are smart. If the ground jury starts laying down the law out there and using the tools they already have in their toolbox things will evolve in a hurry. Just like we have vets and area stewards stationed throughout the course, the ground jury needs to be stationed in sectors around the course so they can actually witness and DO SOMETHING. The fence judges can’t do it, they don’t have the power. Ground juries are understandably loathe to take action when they don’t actually see the incident and things happen very fast. Drifting around in a car watching how things flow is too random for truly effective observation. There will be lots of howling and carrying on but again the riders aren’t trying to get hurt or hurt their horses; they are trying to compete in the current culture. If a rider pushes a horse from a ridiculous spot, and gets that rotational fall: give a yellow card with the big E. If they arrive at the finish with a clear round and a horse that is exhausted, give the 20 points so they don’t do that again. If the horse looks exhausted two fences from home, the ground jury member needs to pull them up and not condone the current culture that “so and so is such a good rider he/she will get them in safely.” Maybe they will be lucky, maybe they won’t and they will have the big fall…but the point is that the horse is exhausted ie bad horsemanship. Change the culture. If they are riding dangerously fast out there, pull them up, and ream them out in public. That’ll be exciting but it will save lives in the long run.
The ground jury members are the police and the judge and the jury. If they do it, the culture will change pretty darn fast. It won’t be fun, and it may not even seem totally fair regarding who gets nailed on an individual occasion but it will resonate across the sport.

SIDEBAR ON IV FLUIDS
We got started giving fluids in large volume in the early 80’s at least at Chesterland because it became apparent that we could take a horse that was dicey and trying to tie-up, give them 20-30 liters or so and have them complete. But back in the 80’s we were working with very few horses and we were trying to increase the % completion. The sport was very tiny then.
Then as we moved towards a couple Olympics in a row in hot climates, all that work was done which showed that the horse lost so much fluid sweating it out in the hostile climate that they needed IV fluids (the horses wouldn’t/couldn’t drink enough to make up for the deficit.) Now we have good work that shows the effect of transportation and travel stress on hydration status. Many horses arrive at the events somewhat dehydrated, and don’t recover to normal. That has a negative impact on health and performance and these horses need to be addressed right up until the competition begins, or use nasogastric fluids. As far as eventing in extreme climates, that will probably still require IV fluids for the health and welfare of the horses, but frankly, I don’t know why a northern European sport should be run at the same level in a hostile climate. The test should fit the venue.
Meanwhile here in the states, the big events are run in cool weather, we have transportation stress but we sure don’t have heat stress. About 10 years ago we ran more than 1,000 liters into the ** horses after cross country at Radnor. The temperature that day didn’t go above 75 degrees. That was the day I reconsidered the fluid question. It wasn’t about the heat. The unintended consequence was that competitors learned that they could push harder/ or would even have to push harder to remain competitive and that the fluids would help their very tired horse. IMO in a temperate climate, IV fluids are a performance enhancer for the exhausted horse because they allow them to come back faster from a greater physical effort than they could on their own.

[kookicat]

Was not having a go at you, sorry if you saw it that way peddle. Just using your post to make a point.

Oh, I know :) I just wanted to point out my reasons.

You're right though, and it's very sad.

[Gnep]

If you take a dead honest look at this Express Eventing, than you have to call it stupidity.
A 1500 meter dash over solid jumps, every fraction of a second counts, that is Roller Ball or Cage Fighting.
The riders take incradeble risks and the spectators love it.

Things go wrong, than the adoring public, sends condolences, flowers and cards to the poor Rider. Instead of asking what have you done, what did you think you were doing taking such great risk.
The day the public will hold those riders responsible and remind them of The Rider Responsebility to protect the horse at all times, than we will see change.

Well lets send flowers and cards to MK and don't forget to write a note of condolence in the other threads.

By the way the crash is on youtube, the frame by frame is very educational

[Jealoushe]

I watched the vid..... it was a bad ride.

However, bad rides happen, nobodys perfect - but why do they seem to alwasy equal death now?

[findeight]

One of the reasons I never considered Eventing was that military attitude plus, way back when I first entered horses (early 60s), women were rare and considered somewhat "sissy and emotional". I could not deal with the falls and that attitude was simply not in tune with "kick on" and "it happens". I picked disciplines where "it" does not just happen and we pull up on those rare occasions things go that wrong...and I am no coward.


I still see it. Not everybody but too many. To those who say I cannot possibly understand because I don't Event? Kind of like it that way and glad I don't understand that kind of thinking about horse falls simply being a part of the sport.

Denny, I think that is the root of your problem-tradition. That is the way it is.

Perhaps, as time goes on, it will become less acceptable. Just peer pressure changing from the old to a newer attitude as it has towards horses and other animals in general over my lifetime.

Continue to follow this because any horse sport effects other horse sports and any death, Event or race track or show ring, reflects on all of us in the eyes of the public.

[poltroon]

My personal sense is that the people and horses who are getting hurt are pretty well distributed between experienced and green. The accidents feel very random. I think "personal responsibility" is something of a smokescreen, in that I think that reckless or foolish riders involved in accidents is a minority of the cases we have.

I was thinking about the problem in a different way. Instead of looking at jumps that have caused accidents, can we learn anything from studying the jumps that haven't caused accidents? Is there any class or type where accidents are rare or not seen?

[Mach Two]

Broodmare, that is exactly the input I hoped would come along....intelligent observations from the past. I was taken back a bit when I was helping a young rider at the Young Rider championships in Wadsworth in the early nineties, and so many horses needed to be on IV fluids after XC. One was really colicky afterwards, was on IV fluids the night of, and again in the AM, and the rider (I witnessed this!) slid the IV out, dabbed off the spot of blood on his horse's neck, and proceeded to the jog and then showjumping. That horse needed help and rest, not a showjumping round.

If ground juries and TDs and other people who had the power to shake things up were ready to band together to hand out penalties, and if riders were responsible for leaving "something in the tank" instead of counting on IVs and such to refuel, perhaps the long format would survive in the form it is meant to be.

But as long as money rules, and as long as horses that are not meant to do long format events are being developed and sold at high prices, to riders who are not ready for prime time, these things will not change.
I am not against helping a horse that needs help, but it used to be tht trash cans were filled with feed sacks, cotton batting, and linement bottles, not used IV sets.

[Eventer08]

Everyone is talking so much about the riders, and I understand...

But here's what scares me (with respect to all other concerns ya'll have). Of course we all know that courses must be approved by the ground jury... But does everyone know that, at the advanced level where most falls occur, that most ground juries have never ridden at advanced????

It's like having a novice rider coach an advanced rider on XC. HOW are you supposed to ensure that the course is safe for the level if you've NEVER ridden at that level? You've NEVER jumped a fence like that?????

And then if the riders go to the ground jury with concerns--maybe it is better now after all the carnage--but even last year they could go with concerns and the ground jury would do nothing!

[poltroon]

I am not against helping a horse that needs help, but it used to be tht trash cans were filled with feed sacks, cotton batting, and linement bottles, not used IV sets.

Ironically, I think pretty much any of the liniments is now banned by the FEI as performance enhancing.

[Kementari]

Do we have more falls now than we used to?

Do we have more injuries/deaths resulting from falls now than we used to?

I mean those questions honestly - I don't know the answers. It certainly SEEMS like the answer in both cases is yes, but we also have a lot more instant media coverage now than in times past, and that can skew our perceptions.

Regardless, perhaps it IS time to start issuing suspensions for horse falls. Personally, I'd vote for getting the first one "free," simply because falls DO happen, whatever you're doing. I've had a horse take a misstep and fall cantering in an indoor arena (luckily, both of us were uninjured). So say anything more than one horse fall in competition every three(?) years, and you're suspended for X months. The next "offense" within the same time period gets a longer suspension, and so on. Hopefully it WOULD make people take a long hard look at how (and who) they intend to ride on any given day. Ideally, we would gather stats both before and after such a rule, though, to evaluate if it does make a difference.

At the same time, though, I think (and others have brought this up before) that there needs to be some penalty to the officials (CDs, TDs, etc) who put together and approve courses that lead to some of this carnage. Again, more than X number of horse falls (maybe rider falls, too) at a given event, and there's a fine/suspension/something to those in charge.

AND, we need a system in place to thoroughly investigate every injury - equine or human - that happens on course. Whether that is tied in to a penalty-for-fault system or is purely informational, we need to really gain an understanding of why accidents are happening, so that we can put our efforts in the right direction to stop them.

[Fence2Fence]

I briefly glanced at the topic about MK and Cavalier. My honest to God reaction is that I want to throw up.

Having followed eventing long before I had enough money to compete, I understood and accepted that horse falls and deaths are part of the sport. Pick up any eventing book, and the fall pics are usually on the first pages. Our attitudes about risk are glorified.

I think the photos that JER linked to of Phillips' Toytown taking a face plant in the mud at Burghley sort of sealed the deal for me.

A sport that takes such an incredible creature and takes away its dignity and life shows what despicable, ego and greed driven cowards we really are.

I never understood why other people thought eventing is so horrible. Now I do, and I'm incredibly disappointed by the lack of action of the riders and leaders of the sport.

Paradigm shift? Yeah, it's happening.

[NeverTime]

I am a lower level rider, so all I can do is conjecture, but I have been watching the upper levels since Chesterland in 1986. Is it possible that the long format weeded out the less careful horses who were more likely to fall? Isn't it possible that the glut of deaths and injuries we are now seeing is due to more less talented, less careful horses at the upper levels?

You certainly aren't the first person to say this, but I continue to struggle with the logic. How would doing to trots and a steeplechase weed out less talented/careful horses? :confused: As much as we all miss the long format, the elements eliminated to create the short-format were NOT those that tested talent, skill, carefulness. And as nice as doing the whole package was, phases A, B and C were/are a fabulous warm-up for phase D -- they weren't/aren't skills tests in and of themselves.

[TB_eventer]

You certainly aren't the first person to say this, but I continue to struggle with the logic. How would doing to trots and a steeplechase weed out less talented/careful horses? :confused: As much as we all miss the long format, the elements eliminated to create the short-format were NOT those that tested talent, skill, carefulness. And as nice as doing the whole package was, phases A, B and C were/are a fabulous warm-up for phase D -- they weren't/aren't skills tests in and of themselves.

I have never done a long format event, so this may be wrong. The logic as I understand it says that phase B -steeplechase - helps to teach horses and riders how to take obstacles at speed. They gain confidence and warm up at the same time - so when they go out onto phase D for their cross country, they're feeling pretty great! And the ones who aren't feeling all that great probably didn't get past the ten minute box.

But that's just the idea I've got in my mind. Can someone who has been there correct me if I'm wrong/ elaborate where it is needed?

[LAZ]

Great post broodmare. I have also been amazed at the amount of fluids run into horses at the big events, at the quasi-legal treatments in the barn on Saturday night/Sunday morning (some of these things may not test, but the are most certainly against the spirit of the rules). It seems the worst type of horsemanship to encourage taking a marginal horse on. I understand people want to complete, I understand the hours, years, and money that goes into making it to a big 3 day. But the big thing should be that people have the horsemanship skills to present a sound and ready horse on Sunday, not that they rely on medical intervention and chemicals.



In an honest well intentioned attempt to expand the fan base/spectators, increase the number of competitors, increase the number of upper level events, increase the toehold in a variety of countries and climates and stay in the Olympic games what was a smallish Northern European sport has morphed in the last 15 or 20 years into something quite different. Sadly the current model is not working out so well as evidenced by numbers of accidents, falls and deaths.
One area that has not been discussed as much would be to change to culture so that riders must conserve their horse on Saturday in order to be able to compete on Sunday. The original cavalry model. This will bring down speed and risk taking like we haven’t seen recently. It will also require some real courage and leadership from Ground Juries. In the last 10 years or so, there has been pressure on Ground Juries to be lenient on Sunday morning because it was perceived that spinning too many horses was bad for the sport. And it certainly makes the competitors mad as hell to have given their all on Saturday and get spun on Sunday. If we shift the paradigm and require that the horses look good, really good on Sunday morning, then the responsibility goes back to the rider to leave enough in the tank, not run them so fast, and not take the same kinds of risks. This will also trickle back to the course designers to create more forgiving courses. The current fashion in course design, to set so many jumps off turns, and use extremely technical questions as a means of slowing riders down is detrimental to the horses and may lead to some of these accidents. I don’t think the designers are looking to create tricks, I think it is just the current trend to use technicality as a way to slow down riders and sort through a bunch of lovely well trained horses. If we give the riders a real reason to slow down, return to the more straightforward fences, and the flowing course design, we might get to reduce some of the disasters.

As a part of making the Sunday jog more consequential, we will need to eliminate the IV fluids and much of the veterinary intervention on Sat night. We all know that the fluids make the horses feel better. OK, but the point is to conserve your horse, don’t take the risks, ride with the long term goal in mind, and the competition will reward horsemanship, not risk taking. At present we have a system where in order to win, the rider needs to go fast enough to run the horse just about to the bottom, and then puff them back up again over Saturday night with 20-40 liters, mess with the shoeing because their feet hurt, and pray on jog strip (“he’s fine, he’s just stiff”), and then jump with a minimum number of rails. (There is a further discussion on IV fluids at the bottom)

Finally, back to the Ground Jury during XC. The ground jury has all the power, so now they need to use it. No one enjoys pulling riders off course or giving out yellow cards, or giving penalties to riders at the finish who arrive with exhausted horses BUT riders are smart. If the ground jury starts laying down the law out there and using the tools they already have in their toolbox things will evolve in a hurry. Just like we have vets and area stewards stationed throughout the course, the ground jury needs to be stationed in sectors around the course so they can actually witness and DO SOMETHING. The fence judges can’t do it, they don’t have the power. Ground juries are understandably loathe to take action when they don’t actually see the incident and things happen very fast. Drifting around in a car watching how things flow is too random for truly effective observation. There will be lots of howling and carrying on but again the riders aren’t trying to get hurt or hurt their horses; they are trying to compete in the current culture. If a rider pushes a horse from a ridiculous spot, and gets that rotational fall: give a yellow card with the big E. If they arrive at the finish with a clear round and a horse that is exhausted, give the 20 points so they don’t do that again. If the horse looks exhausted two fences from home, the ground jury member needs to pull them up and not condone the current culture that “so and so is such a good rider he/she will get them in safely.” Maybe they will be lucky, maybe they won’t and they will have the big fall…but the point is that the horse is exhausted ie bad horsemanship. Change the culture. If they are riding dangerously fast out there, pull them up, and ream them out in public. That’ll be exciting but it will save lives in the long run.
The ground jury members are the police and the judge and the jury. If they do it, the culture will change pretty darn fast. It won’t be fun, and it may not even seem totally fair regarding who gets nailed on an individual occasion but it will resonate across the sport.

SIDEBAR ON IV FLUIDS
We got started giving fluids in large volume in the early 80’s at least at Chesterland because it became apparent that we could take a horse that was dicey and trying to tie-up, give them 20-30 liters or so and have them complete. But back in the 80’s we were working with very few horses and we were trying to increase the % completion. The sport was very tiny then.
Then as we moved towards a couple Olympics in a row in hot climates, all that work was done which showed that the horse lost so much fluid sweating it out in the hostile climate that they needed IV fluids (the horses wouldn’t/couldn’t drink enough to make up for the deficit.) Now we have good work that shows the effect of transportation and travel stress on hydration status. Many horses arrive at the events somewhat dehydrated, and don’t recover to normal. That has a negative impact on health and performance and these horses need to be addressed right up until the competition begins, or use nasogastric fluids. As far as eventing in extreme climates, that will probably still require IV fluids for the health and welfare of the horses, but frankly, I don’t know why a northern European sport should be run at the same level in a hostile climate. The test should fit the venue.
Meanwhile here in the states, the big events are run in cool weather, we have transportation stress but we sure don’t have heat stress. About 10 years ago we ran more than 1,000 liters into the ** horses after cross country at Radnor. The temperature that day didn’t go above 75 degrees. That was the day I reconsidered the fluid question. It wasn’t about the heat. The unintended consequence was that competitors learned that they could push harder/ or would even have to push harder to remain competitive and that the fluids would help their very tired horse. IMO in a temperate climate, IV fluids are a performance enhancer for the exhausted horse because they allow them to come back faster from a greater physical effort than they could on their own.

[Ajierene]

I agree Broodmare - pumping fluids into horses is not the answer and does encourage more risk. It makes me wonder about these top horses and how many fluids they need. I currently only run my horse at novice and some bad years she has not been in as good a shape as good years, but she can still make it around a horse trial after not drinking for the entire day. She refuses to drink at horse trials - it isn't the water, because I have brought some from home before and she still refuses to drink - when it is over 90, I keep a careful eye on her, but she's never dehydrated. We get home as quickly as possibly after the show so she can drink, but if she can be a bit out of shape and do a novice, a horse more used to travel, in top shape, more used to the rigors of the sport, should be able to do it as well.

As far as long format/short format go - I do not believe it weeded out more horses. There was a thread on here, that I cannot find now, where Jimmy wofford, or some other big name that is respected by many who visit this board, talked about eventing going through 'cycles'. The initial article talked about a rash of nasy accidents and deaths about 15 years ago and how some competitors had to change what they were doing or get out of the game. I am going to keep looking for it because I think it is relevant to this topic.

[Lucassb]

One of the reasons I never considered Eventing was that military attitude plus, way back when I first entered horses (early 60s), women were rare and considered somewhat "sissy and emotional". I could not deal with the falls and that attitude was simply not in tune with "kick on" and "it happens". I picked disciplines where "it" does not just happen and we pull up on those rare occasions things go that wrong...and I am no coward.


I still see it. Not everybody but too many. To those who say I cannot possibly understand because I don't Event? Kind of like it that way and glad I don't understand that kind of thinking about horse falls simply being a part of the sport.

Denny, I think that is the root of your problem-tradition. That is the way it is.

Perhaps, as time goes on, it will become less acceptable. Just peer pressure changing from the old to a newer attitude as it has towards horses and other animals in general over my lifetime.

Continue to follow this because any horse sport effects other horse sports and any death, Event or race track or show ring, reflects on all of us in the eyes of the public.

Count me in this camp as well. As a horseless kid I grew up doing Pony Club (and got my B test done as well as winning our club's annual award multiple times, on borrowed horses, until I was able to finally buy my own after college.) The concept of eventing appealed to me but I did not pursue it as an adult for the reasons that Findeight has outlined: I could not deal with the falls and that attitude was simply not in tune with "kick on" and "it happens". I picked disciplines where "it" does not just happen and we pull up on those rare occasions things go that wrong...and I am no coward.

I *know* there are many good and caring horsemen who are eventers, Denny perhaps first among those. I hope that a way will be found to make the sport safer for the horses who give us so much, and who have no choice in the matter. While I believe that most do it willingly and find joy in the process, I also believe that first and foremost as horsemen, we are obligated to protect them from giving more than they can, just because they will. And if that way cannot be found, I am sad to say it, but I hope eventing becomes a thing of the past.

[silver2]

I really don't think you can ban falling down. Gravity acts on horses the same as anything else.

If horse or rider make a bad enough error or the horse spooks and mis-steps or slips at an inopportune moment? It's going to fall. It could happen on x-country or in the dressage ring or getting off the trailer. I see far more falls due to factors outside of the riders control (or due to the inexperience of horse or rider or the horse throwing a fit and forgetting to keep it's feet under itself) than I ever do due to reckless riding.

You can work to penalize reckless riding and to get away from the "run and jump" mentality that makes some eventers mistake themselves for motocross riders ;) though.

[Kementari]

There's a fundamental difference between banning something and penalizing for it...

[pk1027]

Do we have more falls now than we used to?

Do we have more injuries/deaths resulting from falls now than we used to?

I mean those questions honestly - I don't know the answers. It certainly SEEMS like the answer in both cases is yes, but we also have a lot more instant media coverage now than in times past, and that can skew our perceptions.



I completely agree with this, news travels so fast now and is instant. Before deaths and falls at small events at lower levels probably would've not been published as fast and instantly and not travel around the world. We would not be hearing about the novice rider who fell over in England where as now its front page news.

Now do I feel we have issues in eventing, Yes. But at the same time I think our perception of the issue is a bit skewed.

[IFG]

You certainly aren't the first person to say this, but I continue to struggle with the logic. How would doing to trots and a steeplechase weed out less talented/careful horses? :confused: As much as we all miss the long format, the elements eliminated to create the short-format were NOT those that tested talent, skill, carefulness. And as nice as doing the whole package was, phases A, B and C were/are a fabulous warm-up for phase D -- they weren't/aren't skills tests in and of themselves.

Nevertime, it is a question. The reason that I ask is because in the years before the short format, I saw many horses that were sold on to lower level homes because they were not sound enough to do a three day. They would tie-up or have leg issues or whatever. I wonder if some of these horses that would have been sold to lower level homes in the past due to unsoundnesses are now competing at the upper levels. I wonder if some of these unsoundnesses are not manifesting as breakdowns at the upper levels.

[magnolia73]

But at the same time I think our perception of the issue is a bit skewed.


Perhaps part of what is perceived as a longstanding acceptance of falls was a lack of knowledge about the falls among all but the top riders. Now we know what happens and are not pleased..... and even disturbed.

[findeight]

My feeling about the falls came from personal, real live observation and conversation with participants. Don't know what was worse, the catastrophic falls or the fact nobody seemed to care that much...and that started over 40 years ago. Then I move here where Rolex is an hour away and follow it a little more...until the dead horses every year (2 in one year) ran me off.

Since they didn't seem to have bothered with keeping horse statistics as far as serious injury and death resulting from falls until very recently...well...does present the impression it has not been a pressing issue in the past. My feeling is there have always been too many...maybe more now because more participate and compete more often but the falls are nothing new.

Don't get me wrong, I use and compete my horses. I expect them to work hard for me and am well aware that sh*t does happen. But bucking all those years of tradition and looking down at the "sissies" and being afraid to say anything because you would be thought a sissy are going to be hard to change...especially when, far as I can tell, you got some heavy tradition at the very top of the elite levels? Good luck with that.

And, Broodmare...THANK YOU for an informative and non judgemental post. I had no idea... bears looking into. One thing to rehydrate but what else is going on...and how the heck did they get by in years past when we were not so quick with the needles?

And, what about pressure on the ground jury? Never thought about that one either.

[silver2]

There's a fundamental difference between banning something and penalizing for it...
I'd argue that if you make the act of falling in and of itself punishable you are effectively trying to eliminate it. Which is throwing the baby out with the bathwater imho. People fall, horses fall. 99% of the time they hop up and carry on with nothing more than scrapes and bruises. If scrapes and bruises have now become an unacceptable risk then we may as well just call it good and all quit riding altogether.

I think what has really changed is our attitude to risk and our expectation that someone, somewhere should be doing something about it. That and the fact that the internet has made it much easier to reach out and bash people and everyone is more defensive about their actions and mistakes.

Ultimately I know far more people who've injured horses giving them injections or loading them on a trailer than riding x-country but no one condemns those activities because we all still want to be able to do them ourselves.

[Kementari]

And attempting to eliminate horses falling is a bad thing?

We already seem to agree in the sport that a horse falling is a Bad Thing - that's why you get an MR for it. I'd argue that that in and of itself indicates that we don't want to see horses going down: that we'd like, in fact, to eliminate it.

Well, we aren't. And unlike your basic refusal - something else that we penalize, though we can hardly ban it - a fall is MUCH more likely to result in damage to the horse (or rider) than those other things we penalize.

I have had a horse fall with me five times in my life. Twice was the same horse, who liked to rear and flip, so I'm discounting that for the moment. The other three times, one was a freak, who-knows-why kind of thing - we were cantering, balanced, easy...and then we were on our sides. The other two were footing-related, and thus COULD HAVE BEEN prevented (both were gymkhana, though, not eventing). The first was on grass (a fun day, not a real competition, of course), and when I asked my horse to come down to a trot for the turn, he blew through my aids and kept going full speed. Clearly, I should have either worked on rating more at home (and you can bet I did afterwards) or not gone into the arena. My fault. The second time was in dirt, but it had gotten very chewed up and deep around the third barrel. I actually asked show management to rake it, in fact, and they said not until the end of the class. I should have known - I DID know - that it wasn't a good scene, and I should have declined to ride that class. My fault, again. (Though the show managers were idiots about it, too.)

In both cases, my only penalty was elimination from the class. Luckily, both the horse and I were unhurt. But if I'd known going in that if we fell it would mean elimination from not only the class, but the next month's (or more) worth of showing? I might have thought a third time about riding in the second instance (in the first I truly had no idea my horse wouldn't rate back - which doesn't make it not my fault, since I'm responsible for his training, but does mean I probably would have ridden anyway).

We all make mistakes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have to pay for them - especially when our mistakes put our horses at risk.

[silver2]

And attempting to eliminate horses falling is a bad thing?
It's an impossible thing in and of itself. In my opinion one should concentrate on doing things that are largely possible to acheive.

There is plenty that can be done to reduce or largely eliminate reckless riding, there is no need to move past the sensible measures into the unacheivable.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make talking about your falls. You seem to be supporting my viewpoint which is that falls happen and we can't prevent them all, although we can hope to reduce them by addressing some of the underlying risk factors. Like bad footing or being overmounted or inexperienced.

Falls are a symptom, not the disease. We need to treat the disease.

[subk]

You certainly aren't the first person to say this, but I continue to struggle with the logic. How would doing to trots and a steeplechase weed out less talented/careful horses? :confused: As much as we all miss the long format, the elements eliminated to create the short-format were NOT those that tested talent, skill, carefulness. And as nice as doing the whole package was, phases A, B and C were/are a fabulous warm-up for phase D -- they weren't/aren't skills tests in and of themselves.
Personally I think it takes a better horse and a better horseman to get around a LF xc than a SF if for no other reason because it has to be done with less juice in tank.

[NeverTime]

Amen to that, but that's a reason that one could easily argue runs contrary to the whole argument that the LF is safer - ie, your horse had better be more talented because he's going to be more tired and more sloppy when aimed at those big fences -- and therefore more at risk to have a crash. I realize this is a digression from the OP. I just always wonder about that statement...

[IFG]

If I remember correctly, when the LF was the only game in town, the horses ran a * and a ** LF before running a ***. If they could hold up to the * and **, I think that they were more likely to be fine at a *** or ****.

[RAyers]

Personally I think it takes a better horse and a better horseman to get around a LF xc than a SF if for no other reason because it has to be done with less juice in tank.



And the conditioning program for the LF likely resulted in a better tissue development (e.g. thicker tendons, ligaments, denser bone). So the horses were structurally more sound.

Reed

[SPLAT]

Well Denny - for once, I agree with you. This is not a short/long format issue, it is a whole complete paradigm shift.

It happened in racing - formula 1 car racing to be precise.
The entire industry went from the attitude of "racing is dangerous - people get killed" to ... death is an unacceptable event.
It changed the way they dressed, they built cars, they designed courses etc. - it went to a sport that evaluated safety as a part of each new effort.

We are not there in eventing and we need to get there. Acknowledging that is the first step and we are not even there. There are too many agendas, training, long format, falls, etc... - We are not united and focused on safety as a group and we should be.

Well that said - no solution - but I do keep trying to sort this thing out if someone has an answer and I can help, I am all ears. I'm new to this, but I love it and I hate all the dead horses, and hurt riders that can't wait to get out and do it again.

[kdow]

It's an impossible thing in and of itself. In my opinion one should concentrate on doing things that are largely possible to acheive.

There is plenty that can be done to reduce or largely eliminate reckless riding, there is no need to move past the sensible measures into the unacheivable.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make talking about your falls. You seem to be supporting my viewpoint which is that falls happen and we can't prevent them all, although we can hope to reduce them by addressing some of the underlying risk factors. Like bad footing or being overmounted or inexperienced.

Falls are a symptom, not the disease. We need to treat the disease.

Perhaps rather than a mandatory fixed penalty, the response to a fall needs to be a mandatory review- of the ground conditions, of the riding, of any information about the horse's medical state prior to the event, etc. Then the punishment fits the actual 'crime'- i.e. if it was just an accidental fall, then that's the end of it. If the fall was caused by something about the course itself which should have been corrected by the show management (bad footing, some fault in the jump construction, etc.) then the show management has to pay a fine. If the rider did something wrong, or the fall was caused by the horse being not suitably trained for the event, then the rider is penalized in some way, appropriate for the nature of the actual issue.

In order for this to work, we'd need more footage of the jumps (granted, there seem to be cameras EVERYWHERE now, but having a jump videographer would be part of each jump 'team') and also the jump judges would have to be equipped with a camera, so that if there was a fall they could go and take photos of the ground conditions and so on, for later review.

[subk]

Amen to that, but that's a reason that one could easily argue runs contrary to the whole argument that the LF is safer - ie, your horse had better be more talented because he's going to be more tired and more sloppy when aimed at those big fences -- and therefore more at risk to have a crash. I realize this is a digression from the OP. I just always wonder about that statement...
Having ridden a few LFs I don't know that riding a powder keg is safer than riding something ready to give a more constant flow of energy, if you will. (Having witnessed the LA fall I think that was a factor.) As a rider I think when you know you have to be judicious you tend to make better and safer choices--even if you're not specifically thinking about it. I suspect too that a horse successful in an endurance situation is a bit more likely to be a little smarter, a little more athletic than one who merely needs to be fit. We used to be aware that not all horse trail horses were 3-day horses. I really haven't heard that distinction lately. That alone tells me we've opened the field for lesser quality horses.

Sorry OP, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

[Kementari]

It's an impossible thing in and of itself. In my opinion one should concentrate on doing things that are largely possible to acheive.

There is plenty that can be done to reduce or largely eliminate reckless riding, there is no need to move past the sensible measures into the unacheivable.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make talking about your falls. You seem to be supporting my viewpoint which is that falls happen and we can't prevent them all, although we can hope to reduce them by addressing some of the underlying risk factors. Like bad footing or being overmounted or inexperienced.

Falls are a symptom, not the disease. We need to treat the disease.

I certainly agree that falls do just happen on occasion (which is why I would give each rider a "get out of jail free" opportunity every so many years). My point was, though, that those that can be prevented are more likely to be prevented if the consequences are more severe than, "Oh, well, better luck next weekend!"

We can't treat the disease until we know what it is. (Hence, also, that I advocate investigating accidents when they happen.) Until then, though, we can treat the symptoms. If I take my horse's temp and it's 103, then I give him Banamine right away - because the fever itself is dangerous, and there's no sense in letting it keep going just because I don't yet know what caused it.

If the disease IS reckless riding, though, how do we eliminate (or lessen - again, I don't think elimination of reckless riding is any more possible than elimination of falling) that without punishing its consequences? All the feel-good, education, be-a-better-horseman stuff in the world isn't going to stop people who are just in it for the thrill and the win. For some people (most people, I'd argue, who fall into the reckless category), you just have to hit them where it hurts - which is in their ability to compete.

(I do support the educational initiatives, and think they are vital, but I don't think they will even come close to solving the problem on their own.)

[silver2]

Perhaps rather than a mandatory fixed penalty, the response to a fall needs to be a mandatory review- of the ground conditions, of the riding, of any information about the horse's medical state prior to the event, etc. Then the punishment fits the actual 'crime'- i.e. if it was just an accidental fall, then that's the end of it. If the fall was caused by something about the course itself which should have been corrected by the show management (bad footing, some fault in the jump construction, etc.) then the show management has to pay a fine. If the rider did something wrong, or the fall was caused by the horse being not suitably trained for the event, then the rider is penalized in some way, appropriate for the nature of the actual issue.
Yes that would make a lot more sense and we might actually learn something from it and become better riders and course designers.

Countdown to riders and venues suing each other for "causing a fall" in 10... 9....8....7.... :p

[silver2]

If the disease IS reckless riding, though, how do we eliminate (or lessen - again, I don't think elimination of reckless riding is any more possible than elimination of falling) that without punishing its consequences?

Common sense says that if you want people not to ride recklessly you communicate to them what that defines and then punish them when they do it, reward them when they don't. Why wait until someone falls to punish them? Any why make everything more complicated and subjective than it needs to be!

[NeverTime]

And the conditioning program for the LF likely resulted in a better tissue development (e.g. thicker tendons, ligaments, denser bone). So the horses were structurally more sound.

Reed

I've done LF one-stars and SF two-stars. My first two-star was supposed to be a LF, but the organizers changed it to short just a few weeks before the event (Reed, you probably remember that one @ CHP :no: ), so in that case we conditioned for a LF and competed in a SF.

From my admittedly limited experience -- conditioning for three LF *, one long-turned-short **, four other SF ** -- conditioning for the SF has been exactly the same as conditioning for the LF. We still do all the same trot sets, all the same gallops.

The only difference, from my perspective, was in competition and was what subk hit on and Reed's research may be pointing to -- that I went out on the SF courses knowing I was on a fresh horse (but nonetheless concerned about how he'd feel 8 or 9 minutes in).

[fooler]

OK I will bite. Here are some suggestions to consider:

As noted in your original email most horse falls occur at the upper levels. One reason for some of the falls is incompetency either of the horse or of the rider. Webster’s defines Competent as:
1. Sufficiently able or qualified: fit: 2. Sufficient: adequate; 3. Legally capable or qualified.

Rather than initiating Draconian requirements, let’s work on competency.

First Competency Requirement:
ALL Horse and Rider combinations, as a team, must complete four Horse Trials with no jumping faults before moving up to the next level. This includes everyone, no matter whether Pro, Amateur or team rider.
This will slow the progression of some ‘Pro’ ridden horses, but will assure each horse has at least 4 outings at each level.
The competency of the rider can not always make up for the inexperience of the horse.
The competency of the horse can not always make up for the inexperience of the rider.

Second Competency Requirement:
Horse and rider combination must pass competency test before moving up.
Receive 50 or less at the new level dressage test
Without Watch - Canter/Gallop 1000 meters at new level x-c speed.
Track should be unlevel requiring rider to show ability to maintain balance and control.
Rider’s galloping position is graded as competent or not. No Style points.
If not passing at this point, then competitor is sent home for more work
If passing at this point, Competitor jumps shorten x-c course
Judged on steady pace
Competency of jumping (both horse and rider)
Last test is stadium round, judged same as x-c round

“Move-up” or “Competency” tests should be held up to four times each year in every Area. The tests can/should be held in conjunction with regular horse trials. Testers could include the President and Ground Jury, TD and ICP rated trainer, to reduce fees for organizers and competitors. Entry fee for test would be the same as normal event entry fee.

Other Thoughts:
Initiate speed faults at all levels.
Competitors finishing with speed faults will be placed on the Watch List:
Competitors with speed faults at their current level who passed testing listed above in preparation for move up should be watched for competency.

Change age requirement for Horses:
Preliminary - 6 years
Intermediate - 7 years
Advanced -8 years

Re-read Dorothy Crowell’s commentary, It's a Different Sport (http://useventing.com/blog/?p=224.) Wonderful insights

Falls of rider should be reviewed. Automatic elimination is not the answer for all falls. Haven't figured out how to filter that one though.

[asterix]

You know, fooler, I am a HUGE fan of a system like the one you outlined. Not everyone is, and we'll hear from them, but I would LOVE to put something like this in place (one can quarrel with the details but the concept is sound).

and I think we should.

But.

I think that what Denny is saying, which I for one agree with, is that there is Something Fundamentally Wrong -- and it is NOT really wrong at the level of a Training rider moving up to Prelim too soon, or even an (ahem) Olympic rider moving a Training horse up to Prelim too soon. We can and should fix this, but there is a core flaw in our sport that has infected the highest levels of competition.
The sick must heal themselves, and I haven't seen any recognition that they even accept that they are sick.

I'm sorry. If the footing was so horrible at that Cage Match eventing thing, you shouldn't have asked your partner to run it. Why do people accept this level of risk for their partners???

[BaroquePony]

Manmade tracks and manmade arenas are not always easy to detect the footing on. The warm up areas have a different footing, so you can't get a feel for it there. Sometimes it is a 100% unknown until you enter the arena and then you have very little time to figure it out. Sometimes there is an section that behaves completely differently due to overwatering or improper laydown of subsurface and/or surface, etc..

[JER]

fooler, what you are proposing deals -- once again -- with rider issues, not horse welfare.

If we say that horse falls are unacceptable, then we have to tackle the issue of horse falls.

If the starting point is that no horse fall is acceptable, then we have to treat every fall as an unacceptable event, regardless of cause. The horse and rider need to sit out competitions for a designated time. We also need to investigate the incident, identify the causes and penalize any other parties found to be at fault.

Or what about -- and I'm just tossing this out to be provocative -- a two- or three-strikes rule? A horse falls two or three times in XC competitions and it may no longer compete in recognized events. Granted, very few horses fall at all, and only a handful might fall again. (I have no idea what these numbers are. Horses don't fall easily and if you have one that does, for god's sake, stop riding it.)

And what about Zara Phillips's mare, whose fatal fall was her third fall in 2 years? Would that horse have continued to move up if she'd already become a 'professional liability' due to suspensions from her earlier falls?

denny is right about why this won't happen. We have a cadre of elite riders and decision makers who are probably the only people whose businesses would be hurt by an automatic suspension for a horse fall.

Personally, I don't think a sport -- any sport -- owes anyone a living. Let's not forget that a practicing dentist won the Olympics, followed by two riding moms who train and teach but don't have massive strings of horses and owners.

And just as the sport doesn't owe anyone a living, our horses shouldn't have to pay for the sport with their lives.

[Kementari]

Common sense says that if you want people not to ride recklessly you communicate to them what that defines and then punish them when they do it, reward them when they don't. Why wait until someone falls to punish them? Any why make everything more complicated and subjective than it needs to be!

We have DR penalties, which have been enforced more stringently the past couple of years. Yet we still have way too many wrecks.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should only punish someone when they fall, but rather that in addition to the rules already in place, we should add a stronger penalty for the fall of a horse.

I also don't think anyone is suggesting that this will solve all our problems: it's merely one part of a larger picture. Better defining and enforcing DR penalties is certainly another part of that picture.

To go back to an earlier analogy, my horse presents with a fever and stocking up. My vet thinks it's Lyme, and we start the horse on doxy. Should we withhold the doxy the couple of days that it takes the titre to come back, because we can't be absolutely sure that that's the problem without the results - even though there's almost certainly no harm in it, other than to my wallet? And, during the time it takes the doxy to kick in, should I just forget the Banamine for the fever? After all, even if the horse founders, I can claim to have been treating the disease, so I didn't need to worry about the symptoms.

[TB or not TB?]

Do we have more falls now than we used to?

Do we have more injuries/deaths resulting from falls now than we used to?

The short answer is yes. The data isn't always being collected for normal falls, but certainly the number of deadly falls is well up. In the span of 1993-2000, there were about 12 deaths in eventing. In 2007 alone, there were 11 rider deaths, and about that many horse deaths (though these are not well recorded). This does not include falls like Ralph's and Darren's. In 2008, there have been a number of serious falls, a handfull of deaths, and a TON of horse deaths.

Everything else I would say on this thread has been better said by people with more knowledge than I.

[retreadeventer]

Having trained racehorses for almost two decades, I cannot for the LIFE of me figure out WHY there is not an IMMEDIATE, on the spot investigation with witnesses and principles of ANY FALL OF HORSE at a horse trial. There was in racing in every jurisdiction I participated in.
Any time a horse goes down it should be scrutinized immediately. On the spot findings should be taken by the officials and a later hearing date set before the end of the horse trial where someone would be available to take a recording of testimony and where photographs or video could be observed by officials of the incident.
At least this way, we could see as well as possible whether it was just an Oops moment or if footing, weather, sightlines, jump position/height, rider error, etc. where factors. Then the officials acting as a committee can make a recommendation as to whether the rider should be left alone, given a card, suspended, etc. If the rider doesn't like the finding they can appeal and an appeal hearing - more formal within the appeal guidelines already in place - can take place.
You know I don't give a flying crap if the initial horse trial held hearing might inconvenience one of these BNR's who have six or seven to rider later in the day. Too bad. If you fall with a horse guess what you are going to have to suck it up and scratch one or two in order to make your hearing on time. A horse fall is serious? Ya think? Duh. It's a privilege, not a right, to ride multiple horses at an event. . . AND . . .
With the state this sport is in at the upper levels and the lastest $150,000+ fiasco, I am not so sure the current crop of ULR's are doing a very good job of stewardship of our sport. Express eventing is a nightmare and should be outlawed. What the hell is wrong with attacting people and prize money to regular horse trials and three day events?
JMHO as an outside observor.

[Kementari]

The short answer is yes. The data isn't always being collected for normal falls, but certainly the number of deadly falls is well up. In the span of 1993-2000, there were about 12 deaths in eventing. In 2007 alone, there were 11 rider deaths, and about that many horse deaths (though these are not well recorded). This does not include falls like Ralph's and Darren's. In 2008, there have been a number of serious falls, a handfull of deaths, and a TON of horse deaths.

But are these years outliers, or part of a trend?

(Unfortunately, we won't know THAT for several MORE years, and we need to act now to prevent more casualties, regardless of their statistical significance. It's just of interest to the geek in me to know how good the good ol' days really were in comparison.)

I love your signature, by the way: it makes me laugh every time I see it! ;)

[flyingchange]

You know I don't give a flying crap if the initial horse trial held hearing might inconvenience one of these BNR's who have six or seven to rider later in the day. Too bad. If you fall with a horse guess what you are going to have to suck it up and scratch one or two in order to make your hearing on time. A horse fall is serious? Ya think? Duh. It's a privilege, not a right, to ride multiple horses at an event. . . AND . . .
With the state this sport is in at the upper levels and the lastest $150,000+ fiasco, I am not so sure the current crop of ULR's are doing a very good job of stewardship of our sport. Express eventing is a nightmare and should be outlawed. What the hell is wrong with attacting people and prize money to regular horse trials and three day events?
JMHO as an outside observor.

I'm with you 110%. Well said.

[Gnep]

Asterix asked the correct question, if condition suck, why take the risk.

According to Betina Hoy, the footing was terrible for horses, made specificly for Rugby, feels good for people but very bad for horses. The designer was the same guy who designed Pau, known to go for the limit, without any experiance designing courses for a indoor event, the course had no flow, jumps between 2 and 3 star and tech difficulty 4 star, the corner combination, that claimed cavaliere, long strided and the corners built with to large an angle, brutaly unforgiving.
She made the smart decision, leading, she gave her fans the stadium round and than called it a day, as she called it it was just to big a risk to take, despite the 100.000 pounds, even just a slow save round 7th place would have been a nice payday, but not worth the risk.

That's what we need, riders beeing responseble and than willing to voice the reasons for their withdrawl. That Lady would make a fine spokes person.

If we want to see changes we have to look for the Upper Level Riders that make good decisions and support them.

[RealityCheck]

Having trained racehorses for almost two decades, I cannot for the LIFE of me figure out WHY there is not an IMMEDIATE, on the spot investigation with witnesses and principles of ANY FALL OF HORSE at a horse trial. There was in racing in every jurisdiction I participated in.
Any time a horse goes down it should be scrutinized immediately. On the spot findings should be taken by the officials and a later hearing date set before the end of the horse trial where someone would be available to take a recording of testimony and where photographs or video could be observed by officials of the incident.
At least this way, we could see as well as possible whether it was just an Oops moment or if footing, weather, sightlines, jump position/height, rider error, etc. where factors. Then the officials acting as a committee can make a recommendation as to whether the rider should be left alone, given a card, suspended, etc. If the rider doesn't like the finding they can appeal and an appeal hearing - more formal within the appeal guidelines already in place - can take place.
You know I don't give a flying crap if the initial horse trial held hearing might inconvenience one of these BNR's who have six or seven to rider later in the day. Too bad. If you fall with a horse guess what you are going to have to suck it up and scratch one or two in order to make your hearing on time. A horse fall is serious? Ya think? Duh. It's a privilege, not a right, to ride multiple horses at an event. . . AND . . .
With the state this sport is in at the upper levels and the lastest $150,000+ fiasco, I am not so sure the current crop of ULR's are doing a very good job of stewardship of our sport. Express eventing is a nightmare and should be outlawed. What the hell is wrong with attacting people and prize money to regular horse trials and three day events?
JMHO as an outside observor.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. My first thought reading this was "Wow, that seems a bit drastic." And then, I wanted to smack myself, because the number of horse and rider fatalities recently has been more than drastic. We absolutely NEED a DRASTIC measure to help our sport. I'm not sure about all of the practical aspects of holding a hearing while the competition is still running, just because of the limited number of officials. Perhaps the "hearing", or whatever it would be, could be held after the last horse goes that day? Anyway, the main point of all this that I think is so important is that every single horse fall on cross country should be formally investigated. Or, at the very least, every rotational fall. And if it turns out that it truly was a freak accident, good! It can be investigated and then the rider will be let go with no punishment. But with a system like this, when a horse has a rotational fall because the rider comes flying downhill to a vertical faced table and never puts on the brakes they can be punished accordingly. And hopefully, severely.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by Gnep:

According to Betina Hoy, the footing was terrible for horses, made specificly for Rugby, feels good for people but very bad for horses. The designer was the same guy who designed Pau, known to go for the limit, without any experiance designing courses for a indoor event, the course had no flow, jumps between 2 and 3 star and tech difficulty 4 star, the corner combination, that claimed cavaliere, long strided and the corners built with to large an angle, brutaly unforgiving.

So, there wasn't even a responsible effort to prepare footing for these horses :mad:

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by RealityCheck:

Anyway, the main point of all this that I think is so important is that every single horse fall on cross country should be formally investigated. Or, at the very least, every rotational fall.

Every fall. Otherwise a fall like Cavalier's would not be investigated and it should be.

[Thames Pirate]

I have never had a horse fall (going to their knees or had the back end slide out, but not truly fall) in any situation, but I have seen numerous ones. Sometimes they really are bad luck. I remember a friend whose horse fell in the woods--just slipped and fell--no biggie. (They retired despite the fact that nobody would have known--I think the rider actually went to the scorers and had them change the R to MR--both horse and rider were unhurt). Should falls like that require penalization? Especially in light of the rider's responsible actions? I don't think so. Should it require investigation? Absolutely! This was a fit **** horse with an experienced Intermediate rider at Intermediate. The footing overall was good. The pair had been running well in prior competitions and that day (it happened just a few from home). I'm sure the rider wouldn't have minded an inquiry that would have cleared both rider and horse.

An inquiry might have saved not only certain horses, but riders as well--what about Mia Eriksson? Hadn't they had a fall just before her accident? I don't know the circumstances. Accidents, sad as they are, will happen. However, I suspect an inquiry will help us both gain insight into the root of the problem and help riders think twice. There doesn't even need to be a set penalty--a decision to run in less than optimal footing is penalized differently than a reckless rider, for example.

I also agree that TDs need to be stricter. At an event with a friend doing her first BN, her horse jumped out of the arena. The TD had the guts to tell her she couldn't control her horse well enough in dressage to go XC with permission (though they let her SJ). While I knew the rider and horse and knew they would have been fine, the TD decided based on what she saw--and I don't think her choice was wrong based on that. On the other hand, she gave a rider permission to SJ that really had no business at a HT, even at BN. They crawled over the first 3 jumps with a total of 3 stops and taking the coop from a walk and nearly falling, then stopped and rider fell at the ditch. She remounted, and instead of taking the log option, she tried the ditch again--and again--and again--and then fell again (from a walk). SCARY!! Even if the TD didn't see it, she did see SJ warmup, in which they took out several jumps and nearly a few people on the ground (including me). She opted not to jump (thankfully), but the situation in JBN warmup was downright dangerous. The TD SHOULD HAVE stopped her. When officials start taking note and making the hard calls, riders will take note.

On another note--reporting: if this becomes culturally acceptable, I think this girl would have been reported before even GETTING to fence 4 (the ditch where she fell), thus preventing the near-crashes in the SJ warmup. I am still not sure how I feel about anonymity, but that's another topic for another day. I just feel that if we're serious about stopping horse falls (and rider falls, obviously), we should be talking about all of these things together.

I will say that a lot of people mistake speed for recklessness, particularly at LL, so I don't like the speed fault=possible consequences (other than the obvious score faults). My mare goes best at 470-490 mpm. We got speed faults at Novice once, but we went around beautifully balanced, in a comfortable rhythm, and had a blast. W moved up to Training (with what is to date the most amazing XC round I've ever had) the next show. I find it helpful to play with the speed a bit before thinking of moving up--I want to know I can comfortably jump at higher speeds over the smaller fences before I do it over bigger ones (assuming the balance, rhythm, etc. is still there, of course). One show had identical fly fences on a long, straight gallop set up for T, P, and I (except the size, obviously). I jumped the T one at P speed and did it better than many of the P riders who didn't know how to ride a fly fence and tried to showjump it. Let's not equate speed and poor riding.

I'm all for increased studies involving course speeds (including at/between fences, averages, LF/SF, etc), types of jumps/terrain that cause problems, rider errors (what types of errors, their frequency, and their results), and anything else we can think of. I'm all for making reckless riding harder, making courses a bit more straightforward, and implementing official inquiries. I'm fine with synthetic or other collapsable jumps as long as a) if a horse freakishly banks one, it's safe, and b) they're solving problems without creating new ones. I'm all for stricter move-up qualifications (as long as they're reasonable).

I am not for throwing in the towel because a horse takes a misstep or penalizing riders who don't deserve it. We can salvage the sport.

The cultural shift Denny mentioned is not just the eventer blood in us, though. We riders are taught from day one that if you fall off, you get back on. Mark Todd said that the best thing he did after losing his first horse in competition (at Badminton) was to get on and ride the other horse. It was obvious in the interview that even years later he was affected by the loss of the first ride. The loss of the horse was NOT okay, even if he did "callously" get on and ride the second. It has never been okay, and that paradigm doesn't need shifting. The question is: should we rethink how we view riding the second horse? That would require a paradigm shift of the highest order, getting into the nitty-gritty of the "get back on" mentality. Is that what's best for horses or riders? As a side note, organizers closed the straight option on that fence for the rest of the day. I would not have been against an inquiry that day (even if it prevented the second ride), but I do oppose a shift in thinking that would have made it unacceptable to ride the second horse. We all handle tragedy and adversity differently, and we shouldn't force others to mourn a great horse by preventing them from riding another great horse (unless it was the result of negligence).

Flame suit on--It's unfortunate, but I do think we even need to give human error a pass to a degree. A single poorly ridden fence should be forgiven, even if it causes a fatality, if everything else is good (rider has a record of going well, consistently rides in balance, etc.). That doesn't mean it's acceptable, but it does mean we are human and do err--sometimes with disasterous consequences. Those riders theoretically should be hard enough on themselves that they are less likely to make the same mistake. It doesn't make it good or even okay as much as it accepts that these things, like care accidents, are inevitable. If the riders aren't consistently good or fixing the problem, then it falls into the negligence/recklessness category, which should be where the consequences are hard and swift.

I don't know if I added anything of relevance, but you now all have my two cents (which, as such, can change with convincing).

[vineyridge]

Maybe not relevant, but what about all the dressage training the current horses get that puts them into "the frame"? I was looking at one picture of MK and her now dead horse where she had totally loose reins, and the horse still carried itself in a dressage frame. My thought, possibly totally wrong, was that the horse had been overtrained in draw reins.

Would not that definitely affect agility and the ability to self correct by the use of the front end? I'd prefer seeing a true hunter frame on a XC course because the head and neck are so much freer to compensate.

But with the really technical courses that are being built these days, is a long flowing body possible?

Which all goes back to training and falls from what might be the "wrong" kind of training.

[Capsuni]

I've heard that there are many frangible styles of cross country jumps being made, that are likely to be used in the future to help stop fatal injuries during cross country.
Frangible jumps are ones that will collapse in a controlled manner (parts of the jumps will fall into specific placements) should a horse severely crash into them. They are not like stadium jumps where they will fall down if knocked/rubbed, but are intended to stop rotational falls, which are the main cause of fatal injuries.

Changing the general attitude that "crashes happen" and trying to do things to prevent them from happening are obviously very important to stop the deaths, but it's nice to know that there are also things going on to change the way the jumps are made so that they're a little bit safer.

Here is a link describing the frangible jumps in more detail:
http://equisearch.com/equiwire_news/usef_research_100808/

[kdow]

Maybe not relevant, but what about all the dressage training the current horses get that puts them into "the frame"? I was looking at one picture of MK and her now dead horse where she had totally loose reins, and the horse still carried itself in a dressage frame. My thought, possibly totally wrong, was that the horse had been overtrained in draw reins.


Can we come up with some other way to refer to it other than "dressage training"? Because a fake frame and draw reins are NOT the way to properly trained dressage- as came up in another thread, if you look at 'pure' dressage and the muscles and skills which are involved in doing it properly, it should be HELPING with balance and control on a jumping course. In fact, what some folks might need is MORE dressage, just done the right way, without gimmicks and a focus on 'headset'.

I just hate to see it referred to as "dressage training" and thus put people off, when dressage as it's meant to be done is quite possibly a valuable tool for the eventer- not just so you get good scores in that portion of the event, but so that you and the horse can communicate most effectively as you go around the course.

[fooler]

fooler, what you are proposing deals -- once again -- with rider issues, not horse welfare.

If we say that horse falls are unacceptable, then we have to tackle the issue of horse falls.

If the starting point is that no horse fall is acceptable, then we have to treat every fall as an unacceptable event, regardless of cause. The horse and rider need to sit out competitions for a designated time. We also need to investigate the incident, identify the causes and penalize any other parties found to be at fault.

Or what about -- and I'm just tossing this out to be provocative -- a two- or three-strikes rule? A horse falls two or three times in XC competitions and it may no longer compete in recognized events. Granted, very few horses fall at all, and only a handful might fall again. (I have no idea what these numbers are. Horses don't fall easily and if you have one that does, for god's sake, stop riding it.)

And what about Zara Phillips's mare, whose fatal fall was her third fall in 2 years? Would that horse have continued to move up if she'd already become a 'professional liability' due to suspensions from her earlier falls?

denny is right about why this won't happen. We have a cadre of elite riders and decision makers who are probably the only people whose businesses would be hurt by an automatic suspension for a horse fall.

Personally, I don't think a sport -- any sport -- owes anyone a living. Let's not forget that a practicing dentist won the Olympics, followed by two riding moms who train and teach but don't have massive strings of horses and owners.

And just as the sport doesn't owe anyone a living, our horses shouldn't have to pay for the sport with their lives.

Jer - not just rider competency, also horse competency. Both as a team have to complete at least 4 competitions at a specific level without penalties before being tested to move to the next level. Lately we have seen pros or ulrs take horses quickly up the ranks and have seen older horses take 'newbie' riders somewhat quickly up the ranks. This is an effort to slow the progression by modifying the qualifications.

Anyhow you have to focus on the rider in order to get to the horse don't you?

[JER]

Jer - not just rider competency, also horse competency. Both as a team have to complete at least 4 competitions at a specific level without penalties before being tested to move to the next level. Lately we have seen pros or ulrs take horses quickly up the ranks and have seen older horses take 'newbie' riders somewhat quickly up the ranks. This is an effort to slow the progression by modifying the qualifications.

Anyhow you have to focus on the rider in order to get to the horse don't you?

So let's say we adopt your idea that a team must have 4 completions to move up. If I have a fall this week, I can still go to next week's event with that horse. Which means that horse falls are tolerated by the sport because your only inconvenience is an incomplete competition. A horse fall is no different than going off course or wearing horse boots in dressage or carrying a 31" whip.

Or is it? I think this is a complex issue and not an easy one to resolve. But the sport needs to take a stand on horse falls -- that is, if the sport really is concerned about horse falls. If the penalty period for a horse fall is a factor in convincing a rider to withdraw due to footing, weather, a specific obstacle or a poor fence in warm-up, then it's probably a good rule to have on the books. Likewise, maybe it could prevent a rider from moving up or continuing to compete an iffy horse.

I doubt that most horse falls happen to dangerous riders. I suspect that we'd see a similar pattern to what is true in aviation. Most of the crashes happen to competent, safety-conscious pilots but as many as 9 out of 10 accidents are due to human (pilot) error. But eventing is quite different from flying a plane as we have the horse's welfare and safety at stake.

(Also, to the poster who talked about collapsible fences, collapsible fences won't prevent horse falls but they will, hopefully, prevent the deadly trajectory of the horse rotating and crushing the rider.)

[CandyHaasch]

I think it comes back to cross country courses which have grown ridiculously difficult. Whatever happened to the idea of 20% clean round/60% a few
faults/20% major penalties or eliminated? The last time I watched a Four Star, at Rolex, was TWO DECADES AGO, and even way back then they were taking riders off in helicopters. That day, they even decided to dismantle a jump part-way through the competition, because EVERY SINGLE HORSE which had attempted it up to that point had either fallen, or refused!!! This is just bad course design, plain and simple. And it has only grown worse. Are we forgetting there are three phases (well, used to be five)? You don't have to separate all the "sheep from the goats" on x-c alone! I think having the "powers that be" deciding to "scrutinize riders" (a watch list???) is only trying to pass the buck. The blame lies squarely with the designers/organizers. If the courses these (best) horses and (most advanced) riders were being asked to negotiate were appropriate, they would not being falling and dying in the attempt. A horse has sense, after all. It's not all just rider error. I have had my horse tell me "no" when I was wrong, and boy was I glad I listened -- he saved both our skins. (I may have thrown both reins to the wind and grabbed mane for all I was worth, but he sure got us through!)

[silver2]

I like the idea of a formal standardized inquiry process. For one thing it would get us some actual data on prevalence and distribution of accidents and a good researcher should be able to tease out correlations and maybe some causes.

Because right now on this thread people are just pulling ideas out of, um, thin air ;) I don't see any of these ideas actually identifying potential fatalities and preventing them.

Collect data (even if it's just interviewing everyone you can find who has fallen in competition), analyze data, come up with potential solutions based on that, implement, monitor and adjust as needed. That's how you design things that work.

[LisaB]

Right on retread!
I'm going through my little brain and thinking of all the sports where an immediate inquiry is held upon a crash. And you know what? It always involves a rather expensive piece of equipment or expensive animal. We do have to change our paradigm in thinking that our horses are disposable. Whether you all like it or not, quite a few ULR's have this mentality and that trickles down to their students or riders who look up to them.
For instance, when Winston tore his minor check ligament, I felt guilty and shamed that it happened. He came out of bad Amish folks sound and I tore his ligament. I had 2 choices, either chuck him out to pasture for a year and pray or do some major therapy with shock wave and stall rest and ultrasounds, etc. Since he was my only horse, I chose the latter. I would think possibly if I had another horse in the wings, that I may have chose the former (well, probably not). But it was more of an option if I had another horse.

[denny]

I don`t think that upper level riders are any more or less "horse lovers" than any other eventers, but they may well be much more competitively focussed.

They pretty much have to be to have gotten that far.

So when they lose a horse, they feel pain, regret, just as any would, but I think their focuss drives them on to keep going with the next horse--or the next.

In a way, the sport needs to protect them from themselves, or at least protect their horses.

Only later, like with me, when the fires die down a little bit, can they often see a broader perspective.

When they`re down there in the pit, they often aren`t too thoughtful, or reflective, whatever we would call it, so I don`t think they are the best decision makers, at least not at this specific point in their careers.

Later, maybe.

[AppJumpr08]

I can't help but wonder if part of what has led to this shift in the sport is that there are more owners with more money, and therefore more horses and more people to keep happy to make sure the money keeps flowing. Perhaps part of the problem is that riders aren't quite so focused on making each ride count for each horse because they have more horses to deal with. If one breaks, there is another one to take it's place. Owners may be less horse educated and less likely to understand if a rider doesn't try to finish every event at all costs on their horse.

Obviously there are more factors then just this, but it seems that these days each rider has multiple (as in more then 2 or 3) rides at every event, which didn't seem to be the case years ago (and please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm merely going on what I've read)

Perhaps it's not just that there is some form of "I've got other horses" thought process... perhaps part of it is that in such a highly demanding sport, riders' brains simply can't stay sharp enough to do multiple rides in a very focused environment.

I don't know what the real answer is... but I pray that something is figured out - the all too common losses of life are just too heartbreaking.

[Elghund2]

My view is strictly from jump judging. Using the prelim division as the basis, I think the quality of riding has really dropped off in the past few years. Many times I see riders come through and I'll ask myself "did they do what I think they did". If there is a photographer nearby I'll ask for a look at the picture. Usually what I thought I saw was what happened.

There is a big gap between the ULR's and others in the prelim when it comes to riding. The ULR's will ride smoothly along and jump in obstacle in a nice stride. The riders with poor form tend to come gunning up to the jump, almost bring the horse to a stop and then charge at the jump. I know they think they are setting up the horse but they produce very flat jumps. The very kind that will get you a fall.

Maybe the shift in thinking needs to be how we improve the level of rider in eventing.

[magnolia73]

The ULR's will ride smoothly along and jump in obstacle in a nice stride.

Good point, except it is the ULR's getting injured and killing horses.

[vineyridge]

In my uneducated opinion, eventing dressage should not be the same as "regular" dressage. That's not the purpose of dressage in eventing. Even with correct dressage training for "regular" dressage, the horse is taught to carry itself in a way that is not the most effective for galloping and jumping out of stride. By applying the same standards to eventing dressage tests as in dressage tests and with the current emphasis on low dressage scores as the basis for winning, it just seems to me that two different training goals conflict instead of working together to a single final result.

Eventing dressage, it seems to me, should be the same "dressage" that is referred to in the old great dead guys as ground work or flatwork or training gymnastics. The working cavalry needed horse control for their parade ground work, but surely they did not use parade ground maneuvers when they were riding in war.

I might add and am that every single one of the great old dead cavalry guys who wrote about horse training for horses who were to work outside the menage ring thought that, as THEY called it, dressage was actually harmful.

What we have now is regular intermediate dressage movements that are required of upper level eventers, who train for that phase because they want the scores.


Can we come up with some other way to refer to it other than "dressage training"? Because a fake frame and draw reins are NOT the way to properly trained dressage- as came up in another thread, if you look at 'pure' dressage and the muscles and skills which are involved in doing it properly, it should be HELPING with balance and control on a jumping course. In fact, what some folks might need is MORE dressage, just done the right way, without gimmicks and a focus on 'headset'.

I just hate to see it referred to as "dressage training" and thus put people off, when dressage as it's meant to be done is quite possibly a valuable tool for the eventer- not just so you get good scores in that portion of the event, but so that you and the horse can communicate most effectively as you go around the course.

[Dawnd]

I haven't read every single post on this thread so I might be redundant but here is something to consider:

Sport (eventing, racing, etc.) hasn't caught up with our current thinking of the value of horses.

Here's what I mean - Consider eventing's military background and that horses were being prepped for war. A horse use to be utilitarian to man - imagine how many horses died in battle - imagine how many horses died while being our only source of transportation.

Fast forward 80-90 years. The death of a horse is not the same today as it was in 1890, especially when his/her death is for our entertainment.

And with it our sport as well as our mentality should change but has not. It is still a sport that will test a horse to its limit (As does racing, steeplechasing, and probably more sports) yet we haven't figured out how to balance what happens when the limit is crossed, how does it make us feel and we aren't really sure what/if something should be done.

So the real question is what does the horse mean to us and what type of sport will eventing become that can test the limits in proportion to what a horse means to us. This will take throwing off several generations of thinking.

[JER]

In recent years, a YR served a 2-month suspension for abuse due to a cut on her horse's mouth that may have been caused by the bit. (This incident has been cited previously on this board as an example of injustice in the system.)

A 2-month suspension for possible, unintentional abuse that possibly resulted in a cut on the mouth.

But your horse falls, even dies, and... nothing?

[LisaB]

Denny, true about a lot of the ULR's but not all. Whereas, I *think* in the past, the rider had such a bond with the horse because they didn't have 5 horses going advanced and traipsing across the world and having the horses exercised by grooms/working student, that the remorse and the guilt was far greater than it is now. With some ULR's, not all. These some are the ones that are giving the rest a bad rap. And why we are actually thinking of such things as sanctions after a fall.
I think of NYC when they got the kick butt chief of police and Guiliani in there. There was some serious law changing and paradigm shifts with a lot of crap hitting the fan. It was ugly and those 2 were very unpopular but now, you can actually walk the streets and be a tourist without getting mugged. There were cops on every street corner, checking everyone and everything for a time. Now, they've scaled back a bit because they cleaned house. Did some innocents who were just stupid get caught in the crossfire? Yes but they did one stupid thing and that stopped a lot others from doing the stupid thing.

[fooler]

IMO We need to focus on:
1 - Immediate response to falls and fatalities. Problem here is how to take the time to respond to the fall/injury/fatality without choking the sport.
How do we set protocol so we react properly to BN/N horse without studs who slips on the grass & falls as opposed to BN/N horse/rider going too fast and falls?
We do not have a set protocol for Event officials and USEA+USEF to follow after a fatality. So it is reviewed, hashed over and we learn from it.
We don't have protocol to sit-down riders who have a horse fall or fatalitiy. And should there protocols regarding the trainers, the course designer/builder, organizer and officials.

The Blame belongs to all of us. The problem is how to make us ALL responsible without totally shutting down the sport.
Unless the answer is to shut down the sport and rebuild it from scratch.

2) - If we do not shut down the sport, we must focus on modifying rider/owner attitudes toward competition and moving up. That is where I was coming from on my earlier post.

Denny - you do make us think

[retreadeventer]

The protocol is simple.

First official on the site of incident starts the inquiry.

Radios control, asks jump judge to stay put, asks witnesses to stay put until PGJ or TD get there momentarily.

When they arrive:
Together they make a quick inquiry to all witnesses including rider. Take names and cell phone numbers. Determine if any photos or video is available on the spot. If the horse fall is serious and the horse is injured, this information gathering can be attended to while vets or others are working on horse.

Set time to review all statements made at the inquiry after the incident later in the weekend. Riders and jump judges asked to attend must do so or risk sanction. In racing when a judge calls you in, you don't blow it off. (To your peril.)

There's not much to it.
Any racetrack in the country has this protocol, it's pretty common sense.

Oh and a fall is a FALL. There is very little difference between a slip on the grass and a tumble over a fence in my opinion. Anytime a horse goes off it's feet, it's serious, period. We've had this discussion before -- a horse's last dying breath will keep it on its feet. There is no such thing as a little fall and a big fall. In almost 40 years of horse training I've never had a sane horse that didn't care if they fell down. Don't happen. A BN horse that slips and falls is just as serious. it may not result in sanctions and everyone usually is ok but it merits same scrutiny.

[findeight]

It happened in racing - formula 1 car racing to be precise.
The entire industry went from the attitude of "racing is dangerous - people get killed" to ... death is an unacceptable event.
It changed the way they dressed, they built cars, they designed courses etc. - it went to a sport that evaluated safety as a part of each new effort.



Interesting you made this comparison and it is worthy of thought.

That whole movement was at F1-the elite top level of motor sports worldwide. It started with the ELITE LEVEL DRIVERS drivers themselves, World Champ Jackie Stewart was the first to speak out and take the initiative to say it was NOT OK to go out there and die. Not the crew chiefs. Not the designers. Certainly not the team owners despite the fact many were former drivers. With the ELITE DRIVERS.

Over the years it has evolved to drivers actually threatening to boycott courses deemed unsafe, and doing it. It has trickled down to all levels in better clothing, car design, track safety and even that neck brace gizmo all the NASCAR drivers refused to wear until one died because of the lack of it and several other top drivers started openly using it. Now they all do.

So Eventings issues need to start at the TOP level as car racing did. By ELITE level riders willing to say NO to bad conditions (as Bettina Hoy did) and NO to owners who want too much too soon. That is the only way this will be solved from what I can tell-at the elite level.

If someone of stature takes this on, others will follow. Create an environment where it is acceptable to speak up and out.

UL riders need to take the reins of their sport because you cannot tell me most of them think this is OK...but are afraid to speak up for fear of being deemed a wuss and/or losing the ride. Or crossing the coach and selection commitee.

[sm]

Having trained racehorses for almost two decades, I cannot for the LIFE of me figure out WHY there is not an IMMEDIATE, on the spot investigation with witnesses and principles of ANY FALL OF HORSE at a horse trial. There was in racing in every jurisdiction I participated in.
Any time a horse goes down it should be scrutinized immediately. On the spot findings should be taken by the officials and a later hearing date set before the end of the horse trial where someone would be available to take a recording of testimony and where photographs or video could be observed by officials of the incident.
At least this way, we could see as well as possible whether it was just an Oops moment or if footing, weather, sightlines, jump position/height, rider error, etc. where factors. Then the officials acting as a committee can make a recommendation as to whether the rider should be left alone, given a card, suspended, etc. If the rider doesn't like the finding they can appeal and an appeal hearing - more formal within the appeal guidelines already in place - can take place.... Express eventing is a nightmare and should be outlawed. What the hell is wrong with attacting people and prize money to regular horse trials and three day events?
JMHO as an outside observor.

This gets my vote because I think it'll automatically fix a multiple of sins. Also this level of scrutiny will tend to portray those in charge as caring and responsible.

Course design was idiotic? People will know and not use that CD. Rider not capable -- it'll be on record. ULR overfacing the horse -- again, on record as something not quite right with the judgement of that trainer/rider so students know not to use them.

It filters down as riders and CDs are more responsible, even if only because there is a better record they will start to think with a different part of their brain. And horses will be better off for it.

[JER]

Any time a horse goes down it should be scrutinized immediately. On the spot findings should be taken by the officials and a later hearing date set before the end of the horse trial where someone would be available to take a recording of testimony and where photographs or video could be observed by officials of the incident.
At least this way, we could see as well as possible whether it was just an Oops moment or if footing, weather, sightlines, jump position/height, rider error, etc. where factors. Then the officials acting as a committee can make a recommendation as to whether the rider should be left alone, given a card, suspended, etc. If the rider doesn't like the finding they can appeal and an appeal hearing - more formal within the appeal guidelines already in place - can take place.
You know I don't give a flying crap if the initial horse trial held hearing might inconvenience one of these BNR's who have six or seven to rider later in the day. Too bad. If you fall with a horse guess what you are going to have to suck it up and scratch one or two in order to make your hearing on time.

A full accident report is good, a hearing is good, but what about in the interim?

A proper hearing and investigation takes a bit of time to pull together. It's not going to happen the same day as the incident, even if you shut the event down to focus exclusively on the fall.

So can the rider go out and ride again that day?

And what if the horse is entered for next week's horse trials?

And what about the interim period between the accident and the hearing?

This is why it's all kind of pointless and toothless unless there's a mandatory set down period.

[snoopy]

Oh and a fall is a FALL. There is very little difference between a slip on the grass and a tumble over a fence in my opinion. Anytime a horse goes off it's feet, it's serious, period. We've had this discussion before -- a horse's last dying breath will keep it on its feet. There is no such thing as a little fall and a big fall. In almost 40 years of horse training I've never had a sane horse that didn't care if they fell down. Don't happen. A BN horse that slips and falls is just as serious. it may not result in sanctions and everyone usually is ok but it merits same scrutiny.


agreed...and that is why I am a FAN of the one fall and you are out rule.
How many horses have lost their lives or been injured in a fall playing in the field?
A fall of a horse is serious folks.

[sm]

A full accident report is good, a hearing is good, but what about in the interim?

A proper hearing and investigation takes a bit of time to pull together. It's not going to happen the same day as the incident, even if you shut the event down to focus exclusively on the fall.

So can the rider go out and ride again that day?

And what if the horse is entered for next week's horse trials?

And what about the interim period between the accident and the hearing?

This is why it's all kind of pointless and toothless unless there's a mandatory set down period.

You ask many good questions, and it should be up to the officials on the site regarding further riding that day: immediately suspend, allow to ride, whatever.

Rider signs off ahead of time (in the Hold Harmless Agreement on Entry Form) that they accept the officials' decision...

[RAyers]

To me, the one fall rule is no different than how I grew up in the jumpers. I am so used to one fall that that is how I have always ridden. Even when I could remount on XC, I retired (except for that one time at Trojan).

findeight, yes the drivers did lead a bit of a revolution in F1 BUT, and it is a BIG BUT, it also took a VERY strong LEADERSHIP of the sport in Bernie and others to push the effort. And that is where USEF and FEI fails continuously.

Reed

[Jealoushe]

In recent years, a YR served a 2-month suspension for abuse due to a cut on her horse's mouth that may have been caused by the bit. (This incident has been cited previously on this board as an example of injustice in the system.)

A 2-month suspension for possible, unintentional abuse that possibly resulted in a cut on the mouth.

But your horse falls, even dies, and... nothing?

WHAT

ARE you SERIOUS???

I have nothing against what they did, I mean I think it's good....but where the HELL are they now????

It's like the Olympics this year...a miniscule trace of this, a minor boot weight issue and its ELIMINATION and your name plastered all over the FEI site and horse publications everywhere.

Kill a horse, or hell kill yourself and its WHOOOOOO MORE MONEY, MORE HORSES MORE MORE MORE

GAHHHH

[RAyers]

So when they lose a horse, they feel pain, regret, just as any would, but I think their focuss drives them on to keep going with the next horse--or the next.


It is similar to what a friend of mine once said, "You don't go into medicine because you love horses or people. You go into medicine because you love MEDICINE."

Many ULRs love the competition more than the horses. That is why they do succeed but they lose sight of what the sport is all about. Hence why long term ULRs are actually BAD stewards of the sport. They lose sight of basic premise of horse back riding.

Jealoushe, yes and it is documented in the USEF. In the end it came down to TD vs. the kid since nobody else saw the event. The TD failed to even get a vet to look at the horse to document their case. The only good thing was that the TD was threantened with censure due to their very poor performance (another example of how bad a system can be when there are few qualified officials).

Reed

[Thames Pirate]

The protocol is simple.

First official on the site of incident starts the inquiry.

Radios control, asks jump judge to stay put, asks witnesses to stay put until PGJ or TD get there momentarily.

When they arrive:
Together they make a quick inquiry to all witnesses including rider. Take names and cell phone numbers. Determine if any photos or video is available on the spot. If the horse fall is serious and the horse is injured, this information gathering can be attended to while vets or others are working on horse.

This I love--get as many witnesses, officials, opinions, viewpoints, etc. to really determine what happened. File an official report with contact for witnesses and those involved.

Set time to review all statements made at the inquiry after the incident later in the weekend. Riders and jump judges asked to attend must do so or risk sanction. In racing when a judge calls you in, you don't blow it off. (To your peril.)

This is perhaps less practicable with jump judges, but it should work with riders, officials, etc. Being with a vet or a doctor should be the only exemption (I know I am ALWAYS there when the vet is involved).

There's not much to it.
Any racetrack in the country has this protocol, it's pretty common sense.

Oh and a fall is a FALL. There is very little difference between a slip on the grass and a tumble over a fence in my opinion. Anytime a horse goes off it's feet, it's serious, period. We've had this discussion before -- a horse's last dying breath will keep it on its feet. There is no such thing as a little fall and a big fall. In almost 40 years of horse training I've never had a sane horse that didn't care if they fell down. Don't happen. A BN horse that slips and falls is just as serious. it may not result in sanctions and everyone usually is ok but it merits same scrutiny.

This I'm not so sure on--while a fall should ALWAYS require an inquiry, I see horses slip in the pasture all the time. Of course they're up again quickly, and yes, they don't like the experience, but there IS such a thing as a "little" fall. These are usually the ones that don't involve jumps. Again, we should treat it seriously, and it should be investigated, but it ISN'T as serious as an advanced horse crashing a trakehner!

[poltroon]

I would like to see every fall investigated, immediately and thoroughly, even the ones that are just a slip on the grass.

For reference, we have a local situation where there have been two serious horse falls during drill team performances, one resulting in the death of the horse and serious long term injury to the rider. (Western riding, no jumping.) It would seem likely that there's an issue with the footing.... and for the price of the dead horse and the rider's medical bills, the community could have built a state of the art all-weather arena.

[Kairoshorses]

My view is strictly from jump judging. Using the prelim division as the basis, I think the quality of riding has really dropped off in the past few years. Many times I see riders come through and I'll ask myself "did they do what I think they did". If there is a photographer nearby I'll ask for a look at the picture. Usually what I thought I saw was what happened.

There is a big gap between the ULR's and others in the prelim when it comes to riding. The ULR's will ride smoothly along and jump in obstacle in a nice stride. The riders with poor form tend to come gunning up to the jump, almost bring the horse to a stop and then charge at the jump. I know they think they are setting up the horse but they produce very flat jumps. The very kind that will get you a fall.

Maybe the shift in thinking needs to be how we improve the level of rider in eventing.

I'm with you, Elghund. I've tried to be a fence judge as often as I can when I compete, and I've been one at Rolex for the past four years. I think it should be mandatory--because I've seen some SCARY rides....and they begin at Training, for the most part, and go through Prelim. Not as many (but also not as many riders!) after that, but I've still seen them. Running at a jump WAY too fast, trying to shorten up with just reins leaving NO power, and so forth......it's scary. But how DO we teach people (myself included!)?? How do we ENSURE that they are ready to move up?

[denny]

Reed said something that I`ve thought for a long time, but never quite dared say!
That for many upper level riders, it`s the competition more than the horses.

Like the current ad that`s going around, that if you want to ride for fun, ride a carousel horse. Like if she wasn`t competing, she wouldn`t even get on.

Or how many riders get to a certain age, and retire. Retire not just from competing, but from riding entirely, which makes me surmise---Did they ever really love to ride horses, or was the horse only a medium for competition?

That`s cool, either way; you love to ride or you don`t.

But maybe where it enters THIS equation is that if you don`t actually love horses, except as vehicles on which to compete, then maybe you don`t take their loss so hard.

Reed, others, is this a possibility? Don`t want to chase something that isn`t true, but I sure have wondered about this.

[retreadeventer]

This I'm not so sure on--while a fall should ALWAYS require an inquiry, I see horses slip in the pasture all the time. Of course they're up again quickly, and yes, they don't like the experience, but there IS such a thing as a "little" fall. These are usually the ones that don't involve jumps. Again, we should treat it seriously, and it should be investigated, but it ISN'T as serious as an advanced horse crashing a trakehner!

A fall is defined as the shoulder and haunch on the same side touching the ground simultaneously. General Burton told me he always uses an old cavalry adage - if there is dirt on the girth - the horse has fallen. When you say slip in the pasture are you meaning they go splat on their sides while running and slamming on the brakes in the mud? I have seen horses break ribs in such falls so, I don't consider them just a "slip in the pasture". I have seen a yearling break a shoulder in such a pasture incident, and he wasn't even running - he was trotting and misjudged the footing. Again, in my view, no fall is a "little" fall. On the other hand I helped find an Arab endurance horse, a gelding, who tumbled a$$ over teakettle about 200 feet down a cliff off a trail, fully tacked - I'd call that a kinghell of a fall - and he had a tiny scratch on his head and that was it! :)
I think once you put a rider on a horse, and the rider directs the horse on the course, either the path he is taking, the jump, etc. and due to whatever, the horse falls....I feel this is unlike an oops in the pasture because the rider has orchestrated the circumstances, and, ultimately, should be responsible for the horse's welfare. Therefore because it's a competition, and rider influenced, there is no "little" about it. JMO:)
I still think they ought to investigate every single one period. You know I have a couple of friends that are officials and they are very good - and do this already as responsible people who love the sport and care for horses deeply.

[SevenDogs]

Denny is correct that horse falls have always been a part of Eventing and he is also correct that it is not acceptable anymore. As much as I would like to blame the short format (and I really, really would like to), it isn't just the format. If you spend enough time with the old timers, you hear the stories.... Heck, until somewhat recently (can't remember how many years ago), the first fall of the horse didn't even mean elimination (I fully support one HORSE fall and you are out. I do not support one RIDER fall and you are out since the rider makes his/her own decision to be out there). I don't know the injury/death stats and how newer fence design has helped or hindered but it is not new to the sport.

I tend to shy away from absolutes (like every horse fall should result in suspension of the rider), but in this instance I am very tempted to support it. What I like even better (or in addition to) is mandatory review of video tape and appropriate consequences applied. Almost every ride is now video taped -- we have all seen them on the internet -- why aren't we using this tool to deal with this and other issues plaguing our sport?

Now, this means finding an non-partisan qualified group of people to review videos, and I know that would be tough, but I like the idea that a rider who causes the fall through dangerous riding (or continues to have falls or injure/kill multiple horses) can be dealt with more severely than an unfortunate no fault incident (if there is such a thing). I also like that most serious accident videos are available so readily so if the "reviewers" are not doing their job, they will get called out here and other places. Again, I realize the difficulty in finding "qualified" people to serve in this capacity and I think it probably needs to be TD types.

[LISailing]

I like the idea of a fall inquiry no matter where or how it occurs. I once owned a horse that was epileptic and lost a few foals (prior to diagnosis) by falling in the field. With problems of tying-up and other types of neurological conditions that could occur, it seems that an inquiry at all levels for all falls could potentially be a life saver.

The inquiry might also prevent a rider from competing a horse that may not be suitably sound due to conditions of these types. I don't believe that these issues are an issue with the upper level horse, however I'm sure that some mildly affected are competing at lower levels.

To Denny and others attending this year's USEA annual meeting - Pls express these ideas at this meeting. I believe that some very creative ideas are being communicated in this thread.

Thanks Denny for starting it.

[RAyers]

Reed, others, is this a possibility? Don`t want to chase something that isn`t true, but I sure have wondered about this.

This is something I saw decades ago in the jumpers. I am begining to see this same attitude creep into the eventing world more and more. The idea of "partnership" at the upper level survives long enough to get through the career but with the exception of maybe one or two horses, everything gets sent down the road. Jimmy Wofford mentioned this years ago and called it "churn."

You can not survive the upper levels if you are focused on the total well being of a horse. It is too much time thus you have a cadre of grooms, working students etc. And if you have a string of horses, and teach, etc. you have no time to develop a true realtionship with any horse. Relationships do NOT come from just the training time. It comes from simple interaction. Ask your SO. Did your relationship develop becasue you were always doing something or did it grow when you found you could just be yourself around each other?

Again, it makes sense. Great coaches love the sport as a whole. They are STUDENTS of the sport. Many current top riders are "mechanics." They are students of how to use/ride horses but not the actual being of horses (e.g. veterinary, physiology, psychology), of how the sport really fits in the world, or how each component of the sport fits in relation to other components. For example, how many URLs understand the impact of the Ted Steven's Act on their ability to ride at an international level? Very few, I bet. Yet that is a law that enables them to have a career.

I know too many horsemen and women who never compete but, damn, they KNOW horses. They may not be able to ride rings around us but their horses will kill themselves for their partner. I just don't see this as prevalent any more.

Reed

[Gnep]

I think Reed is dead on.
thats what I meant, with the hard faces of the pros in HK, the handing over of the horses without praise, because things did not go so good.
I feel that horses are for a lot the vehicle, not for all.

And that is a nother fall out of the SF, you had to nuture, care and very carefully use a good LF horse and since 3 LF was all you could do in a year it took a long time and those horses stayed at your barn a long time.

Nowadays there is a fare higher turn around, the horses do 6 or more, they get faster to the peak and get sold faster and they get pushed harder, faster more Jumper World.

[JER]

Reed said something that I`ve thought for a long time, but never quite dared say!
That for many upper level riders, it`s the competition more than the horses.


I think it's a choice you make, consciously or unconsciously, at some point if you choose to make eventing your life.

This isn't limited to eventing. It goes for probably any horse sport and many non-sporting endeavours. You trade your 'love' for the sport in its purest form for a reality-based approach to the medium in which you intend to make your livelihood.

An example from my own life: I'm a writer. I wanted to make a living via the written word so I had to make some serious decisions, especially since I need to pay for my horses. So instead of perfecting works of exquisite literary fiction, I wrote for TV and movies because that's where the paydays happen. Which meant I wrote all kinds of things and usually, they weren't exactly my dream projects. But this is the choice you make -- you write for the buyer and you rarely, if ever, turn down work that pays well.

I think it's much the same for riders. If you want to ride for a living, you make some compromises to your perfect vision -- unless you're very lucky, independently wealthy or content to starve.

The competitive mindset, however, is something else to be considered. It takes focus, and often single-mindedness, to stay at the top of the leaderboard. (If you want to see a good film about this, watch Downhill Racer. Fantastic study of the driven athlete.) What drives a Mike Plumb or a Bruce Davidson or a Karen O'Connor? What goes through Amy Tryon's head when her horse is horribly lame a couple of fences from home? Is it reasonable or even possible to expect that these tough, focused competitors can always put the horse's welfare first?

[fooler]

One should never make important posts when busy at work or late at night. So this is a short post to complete my earlier post:
We do have a protocol to follow when there rider/horse injuries and fatalities. I have dealt with too many rider injuries - fortunately no horse injuries or fatalities of either. It appears we do not have is a process/protocol to use this information to track and review/sanction those competitors

Retreadeventer - I appreciate you comments about all falls being tracked and documented in detail. For the record not all events are videoed or photographed. Plus photographers do not cover all fences. More as I have time to flesh out a proper post.

Denny - Humans, being imperfect, can and will get so focused on a 'goal' that they will sacrifice most anything - family, homes, horses, etc. Oneof the things that drew me to eventing was the total lack of money - so most eventers were in it for, if you will "The glory of the sport". When money was first offered back in the 1980's I saw someone I had respected seriously consider sending his offspring across country to compete at that event. Even though the horse/rider combo had not yet competed at that level. To quote Cyndi Lauper: "Money Changes Everything."
Yes there are those who start out loving their horses and their sport, then lose sight of why they started. I know several people who left competition, but not horses, because they didn't like where they were headed.

Good thoughts everyone!

[kdow]

Retreadeventer - I appreciate you comments about all falls being tracked and documented in detail. For the record not all events are videoed or photographed. Plus photographers do not cover all fences. More as I have time to flesh out a proper post.

Given that the purpose of the photos would be for evidence, rather than artistic merit, it may be possible that a camera on a tripod could be set up to video short clips- you'd need a bit more than that, of course, but given the prices of technology today, and the fact that this stuff could be set up with minimal difficulty prior to the event, possibly it could be rented to the venue for the event, rather than each show manager having to buy it for the event.

So it may well be possible to have each event- or minimally, each event above a certain level- be videoed or photographed sufficiently to be used in any kind of investigation process. (Might not be terribly pretty, since no one would be framing each horse up nicely, but hey.)

(I would probably actually set it up with two cameras per fence, one with a good look at the take off area and one with a good look at the landing area, so you'd get a good view of both.)

Likewise, decent digital cameras are cheap enough now that I think every official on the course could be assigned one at the start of the event, for the purposes of taking photos of the ground and the general area if there is a fall or other incident where other people involved later on might need to see how something was at the time of the incident.

[Candle]

Gnep, your post made me remember that when I started following Eventing as a kid, I always knew what horse was with what rider. When I was starstruck and got ULRs to sign my posters at Rolex, they always signed for themselves and their partner, their horse. I would see the same horses out, and know what they'd done, and who was on them. Now I can barely keep up with which horse is with what rider. I know the riders by name, but not the horses anymore. It's not Rider A and Horse A anymore, it's Rider A and a string of horses, none of which I might have heard of before last year. Interesting thought.

[magnolia73]

Like the current ad that`s going around, that if you want to ride for fun, ride a carousel horse. Like if she wasn`t competing, she wouldn`t even get on.

LOL, that ad turned me off as well. OK, fine Ariat, I ride for fun, so no need for your overpriced products. That said, it turned me off on Ariat, not the spokesmodel.

[KSevnter]

This is something I saw decades ago in the jumpers. I am begining to see this same attitude creep into the eventing world more and more. The idea of "partnership" at the upper level survives long enough to get through the career but with the exception of maybe one or two horses, everything gets sent down the road. Jimmy Wofford mentioned this years ago and called it "churn."



I agree, I call it the hunterization of eventing it goes hand in hand with all the changes we have seen in the sport over the last few years. The hunter/jumper model of campaigning many horses and keeping student horses in training makes money. I don't begrudge people trying to make a living at eventing, but it shouldn't come at the price of horsemanship.

My mother was in the process of selling a horse (now 6) she bought as a weanling last month and one perspective buyer bragged that "they keep their horses until they are at least 11 or 12." She was unimpressed and pointed to her own horse and said "he is 14 and my daughter's retired upper level eventer is 20 this year."

But since my horse gave me 11 seasons at prelim and intermediate, I feel like I owe him the best retirement I can give him. Again, he isn't taking up a stall where I could be making money so I get the luxury of having a pet.

Not sure what the answer is, but I definetely have seen a marked shift in the way upper level riders view their horses.

[flyingchange]

I know too many horsemen and women who never compete but, damn, they KNOW horses. They may not be able to ride rings around us but their horses will kill themselves for their partner. I just don't see this as prevalent any more.

So true.

Then there are the guys (and gals) who can ride rings around us, usually in western saddles, who would leave many and most of our propped up "international" riders in the dust if they were to compete with them over real/rugged conditions. I'm talking the real cowboys and girls. The ones that know how to RIDE. Who can make any horse go straight, don't need spurs or perfect footing or $2000 saddles and $150 bits to get it done. They are the ones who many times don't have two pennies to rub together, but by God, they love horses, and their horses love them. We don't see much of the "cowboy" way in "equestrianism" anymore. It's all very commercial and regimented to lessons and clinics, tackstores, expensive saddles. The business of real, true riding is an afterthought.

Anybody who thinks they know how to ride needs to go spend time with one of these guys that actually does really know how to ride. You will be humbled. I'm not talking about Parelli or any of the fancy big name western-type natural horsemanship pontiffs. I'm talking about the real cowboys - not many left and you have to look very hard to find them. They love their horses, they know horses, and they can outride any of us eventers, jumpers, professional whips, any day of the week. But they don't show up at "shows."

[x]

One thing I think needs to be addressed before eventing accidents will be less common is proper riding over fences. I see event riders and horses that could use some help...riders that really do not know how to safely/effectively/correctly jump a fence, and horses that need to improve their form. Now, I know that eventing is different from the hunter and eq riding, but it seems to me that riders with a good foundation in hunters and equitation will have an easier time jumping those x-c fences...and horses that have been worked to be rideable enough to get around an eq course well, and that have been schooled to improve their form will be safer x-c. I have seen event riders that are just plain scary to watch ride...and seen the same with event horses. There is one woman I know who has event horses that not only compete in (lower level) eventing, but also successfully compete in the hunter and eq--including medal--rings, and those horses jump beautifully, and her riders ride safely...and they do respectably well eventing, too. While your upper level horse is probably not going to cross over and show well in the hunter/eq classes, it should still be just as rideable. Event horses should not be gunned toward a fence, then nearly pulled before jumping. This is not effective riding. Unfortunately, I think that alot of event riders do not have a good foundation for jumping, nor do I think that the horses have been brought along over fences to encourage ideal jumping form, etc. I don't think eventing is the only sport with this problem; showjumping, which has had a large influx of low level classes, seems to be garnering more riders that haven't had the classic hunter/eq background before doing jumpers, and some of those lower level jumper classes are just plain scary. The difference is the fences aren't solid. I do not know how to address this problem, but I think this is another component of what is causing problems in eventing, along with increased technicality of x-c courses, and just plain lack of common sense for safety's sake.

[poltroon]

Reed said something that I`ve thought for a long time, but never quite dared say!
That for many upper level riders, it`s the competition more than the horses.

Like the current ad that`s going around, that if you want to ride for fun, ride a carousel horse. Like if she wasn`t competing, she wouldn`t even get on.

Or how many riders get to a certain age, and retire. Retire not just from competing, but from riding entirely, which makes me surmise---Did they ever really love to ride horses, or was the horse only a medium for competition?

That`s cool, either way; you love to ride or you don`t.

But maybe where it enters THIS equation is that if you don`t actually love horses, except as vehicles on which to compete, then maybe you don`t take their loss so hard.

Reed, others, is this a possibility? Don`t want to chase something that isn`t true, but I sure have wondered about this.

From my perspective as an amateur, and from a conversation I had with my trainer when I was on the cusp of working student v. going to college, I think that for a lot of people who may start out loving horses, that being a professional sucks the horse lover right out.

It's easy for me, an amateur, to forgive my horse a naughty weekend. It would not be so easy if I had been counting on selling the naughty horse that weekend or if said naughtiness cost me a customer, and I was worrying about how to pay next month's mortgage. It's easy for me to skip shows or otherwise make decisions in the best interest of the horse.

I'm also not out riding 8-10 horses a day in 100+ degree weather, 6 days a week, in sickness and in health.

It's very difficult, especially in high cost urban areas like we have here in CA, or for a pro without their own farm, to just have a personal horse to enjoy.

[Mozart]

As usual, a thought provoking thread started by denny.
Let me just add this. About 12 years ago I saw the first Thrills and Spills video. I was actively eventing at the time. I found it entertaining and felt okay about feeling that way since there was a disclaimer "no one seriously hurt, all walked away..yadda yadda"

I recently saw the Thrills and Spills version 1 and 2 together on DVD. I bought it, watched it and felt a bit sick doing so. The thrills were spectacular...video of Mark Todd's one stirrup Badminton, Murphy Himself bouncing that one stride (:eek:). Desert Orchid. Milton at his retirement ceremony.

But I felt a bit sickened watching the eventing falls. Some of them were really innocuous and they didn't bother me. But some were rotational falls where they were just plain lucky to walk away.

So did I change? With age comes increased empathy? Or is that I now know how many horses don't walk away? Have our attitudes changed?

[asterix]

So I'm following this discussion over the course of several days...when...right in the middle of page 4 or 5 ish... I sort of kind of have a rotational fall.
Gee.
Um, so, in case anyone is wondering, this is a really freakish experience, and is so out of the realm of "stuff that might go wrong" that it just sets off all your horseperson's alarm bells at the MOST fundamental level.

I now think we absolutely positively should have an investigation/inquiry after every horse fall, no matter how "no big deal" it looked. Mine was incredibly minor in the sense that everyone got up, dusted themselves off, and tried again, but you can be damn sure I got my coach on the horse the next morning, and we carefully went through the skills and the holes that were part of what happened. And I'm not interested in jumping ANY solid fences on that horse until we've spent a lot of time doing this over and over and over in the ring.

I was jumping my young horse in the ring (he's going novice well at 6) and went for a long spot when I should have waited -- dropped and leaned, my worst habit. Rider error, but not a terrible one, cantering over a 3' vertical in the ring. Horse initially said "ok," then thought better of it, but failed to develop any kind of Plan B in a timely fashion (and, trust me, a sliding stop would have been a perfectly acceptable plan B). Kind of went through the fence, took it out, and, for reasons no one watching can explain, let his momentum carry him very, very slowly somersaulting over, a look of tremendous surprise on his face, no effort to put his feet back under him. I of course was shot off like a lawn dart, but was in such TOTAL alarm and focus on him (since it was clear he was falling behind me somewhere) that I was a complete ragdoll (this turns out to be good when you are landing on your face). He finished his somersault next to me before I even had the wherewithal to get up.

He's totally fine. I'm more or less fine. We got back together, jumped some small fences (including that one, which he did NOT want to do --looked at it like, NO WAY, man, that's the fence that ate me!), and then had our rehab session today, which he aced.

But the idea that I would just get back on, go to a horse trial this weekend, and act as though we had not just dodged a crazy big bullet...that's wrong.

There is no good argument I can think of to NOT take this very seriously. I think this is critical for our sport.

[retreadeventer]

Oh my, are you both OK? Asterix, that sounds scary and I hope ALL is well.

[denny]

If we think these ideas are logical and thoughtful, then comes the big question---

Why don`t the people who are in power to actually make these kinds of changes do so?

I can think of a few possible reasons:

1. These actually aren`t good ideas, despite what we may think.
2. These might be ok ideas, but they want to try some different ideas first.
3. These ideas, while ok, would mess up some other "agendas" that we don`t know about.
4. Our leaders haven`t thought of them.
5. Our leaders don`t want "outsiders" (read: us) telling them what to do.
6. Other

Thoughts?

[asterix]

[retread, we are fine! I have a sore hand and lots of achy upper body parts, but he seems completely, utterly fine...way to wake up the Waredaca staff, though -- apparently hooves pointing straight up looks alarming from a distance, too...:lol: Mostly I think it's good I didn't actually see it...]

Denny, right.

What would happen if we made a formal rule proposal (is that the right path for this?) re: investigations on horse falls?

[LLDM]

Thoughts?
I honestly think that they (them, TPTB, et al) believe that many of the remedies we have proposed will unduly interfere with the "business" of eventing. Meaning: Pros making money and medals being won.

Now, I don't oppose Pros making money, nor medals being won. I DO have faith that both things can (and would) continue to happen even if there were some rather draconian rules put in place to protect all of the horses. Unfortunately, that attitude seems not to be shared by those in charge.

This was my distinct impression from the safety summit watching these folks up close and in person. FWIW.

SCfarm

[RAyers]

Giving the NGB the benefit of the doubt, other reasons can be:

1) cost of implementation across the country
2) equitable application of the rules (e.g. I can see some of these ideas resulting in only those on the coasts being able to event).
3) added aministrative responsibility of the NGB both in officials and data management.

Reed



If we think these ideas are logical and thoughtful, then comes the big question---

Why don`t the people who are in power to actually make these kinds of changes do so?

I can think of a few possible reasons:

1. These actually aren`t good ideas, despite what we may think.
2. These might be ok ideas, but they want to try some different ideas first.
3. These ideas, while ok, would mess up some other "agendas" that we don`t know about.
4. Our leaders haven`t thought of them.
5. Our leaders don`t want "outsiders" (read: us) telling them what to do.
6. Other

Thoughts?

[Kementari]

I think it's #6: all these ideas would keep some people (mostly at the upper levels, though I'm sure there are plenty at the lower levels, as well) from bulling ahead doing things as they've always done them, riding a string of horses at every event, focused on getting to the next level come hell or high water. (Though maybe that comes under #3...)

I am not, by nature, a cynical person, but the refusal of TPTB to do anything that might inconvenience them or their friends is wearing on me.

[flyingchange]

asterix -

glad you are OK. ugh.

s

[Gnep]

Denny
I think 2 things are happening at the present.
The Pros are protecting their turf, thats why all decision are made around them and give them absolute power, they run the show.

Second the with this need to satisfy the the Pros, just the top 5% of the Pros, the Organisations are fishing for solutuion

On the one hand they have to satisfy the needs of the top few and especialy the ones that are Team material, so they can compet against the rest of the world, on the other hand they are under pressure to do something.

Its like the bailout and the crash of the economy, you have to do something, but you can not, for what ever reason, hamstring the ones you baile out and the accountability problem, same story here. We are trying to bailout the 5 to 10 % of eventing, with rules that have no accountability for the 5 - 10%, even favour them.

What is needed is a Savety Organisation, as in F1, or NASCAR, or Le Mans Racing, that is independed not stocked with the 5-10% and that is in charge of savety.
Savety Professionals.

Not Paulson bailing out his old buddies, that is what is happening in Eventing, the ones who are the problem are the ones who make the rules.

Oh by the way it needs leaders, well .........................................

[asterix]

Gnep, I think you are right. The modest Powers That Be that I know want to do the right thing, but feel constrained by the pressure from the "win medals" side . There is a certain arrogance that comes from having not just contended a four star but ridden "for the US" -- that folks find it hard to overcome

(fc, I am fine, but puzzled and a bit distressed. A miss like that shouldn't result in an actual ass over teakettle fall. :eek:)

[Gnep]

Modest?

Are you kiding ?

[asterix]

heh. I don't mean modest as in "ah, gee, I'm not THAT great a rider..."

I mean modest as in, officials at highest levels, members of committees, etc., four star rider but NOT a Team rider, never a Team contender, no big string of horses, etc etc. -- I have some connection to one or two folks like this and was referencing their take on this stuff.

[LisaB]

I'm glad you're ok asterix!
You see here in lies the difference. You definitely went into self reflection mode and are still thinking about it. There are quite a few ULR's that do the same thing. Becky Holder for one who publicly stated she did so. Then there are the bad apples who trudge on. Those bad apples need a harsh wake up call. And Denny's suggestion is absolutely right on. Denny, have you said something to the B of G? Are you going to? I can email a couple of friends on the board too if you want. I think we should start at the usea level. That's the path of least resistance at this point.

[asterix]

That's what I'm saying, LisaB -- flipping over, very not OK. Mandatory "thinking about it" completely reasonable response.

Absolutely agree this should be put forward in a formal way. Hoping Denny or perhaps GotSpots can give us guidance on how to do this.

[denny]

I`m pretty sure that the USEA route for transmittal of ideas is the way to start, but even their biggest guns have trouble getting through to the USEF, and I have this from even Kevin.

The USEF is pretty much a law unto itself, at least the eventing segment, from what I`ve observed.

As others have said: "Convince me otherwise."

[TB_eventer]

I`m pretty sure that the USEA route for transmittal of ideas is the way to start, but even their biggest guns have trouble getting through to the USEF, and I have this from even Kevin.

The USEF is pretty much a law unto itself, at least the eventing segment, from what I`ve observed.

As others have said: "Convince me otherwise."

So maybe it takes awhile to get through to the USEF, but maybe they'll change eventually if they see that it works in the USEA. It may take years, but we have to start somewhere, right?

Glad you're alright asterix! I can't imagine...

[poltroon]

As usual, a thought provoking thread started by denny.
Let me just add this. About 12 years ago I saw the first Thrills and Spills video. I was actively eventing at the time. I found it entertaining and felt okay about feeling that way since there was a disclaimer "no one seriously hurt, all walked away..yadda yadda"

I recently saw the Thrills and Spills version 1 and 2 together on DVD. I bought it, watched it and felt a bit sick doing so. The thrills were spectacular...video of Mark Todd's one stirrup Badminton, Murphy Himself bouncing that one stride (:eek:). Desert Orchid. Milton at his retirement ceremony.

But I felt a bit sickened watching the eventing falls. Some of them were really innocuous and they didn't bother me. But some were rotational falls where they were just plain lucky to walk away.

So did I change? With age comes increased empathy? Or is that I now know how many horses don't walk away? Have our attitudes changed?

On a side note, someone once told me about a clinic weekend where everyone got together on Saturday night and watched one of those videos... and there were a zillion crashes and mishaps on Sunday.

[Peggy]

If we think these ideas are logical and thoughtful, then comes the big question---

Why don`t the people who are in power to actually make these kinds of changes do so?

I can think of a few possible reasons:

1. These actually aren`t good ideas, despite what we may think.
2. These might be ok ideas, but they want to try some different ideas first.
3. These ideas, while ok, would mess up some other "agendas" that we don`t know about.
4. Our leaders haven`t thought of them.
5. Our leaders don`t want "outsiders" (read: us) telling them what to do.
6. Other

Thoughts?

Not sure but I tried to think of another case where a group thought their idea was valid but the implementation was tricky and tiresome and even cost money. Perhaps those who try to learn from history are not doomed to repeat it. One thing I can think of is the implementation of the drug rules by the then-AHSA. Similar to this WRT consideration of the welfare of the horse. plus, huge fights over that one b/c people (including TPTB) saw it as a huge violation of their rights, an infringement on their business as usual, a huge change in the culture of their sport/business etc. My understanding is that it got pretty ugly and there were actual physical threats of violence against the people who were trying to get the rule enacted and that maybe it went further than just threats in one case.(?)

So, what did those people do to get heard and get the rule implemented? Is there anything that can be learned from their struggle? Here's some background in an article about John Lengel (http://www.usef.org/_staffIframes/pressbox/images/magazine/pdf/64cfcf89eee032c9e52586cda5567011.pdf), who was one of the people that fought for the enactment of the drug rules.