Dangerous Riding

[gardenie]

So who has seen it? Who has experienced being tagged for it? What are your thoughts good and bad whether you've seen it or been tagged for it?

Reference:

Attention USEA Members:

On April 16th at 6:30 pm, Area VI is hosting a Trainers, Active Riders, and Officials meeting at the Twin Rivers Horse Trials and 3 Day Event, located at Twin Rivers Ranch in Paso Robles, California.

The purpose of the meeting is to open the lines of communication between officials, competitors, and trainers to discuss the "idea" of Dangerous riding. Many competitors have felt they have been unfairly accused of being dangerous while riding cross-country whereas the officials feel they need to enforce the rule to keep the sport safe.

We encourage any and all members to come to the meeting. If you are not able to attend but would like your questions asked or comments heard, please email them to Shannon Lilley at splilley@earthlink.net with "Active Riders Meeting" in the subject line of your email.

Minutes will be taken at the meeting and published on the USEA website for people to read the answers to their questions.

[JER]

I also got this email and was puzzled by it.

Many competitors have felt they have been unfairly accused of being dangerous while riding cross-country whereas the officials feel they need to enforce the rule to keep the sport safe.

This meeting is in Area VI. I checked the 2009 results in Area VI and to date, there are NO cases of Dangerous Riding in any of the event results.

So what are they talking about? Are officials accusing competitors of 'dangerous riding' but not formally invoking the dangerous riding penalty?

How can 'officials' be feeling like 'they need to enforce the rule' when they're not enforcing it?

Anyone know?

Maybe this is the first meeting in a series of nationwide meetings -- but then that would suggest that the DR penalty has been invoked in a significant number of cases this year. A look through the Area 3 results (the majority of USEA events so far this year have been run there) and I found exactly ONE instance of the DR penalty (rider finished with a 'score' of DR, I guess she was pulled from the course?).

One documented case of the application of the DR penalty in Area 3 is hardly enough to prompt an urgent meeting in Area 6.

Maybe Malcolm could fill us in here.

(I do think a meeting is a good idea to get communication going among all parties, so good for the USEA on that one. :))

[Thames Pirate]

I've seen it once (BN level). The TD had not seen the girl's XC round (which could only have been seen properly from the BN showjumping, which we were walking in the absolute freezing rain at the end of a long day), where she was eliminated by fence four. I saw all 4 fences, and they were scary--she stopped at 2 (a log), then crawled over it, stopped twice at 3 (small coop) then literally crawled over it (from a dead halt horse stepped over and nearly fell over himself--he clearly didn't understand his job), then instead of taking the log option at 4 she went for the ditch and promptly fell in it--twice. Because she was eliminated for refusals (this was just before the fall rule), she was given permission to run SJ. They crashed through just about every warm up fence, taking out poles, standards, and nearly a few people (myself included--I was setting fences for a friend when hooves whizzed by within a foot of me). She had the sense to withdraw just before going in the arena (thankfully) as the horse got more and more confused with his job and frustrated with the unintentional pounding and jerks to the mouth he was getting.

I don't know that the TD ever saw this girl ride, as she was judging UL SJ in the other arena. Even if she had, they were eliminated so quickly that I doubt DR penalties would have had the chance to be applied.

I would like to see more observation of the warm-up or giving warm-up officials more authority (and perhaps training) to call in a higher authority to determine if someone is going out on course. Warm ups are scary enough when everyone there is being "safe." I don't think crashing jumps makes you inherently unsafe, but in this particular case it was obvious. She was a danger to me and the trainers/ground people, but she was a particular danger to the riders in her division (JBN--lots of kids on "ponies") who were warming up.

[TallyhoFarms]

DR was given last month to a rider at Galway. In my opinion it was given unfairly. I think that's one of the reasons this meeting is being called. I'll be there and am interested to hear what's said. Unfortunately the Galway rider won't be at this show but hopefully will be able to get their voice heard through friends.

[FlightCheck]

Sometimes, in the interest of education, DR are pulled over on XC by an official and encouraged to retire, as it is clearly "not their day".

Most have done the smart thing and retired (and those of us watching have breathed sighs of relief).

[JER]

DR was given last month to a rider at Galway. In my opinion it was given unfairly.

Ok, I just found those results on the Galway site.

I guess the wording of the email is to minimize any further hurt feelings.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of the current DR guidelines. DR is always going to be somewhat subjective and therefore, subject to disagreement.

[hamsterpoop]

Exactly; Not perfect but better to err on the safe side-unless it's meand my horse having a hissy!

[TallyhoFarms]

As I understand it from the Galway incident, one offical thought it was DR, other officials disagreed but the one offical would not change their mind. They looked at a video, but it was inconclusive because of the angle, when offered up a video taken by the rider's mom, they declined to look at it. So while I agree that in most cases it's best to err on the side of caution, it seems like some officials *may* use DR as a way to show their disapproval of certain horses and riders. I think an open forum is a great idea and look forward to hearing what's said and how it's presented.

[enjoytheride]

So what is the real issue? Was someone riding dangerously and they decided to blame their warning on someone not liking their horse? Or would an official really give someone a penalty due to some personal difference?

I think the dangerous riding rule is important but it becomes less effective if the officials use it wrong and if the rider doesn't understand when the rule is used right.

[PhoenixFarm]

This meeting has been prompted by several instances, starting in the fall, of people either receiving, or being threatened with should they not retire, DR penalties, and the riders and their coaches feeling this had been done in something of an arbitrary fashion. Coaches and riders in Area VI do feel like the "line" is far from clear, and that people with quirky or challenging horses are being unduly penalized. The eventing community out here just wants more concrete information about this rule and its application, so they can avoid these penalties, and understand where that line is so if they are having a bad day, the line can be drawn by the rider before the officials need to get involved. It is my understanding it is meant as a fact finding meeting and a discussion forum.

(Disclaimer, I am not in any way involved with this meeting nor will I be able to attend, this is just my understanding from speaking to others who are involved).

While there are a variety of instances that have triggered this meeting over the past six months, I would like to discuss the Galway incident in specific because the rider in question is my assistant and his horse is in my care. In addition to me, this rider also lessons with one of the top eventing coaches in our area who has coached multiple advanced level riders, and works with an FEI O -level dressage judge, and the head of their L-program. He has also worked for and with a world famous show jumping trainer and rider. This is not his first Intermediate level horse, and he has produced the majority of his horses from scratch. He is young, but has a fledgling business of his own, in addition to working for me.

The horse in question was attainable to someone not of means because he has a long history of quirky and challenging behaviors. His antics are well known out here. He is enourmously talented, but has had some very bad experiences in his competitive life, and thus is not 100% reliable. My assistant has had some very strong competitive results on him, but he has also had poor scores or even been eliminated. His main manifestion is barn/buddy sourness to such a degree as to make it difficult at locations where the horse must jump or turn or even gallop past the barns or warmup. With a previous rider he even managed to bolt off the course and end up back in his stall with the rider still aboard.

At Galway fence two was accessed by galloping directly past the warmup, and the horse pulled his behavior. Wheeling, running backwards, sitting down, etc. However this is NOT what the DR penalties were assessed for. I tell you this info as background. My assistant managed to get him going in front of the leg again, and proceeded to jump the rest of the course, or so he thought, without incident. Needless to say after having such a backwards moment, the focus then becomes on getting the horse in front of the leg and really riding forward to everything. Later on in the course there is a berm that you go up and down, with a combination of narrow brush fences (offset skinnies) at the bottom. The horse did the prescribed striding (didn't leave one out or anything) but twisted slightly in the air over the out. The official in question felt he jumped that single obstacle too swiftly, and assessed him penalties for that.

Of the other officials, including the CD (who in fact came up and said "Great Ride! immediately after the finish), who either saw the jump first hand or later viewed the various videotapes of the incident, none felt it was DR. However, this single official felt it was and assessed the penalty. The video was shown to almost every top rider and coach on the grounds, including an Olympian, and all felt the ride was safe and appropriate given the previous instance.

Was he a bit quick coming in? Yes, and he admits he made a bit of a mistake, but how often have we heard that mistakes should be made going forward? This is a horse who can spit out the bit and go backwards at the drop of a hat, taking a tug one stride out didn't seem prudent. Even the official who assessed the penalty said the rest of the round was good, that the penalties were assessed for this single obstacle, which was jumped without penalty. The only jumping penalty on the course came from Fence 2, where he was given a stop while the horse was having his moment. He otherwise jumped clear through all the straight routes.

This is a lovely, but very quirky and difficult horse that we are working very hard to help and turn around. This is a young man who is from a non-wealthy family who has worked his tail off since he was 15 to get himself the best instruction around. He sacrificed a lot to acquire this horse because he believed and still does that he is salvageable, even though many other people had written him off.

Obviously this incident is personal for me, but many people without my personal connection have gone to pains to contact me and tell me they don't understand how the penalty was applied.

As I said in the beginning, this meeting was called because of SEVERAL incidents, but since the Galway one was being discussed I wanted to chime in with the facts, before too much speculation unfairly tarred a young man who is the kind of story we should be supporting in this sport.

[TallyhoFarms]

Thanks for chiming in Heather! Didn 't want to talk too much about Galway as I'm not close enough to the situation to do so. I will certainly let you know how the meeting goes as I'll be there. Kisses to Bella:)

[enjoytheride]

I am currently riding a herdbound horse that will bolt or run sideways toward the warm up. I have even run backwards out of the warmup toward the barns or backwards out of the arena. Because I am not very brave I keep the height under 2' 6". The horse is fine in a more relaxed atmoshphere or when the show arena has a gate that can be closed and the horse is fine out on XC.

To be very frank behavior like this is not "quirky and difficult" it is DANGEROUS. I have come off this horse before in warmup and showing because of this behavior. Over the winter we went back to the drawing board and we are really working on forward and dressage. I have also found someone to ride this horse for me to see if a pro can get this horse past its issues.

However, I think that showing should be both fun and safe and I have decided that this horse will not move up until we have solved this behavior. If I can't solve this behavior I will stop showing this horse (I am giving it until fall). Despite how nice and friendly the horse is and despite the excellent jumping style and nice dressage I just can't label the behavior as quirky if I come off this horse or if we injure another rider by my horse bolting toward the barns. I am very certain that the behavior is still around due to my lack of riding skills so my decision is based on some more lessons for me and pro rides. I also think there is a limit to how long you should not have fun or be unsafe waiting for a horse to shape up. A horse that is busy looking for a way to get back to the barn is not forward or paying attention enough to be safe.

This is my personal opinion based on my own situation. I have never gotten dangerous riding penalties and I am jumping several feet below the horse and rider in question but much of the behavior felt similar to me and I wanted to share my opinions.

[canterlope]

As I said in the beginning, this meeting was called because of SEVERAL incidents, but since the Galway one was being discussed I wanted to chime in with the facts, before too much speculation unfairly tarred a young man who is the kind of story we should be supporting in this sport.PF, I completely agree that this is the kind of person, if he is as you described, we should be supporting in this sport. However, I strongly disagree with your implication that, because of his background and that of his horse's, he should be given some slack at events in terms of assessed DR penalties and is being unfairly tarred when his horse chooses to exhibit his quirky and challenging behaviors or when the rider himself makes a self admitted "bit of a mistake" when attempting to thwart these behaviors.

Yes, I fully admit that the line between acceptable and dangerous riding is blurry and it would be extremely helpful if that line could be firmed up and set in stone. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible given the number of variables involved and I'm almost certain it will not happen if riders, coaches, Olympians, whomever are going to ask and expect officials to take into consideration the personal stories and backgrounds of every horse and rider before a DR penalty is assessed.

As an official, the only way I can act in a fair and responsible manner is to judge what is happening in front of me at that moment on that day and take immediate and appropriate action. If I see a horse and/or rider placing themselves in harm's way, I have to act on it without stopping to ponder their histories. To do otherwise will only serve to give the situation time to escalate and widen the scope of those who may be negatively impacted as a result. Does this mean I may give a DR penalty that others determine to be unwarranted? Without a doubt, yes. However, a large part of my job as an official is to keep horses and riders safe. If I lose out on the title of Miss Congeniality because I ding a hard working, cash strapped rider mounted on a challenging horse known to have quirky behaviors with a DR penalty when I determine this action will allow me to fulfill my safety related duties, so be it.

[asterix]

PF, very thoughtful writeup, thanks! Especially for those of us far away who hear x-hand rumors, etc... Sounds like a tough situation and it may well be that the instance of DR penalties given crossed a line. Hopefully this meeting will help clarify and develop a consensus around this issue for the Area (although one then has to ask, how do we ensure that it's consistent across all areas...)

but I have to agree with canterlope -- the system really won't work if officials can and do take into account background and history. This is exactly why we smurfs are very suspicious about some of the pronouncements from on high re: changes in the sport. Until the officials are willing and able to put these penalties out there (or add someone to the watch list, etc.) NO MATTER who that person is or what is known about their backstory, this will all be just talk.

I have no idea if this influenced the official in question (of course, one can be overly zealous due to personal reasons just as one can be cautious out of fear of rocking the boat), but it has to be about what the officials see in that moment on that day, period.

[LisaB]

I would love to have this talk here too because it is a blurry line. While Winston falls asleep at shows, I may have one that doesn't. And the DR thing is so new.
TD's are cops, they see what's in front of them only. And when pulled over, they don't care if you're late for a very important meeting, you're lost, etc. They just see an infraction of the code and hand you a penalty.
So, PF's scenario poses a very interesting dilemma. That blurry line was viewed by officials as DR/not DR. I've heard this on one other occasion, not with DR penalty but something else where the head TD overrode others. And the others were right. Does the head td have that kind of authority? Should they? I mean if it's 1 against 3, shouldn't the unanimous majority rule?

[crittertwitter]

However, I strongly disagree with your implication that, because of his background and that of his horse's, he should be given some slack at events in terms of assessed DR penalties

I did not read and do not (having reread) read PF's post as implying that his background (which aspect are you referring to?) should earn him some slack. I believe the fact that the rider was 'of modest means' and 'well-trained' prefaced the reason he had a difficult horse [whose talent would have likely made him unaffordable had he not been 'difficult' aka 'different']. The obstacle in question was the result of riding this difficult (but capable) horse through a problem of which the prescription was to go *forward*.

To me, this doesn't sound like a request for leniency. It sounds like the opposite: a request that those who have difficult horses, or horses with issues that must be resolved, be allowed to ride in a way which is attuned to their horse on that day without the danger of being penalized for a less than [present day] orthodox ride.

The DR system is scary - and that is why some clarification is in order. It is *dangerous* to scare riders out of actually riding their horses. There are some issues that will arise in competition that will not arise at home and they have to be worked through in competition. This mindset - that we don't want to see anyone riding through an issue at competition - ultimately results in ousting difficult, but capable horses [and there are many of them gracing the history of equestrian sports] from the sport (and thereby ousting the capable riders who buy these more afforable 'problem' horses or who are skilled enough to work with them).

...and is being unfairly tarred when his horse chooses to exhibit his quirky and challenging behaviors or when the rider himself makes a self admitted "bit of a mistake" when attempting to thwart these behaviors.

It really is a humid atmosphere of late. You admit that you made a mistake and the DR is justified. You get overheard not taking 100% responsibility and you're an evil opportunistic horse flogger. Everyone makes at least one mistake every time they go out on course - no ride at any level goes 100% as planned. It's the culture. Those who are taught well know that it's always the rider's fault. :D

Anyway, canterlope, I may have misread your post and I don't mean to direct my comments at you. It is simply that your post represents to me the danger in the DR subjectivity.

[gardenie]

"This is a lovely, but very quirky and difficult horse that we are working very hard to help and turn around. This is a young man who is from a non-wealthy family who has worked his tail off since he was 15 to get himself the best instruction around. He sacrificed a lot to acquire this horse because he believed and still does that he is salvageable, even though many other people had written him off. " Phoenix Farm

"So while I agree that in most cases it's best to err on the side of caution, it seems like some officials *may* use DR as a way to show their disapproval of certain horses and riders." Tally Ho

"As an official, the only way I can act in a fair and responsible manner is to judge what is happening in front of me at that moment on that day and take immediate and appropriate action." canterlope

This reminds me of when I was riding my rather quirky (bucked often, hard to hold at times, but phenomenal power jumper) horse and I wanted to go to Radnor with him at the two star level. I cliniced with Phillip Dutton, working to get ready, and we did all the exercises presented, with Phillips usual lack of input at the time. When the clinic was over, I walked over and asked him about going to Radnor. He said something to the effect "You can go, you'll get around, but why would you want to?"

I went home and pondered that. I stopped eventing that horse and started another with a better temperment. Still quirky, that's my style, but she's quirky about turnout, space, and is a cribber. But she's rideable all the rest of the time. And I took alot more time producing her. And I understand better now why my riding whatever I could that other people couldn't or wouldn't was not particularly admirable.

I think that the powers that be may be using or tempted to use dangerous riding to control behaviors that otherwise cannot be stopped. ..such as the horse that jumps unorthodox or the kid that is letting her horse gallop and getting four in the five and "looks" out of control until she's pulled up and she stands with the horse on a long rein waiting politely to be told she's out of control. The express reason is to make our sport more safe. Its going to be uncomfortable for a while, because new rules are hard to stomach in a sport where subjective is not the original intent. I came to eventing because I wanted to compete in something that was close to totally objective.

[crittertwitter]

I’ve thought a little bit more about this (and now I’m late!) and what I’m saying is that I think we all need to take a hard look at where eventing is going in the current atmosphere. It seems to me that given the current rule making trends, eventing is going in a direction that goes against what it has always been. Will there be any space for riding where we’re going?

I’m reminded of George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” in which he admits he shot a neighborhood elephant not because it was a danger, but because the masses were cheering behind him.

[Jealoushe]

I don't know, mistakes going forward is what ends a lot of people up in the hospital.

It's all fine that the rider rides with BNTs and famous riders, but that does not mean they can't make mistakes or ride dangerously.

The people who watched the video, would they have admitted to the rider that YES I think you were riding dangerous? Or would they be cautious of ones feelings. Are they themselves known to ride a bit on the edge? This is all speculation. The official is there for that reason.

I do not know the rider, nor did I see the ride but I just feel like that post was full of excuses why the rider shouldn't be penalized.

I like the DR penalties, even if the officials are strick it will make riders THINK about how they are riding.

[Janet]

I've heard this on one other occasion, not with DR penalty but something else where the head TD overrode others. And the others were right. Does the head td have that kind of authority? Should they? I mean if it's 1 against 3, shouldn't the unanimous majority rule? It is a very rare event that has more than one TD, and thus a "head" TD.

Furthermore, while the TD has the authority to STOP a rider on course for "dangerous riding", only the Ground Jury has the authority to impose a 25 point penalty, eliminate, or issue a warning card. If there is more than one member of the Ground Jury, then any member of the Ground Jury can impose the penalty, "on his (sic) own authority." (EV112.3)

So, no,the TD can't "override" anyone. But if there is more than one member of the GJ, it is "any one member", not "majority rules".

[retreadeventer]

Amazing but I do agree with Canterlope. Can't judge the background, have to judge what you see, just like LisaB pointed out with the cop - ticket for speeding, doesn't matter what meeting you were late to. If he made a mistake, then he gets a ticket.

Part of the problem is this. We all love to encourage people who are at the lower levels. I pesonally witnessed a young lady at a local unrecognized event stop three times at seven or eight fences in a row with a Haflinger who just didn't get it. The organizer - on down -allowed this to go on...this an experienced well thought of organizer with huge entries. And it's allowed consistently at most of the local unrecognized I've been at. When the kids come from this mindset, where we all get a chance and we are all winners, etc. and can keep making mistakes without penalty -- no wonder we get "the rider is king" attitude at the upper levels later on. I judge jumper shows as well and its the same there - kids off course keep right on jumping whatever jumps they want without stopping...try to get over a refused fence way more than three times....with management approval. Let them get their money's worth so they come back.

You know, if you don't make kids follow rules don't be surprised when they grow up and want to get around them.

I firmly believe you can define dangerous riding. It's too fast - too wild -- too extreme for the conditions. The horse's face tells the tale. Watch the horses - they will let you know if it's scary or not. Very simple. Gotta be looking out for the horse.

And quirky horses...there is a reason horses take themselves off a course and run back to perceived comfort zones. It's usually physical. I think every upper level rider ought to attend an autopsy sometime of a horse that's been performing their whole lives. Might wake them up a little. Everytime you think you have an answer - you are usually going to be surprised. Horses have a way of making us all fools. If a horse doesn't want to play, why force him. Find him another job. Disappointing and expensive but if we are for the horses then we need to do the right things for them. There is always another horse for a talented young male event rider, gees, I hardly know of any in that subset that isn't on their way to the top with a barnful.

[webmistress32]

... it's allowed consistently at most of the local unrecognized I've been at. When the kids come from this mindset, where we all get a chance and we are all winners, etc. and can keep making mistakes without penalty -- no wonder we get "the rider is king" attitude at the upper levels later on. I judge jumper shows as well and its the same there - kids off course keep right on jumping whatever jumps they want without stopping...try to get over a refused fence way more than three times....with management approval. Let them get their money's worth so they come back.

You know, if you don't make kids follow rules don't be surprised when they grow up and want to get around them.

that's why ribbons don't mean anything any more, everyone gets one for "participating".

I'm all for kids having fun and getting ribbons. I have a couple that compete. but let's face it it's worth more when you EARN it.

rules are created for a reason. if they are selectively enforced then it's just an opportunity for some to play favorites.

the horse that's herd bound and has issues passing the warm-up, if it creates a dangerous situation in the definition of the rule should be eliminated.

if they want to school this situation then bring a few friends out on a schooling day and practice passing the warm-ups until he behaves without bending or breaking any rules.

but on show day if the rule is broken, off you go.

[Janet]

Inevitably, "dangerous riding" is going to be a subjective opinion. But it needs to be based on what the official sees, not on the history of the horse.

As long as the official is consistent in his/her interpretation, I think it is OK that different officials have different criteria for what constitutes "talking to", "warning", "yellow card", "25 penalties" and "elimination".

I don't think that imposing a DR penalty constitutes "unfairly tarring" the rider, any more than a questionable refusal at a water jump.

What I am more concerned about is the officials feeling that any DR penalty they impose is going to be second guessed and analyzed to death.

At the Annual meeting, a member of the BoG showed a video of a ride that had earned a DR penalty, and that she thought wasn't dangerous. I don't think she realized that both the official in question, and the wife of the rider in question were in the audience, but they were.

I think that, and this recent incident, are likely to have a "chilling effect" on at least some officials, and I don't think that is a good idea.

YES we need clearer guidelines (for both officials and riders) on what constitutes DR.

YES, we need better communication on what constitutes DR.

YES, if officials are being "arbitrary and capricious", and inconsistently applying penalties only to horse and riders they "don't like", then that needs to be addressed (you can send in an evaluation form/complaint to the USEF Licensed Officials Committee about a specific official, independant of the USEA evaluation forms).

But the eventing community really needs to stand behind the officials, even when they make unpopular decisions. Otherwise we will lose the good officials.

[PhoenixFarm]

Hi all:

A few clarifications. I in no way meant that because of his bachground my rider should get a free pass. As another poster deduced I was trying to make a point about leAving room in the rules for unorthodox horses. If it comes to saying that horses that display any issues or behavior at a show are not welcome, then only six figure packers will be the eventers of the future. I object to the idea that the horses have to be perfect, but I have no problem with my rider being assessed with no thought to who or what he is.

As far as the horse. Just this spring he has a very pricey work up at a university hospital, to ensure he was sound and healthy, and they said he looked great. He has vet work, body work, and every other work on a regular basis. If every time he went he "didn't want to play" of course we would stop. But the challenge is that that isn't the case--some weekends he jumps around like a champ, and looks great doing it. We just haven't sorted out the rhyme or reason yet. Obviously, should the instances get worse or not improve over time, we will find him another job. But keep in mind the odd behavior is not what he was penalized for.

I am not against the dr penalties. I went to the safety summit, and I supported the idea and I still do. But as a rider, trainer, and coach, I do want to understand their application. My rider took his punisrnt and has moved on in mature fashion. But since the way they were applied is different than we've had other officials explain to us how they work, it's sort of hard to learn from them and apply to the next instance. It's not about arguing whether he should or shouldn't be penalized-it's done and we aren't making excuses, otherwise we wouldn't be explaining anything on a public bb. But we as a community do want to understand how this rule is applied so we can make better decisions in the future.

[Thames Pirate]

My question is why a rider was penalized for a less-than-ideal fence when even the official giving the penalty said the round was nice. Isn't DR supposed to be a pattern rather than penalizing a split-second mistake? If the whole round or even several portions of it were dangerous, then yes, penalties are warranted. If it really was one element of a combination, then I think the penalty was misapplied.

I am by no means an official--just a smurf whose ambition is to ride in a CCI* one day. That said, I think we are entering dangerous territory if we penalize a single mistake. Last spring I did a Training HT where we encountered a faux corner. While we have schooled some corners made of poles at home in our arena, we had not seen a solid one before. In addition, it was placed a few strides after a log at the top of a bump, so there was terrain involved. It was a very fair question, and I didn't worry about it when I walked it. We had an amazing round with lovely rhythm, great confidence, and the horse was jumping well. We jumped the log and came at the corner, but the horse didn't quite understand the question and backed off. I didn't put enough leg on quickly enough, and we had a bit of a rough moment. The horse jumped it, but we hit it pretty hard. She jumped the remaining 3 fences flawlessly and confidently. Should we have been assessed DR penalties for a mistake? Yes, it revealed a hole that we are working to plug (or rather we will be once the horse is finally going again). Yes, single mistakes can be dangerous or even fatal. I understand that. But we can't prevent mistakes or less-than-perfect fences. We will fail to put on leg or put on too much. Horses will twist in the air, stumble in front of a fence, or toss their heads at the wrong moment. Penalizing mistakes won't prevent them. The DR is designed to protect riders and horses when there's a consistent pattern of mistakes that demonstrate that a rider is in over their heads.

[Ajierene]

At Galway fence two was accessed by galloping directly past the warmup, and the horse pulled his behavior. Wheeling, running backwards, sitting down, etc. However this is NOT what the DR penalties were assessed for. I tell you this info as background. My assistant managed to get him going in front of the leg again, and proceeded to jump the rest of the course, or so he thought, without incident. Needless to say after having such a backwards moment, the focus then becomes on getting the horse in front of the leg and really riding forward to everything. Later on in the course there is a berm that you go up and down, with a combination of narrow brush fences (offset skinnies) at the bottom. The horse did the prescribed striding (didn't leave one out or anything) but twisted slightly in the air over the out. The official in question felt he jumped that single obstacle too swiftly, and assessed him penalties for that.

Was he a bit quick coming in? Yes, and he admits he made a bit of a mistake, but how often have we heard that mistakes should be made going forward? This is a horse who can spit out the bit and go backwards at the drop of a hat, taking a tug one stride out didn't seem prudent.

This is a lovely, but very quirky and difficult horse that we are working very hard to help and turn around.

I have taken out a good chunk because, as others have said, the backstory is irrelevant. What is important is that this horse, this day, looked dangerous to someone - enough so that they said something. Whether it was one jump or a half or entire course -the horse looked dangerous. With a Skinny combination, I have to wonder what level he was doing. I tend to think a horse with such issues should not be competing above the Novice level until such issues are figured out.

I am currently riding a herdbound horse that will bolt or run sideways toward the warm up. I have even run backwards out of the warmup toward the barns or backwards out of the arena. Because I am not very brave I keep the height under 2' 6". The horse is fine in a more relaxed atmoshphere or when the show arena has a gate that can be closed and the horse is fine out on XC.

To be very frank behavior like this is not "quirky and difficult" it is DANGEROUS.

However, I think that showing should be both fun and safe and I have decided that this horse will not move up until we have solved this behavior. If I can't solve this behavior I will stop showing this horse (I am giving it until fall).

I think this bears repeating - not all horses were meant to show. I think some people, especially young riders, seem to think every horse can do whatever discipline they want it to do. I also tend to think that young riders especially see some romantic notion of turning around a difficult horse. I used to work with difficult horses all the time and there is a great satisfaction in bringing a difficult horse around. There is also great romantic ideas of getting that horse that no one can ride and making it a great. Isn't that the premise of such books as Black Beauty, the Black Stallion and National Velvet? Sometimes a younger rider needs the guidance of older, more experienced riders to say 'that's a bad idea'. This brings to mind the young girl that got seriously injured recently. While there were a lot of positive comments about her on the other thread - one does have to look at the situation and wonder if she was also a romanticized young rider. I am not saying this as a huge negative, just as a warning when helping young riders in their careers or passionate hobbies.

PF, I completely agree that this is the kind of person, if he is as you described, we should be supporting in this sport. However, I strongly disagree with your implication that, because of his background and that of his horse's, he should be given some slack at events in terms of assessed DR penalties and is being unfairly tarred when his horse chooses to exhibit his quirky and challenging behaviors or when the rider himself makes a self admitted "bit of a mistake" when attempting to thwart these behaviors.

Yes, I fully admit that the line between acceptable and dangerous riding is blurry and it would be extremely helpful if that line could be firmed up and set in stone. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible given the number of variables.......
As an official, the only way I can act in a fair and responsible manner is to judge what is happening in front of me at that moment on that day and take immediate and appropriate action.

I cut a lot out, mostly for the sake of keeping my thread from being a novel, but I find this very important. How many times is a win or loss subject to the mood of the day? Dangerous Riding is as well. It is about the angle that someone sees, the horse's mood that day, etc. Yes, there are fuzzy lines, but no, we cannot look at a horse's background and say 'well, gee, he used to gallop off uncontrollably - he looks more in control now, though still fast and squirrelly...but not as bad as before so no dangerous riding!' It has to be either bad or good, as seen at that moment by that person.

PF, very thoughtful writeup, thanks! Especially for those of us far away who hear x-hand rumors, etc... Sounds like a tough situation and it may well be that the instance of DR penalties given crossed a line.

but I have to agree with canterlope -- the system really won't work if officials can and do take into account background and history.

Again, bears repeating. They should hold no bias, negative or positive, about the horse and rider. Should being the operative word there....

I did not read and do not (having reread) read PF's post as implying that his background (which aspect are you referring to?) should earn him some slack. I believe the fact that the rider was 'of modest means' and 'well-trained' prefaced the reason he had a difficult horse [whose talent would have likely made him unaffordable had he not been 'difficult' aka 'different']. The obstacle in question was the result of riding this difficult (but capable) horse through a problem of which the prescription was to go *forward*.

To me, this doesn't sound like a request for leniency. It sounds like the opposite: a request that those who have difficult horses, or horses with issues that must be resolved, be allowed to ride in a way which is attuned to their horse on that day without the danger of being penalized for a less than [present day] orthodox ride.

But isn't that giving leniency? And isn't that doing what people complain about - looking at the horse/rider's history? Why would it be ok to look at a horse and say - well this horse is difficult, but I think the rider is good so this is ok. Whereas people are concerned with - this horse is difficult, but I don't like this rider so I am going to penalize him. You cannot have it both ways and you cannot expect everyone to know every horse and know if they are quirky or not. Really, a horse to quirky should not be out there anyway.

"So while I agree that in most cases it's best to err on the side of caution, it seems like some officials *may* use DR as a way to show their disapproval of certain horses and riders." Tally Ho

This is what I am talking about - you cannot say 'they cannot look at history and disapprove and penalize' and turn around and say 'they should look at history and be more lenient'.

This reminds me of when I was riding my rather quirky (bucked often, hard to hold at times, but phenomenal power jumper) horse and I wanted to go to Radnor with him at the two star level. I cliniced with Phillip Dutton, working to get ready, and we did all the exercises presented, with Phillips usual lack of input at the time. When the clinic was over, I walked over and asked him about going to Radnor. He said something to the effect "You can go, you'll get around, but why would you want to?"


This is a great story and bears repeating - why do you want to risk your safety and that of others with a horse that is not ready for that level or for eventing? To me, a horse that so willingly go backwards should be taken down to say elementary until they figure out that going backwards is not an option.

I started my mare in elementary due to huge spooking issues - I could send her over the jump from a standstill without an issue. My trainer had another student that took her horse down to elementary (another adult) until he figured out that galloping off like an idiot was not the best idea. I have spoken to at least three other adults at various shows that took their horses down to elementary level due to issues such as spooking, taking off, barn sourness. A young rider may want the perceived prestige of the higher levels, and some older riders/trainers may as well. That does not make it a good idea.

[PhoenixFarm]

Janet I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, but when you have three officials telling you you did a great job and one telling you you were dangerous, which official should you believe or stand behind? How are you supposed to know who is right?

That's the kind of question this meeting seeks to answer.

[VicarageVee]

. If a horse doesn't want to play, why force him. Find him another job. Disappointing and expensive but if we are for the horses then we need to do the right things for them. There is always another horse for a talented young male event rider, gees, I hardly know of any in that subset that isn't on their way to the top with a barnful.


Wow. I know lots of young men who have far from "a barnful" of talented horses, but make do with what they have and make them up on their own. What a statement!

[Trixie]

The horse in question was attainable to someone not of means because he has a long history of quirky and challenging behaviors. His antics are well known out here. He is enourmously talented, but has had some very bad experiences in his competitive life, and thus is not 100% reliable. My assistant has had some very strong competitive results on him, but he has also had poor scores or even been eliminated. His main manifestion is barn/buddy sourness to such a degree as to make it difficult at locations where the horse must jump or turn or even gallop past the barns or warmup. With a previous rider he even managed to bolt off the course and end up back in his stall with the rider still aboard.


At Galway fence two was accessed by galloping directly past the warmup, and the horse pulled his behavior. Wheeling, running backwards, sitting down, etc. However this is NOT what the DR penalties were assessed for.

Was he a bit quick coming in? Yes, and he admits he made a bit of a mistake, but how often have we heard that mistakes should be made going forward? This is a horse who can spit out the bit and go backwards at the drop of a hat, taking a tug one stride out didn't seem prudent.

If it comes to saying that horses that display any issues or behavior at a show are not welcome, then only six figure packers will be the eventers of the future. I object to the idea that the horses have to be perfect, but I have no problem with my rider being assessed with no thought to who or what he is.


I do not know the rider, nor did I see the ride but I just feel like that post was full of excuses why the rider shouldn't be penalized.

I agree with the last quote here, these are excuses. Reading the response by Phoenix Farm, about how everyone else had given up on the horse, how the horse was well-known for bad behavior and WAS behaving badly, jumped in incorrectly (made a mistake), etc: it sounds SCARY to me.

I almost feel like there’s too much of a measure of romanticized pride in continuing to compete a horse that others have all “given up on.” Particularly when they’re so out of control that they wind up bolting off course and ending up in a stall with a rider still on board (not your rider, I understand that, but still), or wheeling, running, sitting down, or spitting the bit out and going backwards “at the drop of a hat.” Those behaviors don’t bring to mind “a little quirky.” Those behaviors are DANGEROUS.

I don't think anyone insisted that eventers only compete 6-figure packers. But a horse that bolts, sits, spins, wheels backwards, and can't be steadied by a tug on the reins lest you set him off doesn't sound like an ideal horse to be competing, particularly not at a higher level.

It doesn’t matter what your background or means are. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[JAM]

I didn't read PF's post to suggest that the rider should have been cut slack due to the horse's history. But, putting that aside, what concerns me is that the standard articulated below -- "I know it when I see it" -- is no standard at all. If I accept what PF said as true, the rider was DR'd for one sticky fence that he approached too quickly (and in a situation in which, at minimum, there was not a consensus among experienced officials as to whether he was in fact engaging in dangerous riding). If that is the standard -- where any single event official deems that a horse had a sticky fence and the rider approached it in not the proper pace, balance, etc. -- then every single rider at every single competition is subject to getting a DR penalty.

I have been at least moderately vocal (and some would undoubtedly say stridently vocal) in past threads about the safety issue, but this kind of circumstance (again, accepting what PF has said as true) strikes me as "political correctness" gone amok. When event officials start applying these "standards" to the big names of the sport in the same manner that they are apparently being applied to the no-names , then perhaps I will have a different view. But there is too much arbitrariness and conflict-of-interest inherent in the current system, as it is being applied. (I read your post to say that you, at least, would not cut the Phillip Duttons and Karen O'Connors of the world any break just because of their names, though I strongly doubt that many of your colleagues would adhere to such an approach.)

...

As an official, the only way I can act in a fair and responsible manner is to judge what is happening in front of me at that moment on that day and take immediate and appropriate action. If I see a horse and/or rider placing themselves in harm's way, I have to act on it without stopping to ponder their histories. To do otherwise will only serve to give the situation time to escalate and widen the scope of those who may be negatively impacted as a result. Does this mean I may give a DR penalty that others determine to be unwarranted? Without a doubt, yes. ...

[flyingchange]

OK, so the horse balked at the second fance and decided to have a temper tantrum/meltdown. The rider got the horse through it to the otherside and convinced the horse that "no, bud, what you are gonna do here is you're going to go jump that jump and gallop on" instead of "Oh, sorry! wets go back to de barn and I'll make you a nice bwan mash and rub you down and put soah no moah all ovah you and feed you my bon bons ... I am so sowwwy fowa makin you come heyah. I wuv you." And so the horse realizes he is gonna have to put on his big horse saddlepad and go jump the course. The rider has a fugly jump at a skinny - horse twists - and because of the twist, the rider is assessed a DR? And is punished for the horse having a meltdown mid-course? Which he fixed - and I'm quite sure it took considerable horsemanship on the riders part to "fix it" and jump/gallop on.

What sport is this now?

We are only allowed to bring out our perfect show horses and if fluffy has a meltdown we are to reward it with a walk back to the barn? yes, sometimes a horse really does need to be retired/withdrawn because they are too far gone. it's a thin line and a test of horsemanship to decide which course is best for the horse and whether continuing on will be productive or not.

Was anybody around at Fair Hill back in 2003 when Phillip Dutton's horse was rearing and giving him a hard time in the warm up before XC? They went on to do quite well on that course, as I recall. But it sounds like some people would prefer that the horse be walked back to the barns if he dared to have an "episode" at a show.

As far as the horse being "dangerous" to others - coulda run into somebody on it's way back to the barn if it ran back. Well, if that were the case, yes, it would be horrific. But anybody walking around/standing around a showgrounds/backside of a track really ought to be looking at their surroundings so they can get out of the way if a loose horse or runaway comes through.

Somebody said the horse should be doing novice and not intermedieate due to the fugly jump. Hysteria much?

If you've never been on a horse that has a meltdown at a show - and gotten it safely to the other side to do the show - then I guess it's easy to point fingers. The rest of us know that this kind of $hit happens and you deal with it the best you can. Sounds like this kid did a great job with what could have been a disastrous outing and turned it into a productive one. Kudos to him. That's training.

[LR1976]

My question is why a rider was penalized for a less-than-ideal fence when even the official giving the penalty said the round was nice. Isn't DR supposed to be a pattern rather than penalizing a split-second mistake? If the whole round or even several portions of it were dangerous, then yes, penalties are warranted. If it really was one element of a combination, then I think the penalty was misapplied.



This is my concern too. Are riders going to get slapped with DR penalties for one crappy fence. Yes, a crappy fence can be dangerous, but unfortunately...they happen.

[canterlope]

The DR system is scary - and that is why some clarification is in order. It is *dangerous* to scare riders out of actually riding their horses.CW, this is a concern I had with the DR penalty system and one that I voiced when its implementation was under discussion. I do think it is possible that competitors may begin riding backwards to avoid being assessed a DR penalty. However, I believe the benefits of the system outweighs this cost. I also believe that the possible backwards riding would be a symptom of a far more complex "disease". If competitors start riding backwards to avoid penalties, then the problem isn't the backwards riding per se, but rather the fact that the competitors do not have a clear understanding of how to properly and safely negotiate the course across which they are running. As a result, if the DR system scares competitors out of actually riding their horses, then this should serve as a red flag to them that a bit of skill reassessment may be in order.

[JER]

As a result, if the DR system scares competitors out of actually riding their horses, then this should serve as a red flag to them that a bit of skill reassessment may be in order.

Based on the discussion here, I don't see what it has to do with 'skill.' In fact, the rider in question deployed a fair amount of skill getting the horse through the meltdown.

Is 'dangerous riding' the same thing as 'horse-with-issues'?

Based on the discussion here, the element up for reassessment would be the horse. If you have a chance to take on a quirky horse with some unsavory (but common) issues, do you still take it when there's a good chance you'll get a DR penalty for working through those issues?

I guess your best option would be to stick to unrecognized events until you've worked through all the issues. But, as we've discussed on here in the last few days, you might find yourself at a venue with fewer safety resources -- vets, EMS, crowd-control, warm-up control, educated officials, etc. -- should something go awry.

A few years ago, I was in a meeting with the mother of a highly-decorated young rider in the h/j world. These people have unlimited financial resources. The woman got a phone call from one of her house staff, saying that her daughter had fallen off her new horse. She told me what happened: "Her horse stopped and she fell. We just bought this horse in Germany and it shouldn't stop." Meanwhile, I'm looking at photos on her desk and wall that show a young teenager lying on the neck of a number of expensive horses. Jumping ahead barely began to describe it.

Now that's dangerous riding to me but the only solution these folks new was to get another horse. Which they did, no joke. No one wants eventing to go that route.

My point is, horses have issues and sometimes those issues need to be worked through where they occur. That's horsemanship not dangerous riding.

I like what Janet said earlier about DR being no different than 20 pens for a stop on course. But people don't/won't/aren't going to see it that way because of the negative stigma of the term.

Would you send your horse to a trainer who'd racked up a couple of DRs?

[Everythingbutwings]

We are only allowed to bring out our perfect show horses and if fluffy has a meltdown we are to reward it with a walk back to the barn? yes, sometimes a horse really does need to be retired/withdrawn because they are too far gone. it's a thin line and a test of horsemanship to decide which course is best for the horse and whether continuing on will be productive or not.

It's a SHOW for crying out loud. A competition. Do your bad horse fit retraining on your own time. We're not talking a horse that is a bit over faced by the course but an animal that is unruly while being judged on course.

There's a real difference between letting fluffy have a meltdown and moving through it and continuing to go intermediate on a horse who you can't half halt before a fence without risking it grabbing the bit and running backwards.

[canterlope]

I’ve thought a little bit more about this (and now I’m late!) and what I’m saying is that I think we all need to take a hard look at where eventing is going in the current atmosphere. It seems to me that given the current rule making trends, eventing is going in a direction that goes against what it has always been. Will there be any space for riding where we’re going?If we are going to take a hard look at where Eventing is going in terms of the current rule making trends, I think the first question that needs to be asked is why the rules are being made in the first place. I can't think of a single official or power-that-be who wants more rules just for the sake of having more rules. There is always a reason behind a new rule and, chances are, it is related to some sort of responsibility that is not being accepted on the part of the people who will be impacted by the change. The good thing about this is that it means we all have the opportunity to help guide where Eventing is going. If we all are willing to take responsibility for our own decisions and actions, no new rules will be needed. Pretty simple, eh?

[JAM]

I remember watching a video of the 1986 WEG when Priceless / Ginny Leng practically mowed down a number of spectators (behind ropes) when the horse bolted / veered sharply to the left after the first fence. Apparently the horse had a history of such antics early on course until settling down. DR? Make the horse stay at home till the issues got worked out?

(PS -- they won the competition.)

It's hard for me to comment on the situation at Galway, since I didn't see it. My point is that the judgments we are talking about are extremely subjective, and I would not want an approach of saying that the "lowest common denominator" is the standard that should always prevail, which is what seems to have happened here.

... We're not talking a horse that is a bit over faced by the course but an animal that is unruly while being judged on course. ...

[SevenDogs]

What I am more concerned about is the officials feeling that any DR penalty they impose is going to be second guessed and analyzed to death.

At the Annual meeting, a member of the BoG showed a video of a ride that had earned a DR penalty, and that she thought wasn't dangerous. I don't think she realized that both the official in question, and the wife of the rider in question were in the audience, but they were.

I think that, and this recent incident, are likely to have a "chilling effect" on at least some officials, and I don't think that is a good idea.

YES we need clearer guidelines (for both officials and riders) on what constitutes DR.

YES, we need better communication on what constitutes DR.

YES, if officials are being "arbitrary and capricious", and inconsistently applying penalties only to horse and riders they "don't like", then that needs to be addressed (you can send in an evaluation form/complaint to the USEF Licensed Officials Committee about a specific official, independant of the USEA evaluation forms).

But the eventing community really needs to stand behind the officials, even when they make unpopular decisions. Otherwise we will lose the good officials.

I could not agree more! :yes: :yes: :yes:

[RAyers]

Dangerous riding
Pornography
Offensive behavior/language

While I agree with the intent and have seen it applied appropriately and judiciously, there is no standard and the "I know it when I see it." standard is so subjective/vague to be specious; and given how well these work in the "real" world, I suspect it will have little effect in changing the society in which it is applied.

[PhoenixFarm]

I just want to say that I am very happy with the discussion going on here. This is what we hoped for. We had no desire to be the poster child for this issue, but this is what we've been dealt and if it can lead to a deeper understanding of these rules and our sport, then it's worth it.

But if I could respectfully request an end to the spittle emitting emails calling me a horse abuser and saying they hope my rider gets killed, that'd be awesome. Thanks.

[SevenDogs]

Hi all:
If it comes to saying that horses that display any issues or behavior at a show are not welcome, then only six figure packers will be the eventers of the future.

Hmmmmm... always love when someone tries to scare people onto their side with money talk. There are PLENTY of horses out there that are not even close to six figures that are completely safe. There are also PLENTY of expensive horses out there with behavioral problems.

[gardenie]

This is a passionate sport full of people's emotions, dreams and aspirations. The horses would just as soon eat grass. Our horses do it because we ask, and we hopefully train them adequately. And we should remember that yes, we should mean it when we go out of the start box. BUT! We should be sure the horse is trained properly first. And that they are the right horse for the job.

So if one gets a dangerous riding penalty, or a "talking into retiring," whether one likes it or not, or whether it is fair or not (ie thinking or saying "OMG, I got DR'd and that other girl was going fast and she didn't"), one **might** consider thinking about how to ride and train better to prevent such occurrence again. One should ask the questions that are pertinent--what did my horse or I do exactly? And listen without defending...easier said than done.

Perhaps require DR givers write down what the horse and rider actually did, and training strategies to improve, or take the time to show a good example of how to ride properly. Perhaps it is time for USEA to produce a film clip of what is and isn't dangerous riding. Don't tell me what I'm doing wrong solely, give me a solution!

Of course, this reminds me of the fact the Army has lost 54 soldiers in three months to suicide this year, and the last one committed suicide the DAY he saw the suicide prevention film. We are all human, and we cannot control anyone but ourselves.

As you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I think the problem here is DR should NOT NOT NOT be assessed because of ONE bad fence....probably not even two mistakes. Sorry....this IS a dangerous sport. And riders....ALL RIDERs...will make mistakes. A rider making a mistake to a fence...either coming in too quick or taking too many tugs should NOT be given a DR. Perhaps they could be talked to...great round except what you did at the bank complex...you were lucky there....although honestly, that is what our coaches, trainers and friends are for. I don't know of any decent rider that comes off a course not knowing where on that course they could have been better or were a bit lucky...or were saved by the grace of their horse (and the good training that they have put into that horse).

DR penalties should only be given if there is pattern of bad riding. If the rider was making the same mistake at multiple fences.

Otherwise what is next.....every time a rider screws up and tips their shoulders at the in of a coffin they get a DR....or pushes for a slightly long one or chips in...they are going to get a DR?.....Because their ride to one fence wasn't perfect or fantastic?


Sorry....I don't like it at all. Yes, one mistake can be very costly in this sport. But assessing DR penalties for one mistake isn't going to make an inherently dangerous sport safer and not what I understood the DR system to be.

[eventmom]

I think the problem here is DR should NOT NOT NOT be assessed because of ONE bad fence....probably not even two mistakes. Sorry....this IS a dangerous sport. And riders....ALL RIDERs...will make mistakes. A rider making a mistake to a fence...either coming in too quick or taking too many tugs should NOT be given a DR. Perhaps they could be talked to...great round except what you did at the bank complex...you were lucky there....although honestly, that is what our coaches, trainers and friends are for. I don't know of any decent rider that comes off a course not knowing where on that course they could have been better or were a bit lucky...or were saved by the grace of their horse (and the good training that they have put into that horse).

DR penalties should only be given if there is pattern of bad riding. If the rider was making the same mistake at multiple fences.

Otherwise what is next.....every time a rider screws up and tips their shoulders at the in of a coffin they get a DR....or pushes for a slightly long one or chips in...they are going to get a DR?.....Because their ride to one fence wasn't perfect or fantastic?


Sorry....I don't like it at all. Yes, one mistake can be very costly in this sport. But assessing DR penalties for one mistake isn't going to make an inherently dangerous sport safer and not what I understood the DR system to be.
Amen

[wookie]

tried to read everyone's thoughts and it is hard to be on one particular "side".
there are some dr's out there. but i don't see as many as i use to and i spent six weeks in aiken competing and watching. to me, the overall quality of riders out there has improved. and honestly, dr is subjective. frankly,, i saw phillip dutton on that chestnut he flipped on at fairhill prior to the fall. i watched him go through the down bank by the vendors to a corner i believe and it was not pretty. people i was standing by felt the horse was overfaced and jumping flat. and i was not surprised to hear they had a fall. if you want to see it go to grc photos no 72 i believe,, it was rotational and the fact he walked away from it could be because of his skill or just dumb luck. but there can be instances in any xc ride on certain days that are viewed as dr. do you look at that one instance or the overall quality of the ride? this is where it gets cloudy. and how is dangerous riding to be judged...by one rider who pushes his horse over fences too big for the horse...when a horse rears in the start box or won't enter it...when one acts up as he is leaving the "herd"...when one bucks from fence 9 to 13...by one joyous burst of galloping between fences that the rider gets under control....by going to slow...by getting left behind...by jumping ahead...by inadvertently banging your horse in the mouth...by putting 3 in a 4 or vice versa...where does it stop or start??? and retread...if a horse is herd bound...please..it does not necessarily mean it is a medical reason. at full gallop, i watched many greenies have a hard time leaving one field and entering another that not only took them away from the herd but the barns. one took a full minute to go 75 ft down a hill because of it...no dangerous riding there even though the horse tried to whirl and crab walk... the rider did a great job. and the lesson to that horse was invaluable...no reward for bad behavior--you still have to work.
so i support the meeting. after all retread... the smurfs as you call yourself and other none upper level riders were never really heard on these grand sweeping decisions. why not now.
and frankly,, i get nervous when i compete now... am i going to get a card, a dr, a talking too in front of everyone,, or just simply discussed on the sidelines. should we post our riding hx and our training hx so people can judge with all the info instead of making rash/sweeping statements.
sorry h/j's but it is getting awfully hjish in this sport anymore.

[RacetrackReject]

I think the problem here is DR should NOT NOT NOT be assessed because of ONE bad fence....probably not even two mistakes. Sorry....this IS a dangerous sport. And riders....ALL RIDERs...will make mistakes. A rider making a mistake to a fence...either coming in too quick or taking too many tugs should NOT be given a DR. Perhaps they could be talked to...great round except what you did at the bank complex...you were lucky there....although honestly, that is what our coaches, trainers and friends are for. I don't know of any decent rider that comes off a course not knowing where on that course they could have been better or were a bit lucky...or were saved by the grace of their horse (and the good training that they have put into that horse).

DR penalties should only be given if there is pattern of bad riding. If the rider was making the same mistake at multiple fences.

Otherwise what is next.....every time a rider screws up and tips their shoulders at the in of a coffin they get a DR....or pushes for a slightly long one or chips in...they are going to get a DR?.....Because their ride to one fence wasn't perfect or fantastic?


Sorry....I don't like it at all. Yes, one mistake can be very costly in this sport. But assessing DR penalties for one mistake isn't going to make an inherently dangerous sport safer and not what I understood the DR system to be.

This is exactly what I was thinking while reading this whole thread.

[PhoenixFarm]

You know gardenie, I agree with everything you said. As I say, I am not against the idea of this rule, I just think we need a more full and open discussion of what the rule REALLY means and how it is applied.

I realize that most folks on this board don't know me personally, and I don't fault them for assuming I'm just an excuse making moron who allows dangerous riding to go on and thinks nothing of it. You've never seen me teach or train, so it's easier to assume the worst.

Will this horse be turned around? I don't know yet. We have a good history with castaways--hubby's two star horse came for free off the meat truck, his youngster we paid a whopping dollar for, and my horse washed out as a race horse, fox hunter, show jumper, and junior's event horse before coming to me. I do believe they all deserve a chance. I do believe the best thing about this sport is that we make room for the quirky. But ultimately he may be too damaged. I just would hope that the horse's other trainers, his owner, and myself, will be allowed to try and if necessary make that determination because he truly isn't suitable--not because we're afraid of a rule or official.

I hope this meeting, and this and other instances like it truly spawn a deep and meaningful conversation that ultimately makes this sport better for horses and riders.

And with that, I must go about my day. Had a broodmare die of colic on Friday and am raising an orphan, and had another foal born last night that tried to come out upside down and backwards that I had to adjust inside Mom and pull out (thankfully he seems to be doing great). So I'm a bit tired, and beat down, and a little sad, so truly, if the horse abuse emails could stop, I'd truly appreciate it.

Have a great day everyone!

[bambam]

I have seen way more dangerous riding that was not penalized than I have seen people getting DR when they shouldn't (actually have seen none of the latter). Not saying it does not happen but we already have officials who are hesitant to give DR or even a talking to because of the backlash from the riders, their trainers, their parents, etc. (because make no mistake, they catch hell when they do it most of the time) and I think, instead of continuing to harass and badger them when they award these penalties we need to back them up or they will stop giving them and that serves no one. I think in conjunction with backing them up, we need to work to develop some type of standard and training with respect to giving DR - but we need to back them up when they do it and, if the occassional penalty is given where the rider/trainer does not agree, then they need to put their big girl/boy panties on and maybe think about, even if they do not agree it was DR, what it was that prompted the DR and what they can work on because, even if it does not rise to the level of DR, I am confident that if you got DR penalties, you have some things you could be doing better (and PF by the way, this not directed at you and your rider). Officials are not perfect and they will make mistakes on this as they do elsewhere, but in the absence of extreme circumstances, the organization and the community needs to back them up because there is a lot of dangerous riding going on out there. I would also be surprised if officials are penalizing those people they don't like- on the other hand, I fully suspect some people are getting away with DR either because of who they are or who they train with (they are given the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't or there is reluctance to ruffle those particular feathers)- I think that is a bigger problem than overpenalizing the well-riding riffraff ;).
To me, PF's horse brings up an interesting question. It does not sound to me like the rider was riding poorly but perhaps the official believed the horse was dangerous that day. I think a horse who is going backwards, sitting down, etc on course and who is so quick to drop behind the bit and the rider's leg that the rider does not feel they can half halt before a fence when they are coming in too quickly, is arguably a dangerous horse on that day. I am not sure DR are what is appropriate there since the rider was apparently dealing with it (unless you consider it DR not to pull up when your horse is not having their day), but I am also not sure such a horse should be permitted to continue on course that day especially if we are talking about prelim or higher. No, one bad fence should not result in DR, but a horse having a dangerously bad day should be pulled up.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

No, one bad fence should not result in DR, but a horse having a dangerously bad day should be pulled up.


That is the point.....based on what we have been told, even the official giving the DR penalties said the rest of the round was good other than this one combination. The official wasn't assessing the DR because the horse had a melt down at fence two and the rider pressed them on.....or was assessing the DR because the horse was nappy around the whole course. It was assessed because the rider came in too quick to a combination and the horse twisted on the way out...


I agree that sometimes you need to pack in and go home. But sometimes you also need to work through the issue at a competition *(supported by lots of homework at home)...especially if it is either nappiness or the opposite...since often those issues crop up more at a competition than at home. It is a fine line sometimes.

I go to a lot of competitions here in Area II. I do see a lot of bad riding...and a lot of mistakes (hell I'm guilty of making them too)....but I can say that I've rarely rarely seen a pattern of riding so bad as to make me think they need a DR. I do see many MANY horses that you couldn't pay me to ride....but they are not so bad as I think they don't deserve to be there because they are dangerous....and when I was younger, I'd probably have enjoyed the challenge of riding/training them (just happy that now I don't have too!). To me assessing a DR is something that shouldn't be common....and shouldn't be threatened unless any decent horseperson watching would agree that one is called for. The fact that the rest of the GJ didn't think it was a DR says a lot to me.

[hey101]

single mistakes can be dangerous or even fatal. I understand that. But we can't prevent mistakes or less-than-perfect fences. We will fail to put on leg or put on too much. Horses will twist in the air, stumble in front of a fence, or toss their heads at the wrong moment. Penalizing mistakes won't prevent them. The DR is designed to protect riders and horses when there's a consistent pattern of mistakes that demonstrate that a rider is in over their heads.

I think this was well-written, especially that last sentence (bolded emphasis added by me), and concisely sums up how ~I~ would hope the DR penalties are assessed. There's a difference between a horse that has one bad fence, and a horse that crashes through or over Every. Single. Fence. On. Course.

And I wanted to add, I know the fence in question for PF's rider's DR penalites, and I would NOT want to be coming into that fence too quickly. I stood at that fence at last fall's 2* and it was SCARY watching some of the riders come in to it- and I don't really think it's because the riders WANTED to come into it too fast, but rather that they couldn't help it. To lower-level, smurfy me, it's an example of a trappy fence that perhaps really shouldn't even be on the course at all- what's the point. In no way does it encourage forward, bold jumping, it's trappy and after powering up the up-bank, the horse has to practically sit on it's tail down that down-bank to in any way hope to be in any way shape or form with some kind of collection and scope and power to heave itself over an offset line of quite high double-brush fences with one or two strides in between. I think I saw maybe one pair who went through with any kind of *reasonable* safety.

[bambam]

I understand that BFNE and I am assuming that PF was told the DR was only based on that fence but nonetheless, based on PF's description of the whole round, this does not sound to me like the extreme situation where the official was so totally out of bounds on the call that they should not be backed up (and I read it as another official telling the rider it was a good round not the one who gave DR). Perhaps the DR was based on that fence primarily and as a last straw but do we know that the official did not take the entire round into account in deciding that that was the point where the ride had crossed the line enough to be stopped? I was not there, I do not know whether there should have been DR or not. I tend to give PF the benefit of the doubt as to her assessment and judgment but her description of the entire round frankly to me makes it sound like DR or having the rider pull up was not totally outrageous. Failure to take a half halt before a fence you are coming at too fast and/or on the forehand sure as heck can be dangerous riding and was the cause of at least one equine fatality lasyt year IMVHO. Was the official a little overzealous? maybe and if it really was based on 1 fence, then, yes, I think it was a bad call but I don't know that and I am not ready to say that it was and my main point is that unless it is one of those totally outrageous, over the line calls, we need to give our officials the benefit of the doubt.

[scubed]

1. Any competitor who rides in such a way as to constitute a hazard to the safety or wellbeing
of the competitor, horse, other competitors, their horses, spectators, or others will
penalized accordingly.
2. Any act or series of actions that in the opinion of the Ground Jury can be defined as
dangerous riding shall be penalized by 25 penalties or elimination and/or the issuance of a
Warning Card, at the discretion of the Ground Jury. In addition, the overall score for the
horse/rider combination shall not be considered a National Qualifying Result.
EC 5/19/08 Effective 12/1/08
3. If such actions are reported, the Ground Jury shall decide if there is a case to be
answered. If an individual member of the Ground Jury observes such actions, he may eliminate
or penalize the competitor forthwith on his own authority. There is no appeal against a
Ground Jury decision.

So as written, a single act can constitute dangerous riding. It need not be a pattern observed over the course (which may be something folks disagree with, in which case, it could be appropriate to propose a rule change). An individual member of the ground jury may eliminate or penalize a rider on their own authority (which does leave room for differences in opinion, etc especially since there is no appeal). I have seen cases of dangerous riding where riders just got a talking to. I think that a yellow card type warning might be more appropriate for a single instance (you did something that seemed dangerous, but we all make mistakes, so if this isn't a pattern, ok, but if it is, be aware that we are watching).

[GotSpots]

But here's the thing. I know PLENTY of horses who canter sideways at the startbox. They likely would canter into the ropes or be a little free with their hind end in that last minute as they're jazzed and ready to go. Under a broad reading of the rule, that could certainly be a "hazard" to a spectator or official - yet I would be stunned if they were ever given a DR: just not what the rule is/should-be for.

Nor is the intent of the rule for there to be a DR for the rider who makes a bit of a bid at a fence and whiffs when the horse pats the ground and saves it - sure, it was an ugly decision, and could be a per se "hazard" but it's a learning mistake and part of the sport. If we get to a day when we're subjecting riders to a DR for coming a bit too fast or missing a distance than I'm taking my ponies and going on over to jumper-world. Because everyone is going to miss at some point. I honestly believe that the DR needs to be reserved as a wake-up call for a pair who is truly out of their element and/or has a pattern of yikes-fences at a number of jumps. Maybe we need to think about a proposed rule change, or at least an appeal process.

And Phoenix - I think it's truly crappy that anyone is sending you rotten emails. I'd put a horse of mine in your program any day. Hugs.

[LR1976]

I think the problem here is DR should NOT NOT NOT be assessed because of ONE bad fence....probably not even two mistakes. Sorry....this IS a dangerous sport. And riders....ALL RIDERs...will make mistakes. A rider making a mistake to a fence...either coming in too quick or taking too many tugs should NOT be given a DR. Perhaps they could be talked to...great round except what you did at the bank complex...you were lucky there....although honestly, that is what our coaches, trainers and friends are for. I don't know of any decent rider that comes off a course not knowing where on that course they could have been better or were a bit lucky...or were saved by the grace of their horse (and the good training that they have put into that horse).

DR penalties should only be given if there is pattern of bad riding. If the rider was making the same mistake at multiple fences.

Otherwise what is next.....every time a rider screws up and tips their shoulders at the in of a coffin they get a DR....or pushes for a slightly long one or chips in...they are going to get a DR?.....Because their ride to one fence wasn't perfect or fantastic?


Sorry....I don't like it at all. Yes, one mistake can be very costly in this sport. But assessing DR penalties for one mistake isn't going to make an inherently dangerous sport safer and not what I understood the DR system to be.

YES! Thank-you!!!

[Trixie]

I realize that most folks on this board don't know me personally, and I don't fault them for assuming I'm just an excuse making moron who allows dangerous riding to go on and thinks nothing of it. You've never seen me teach or train, so it's easier to assume the worst.

I don't think anyone called you an excuse-making moron who thinks nothing of dangerous riding. Personally, I think it's excellent that you're willing to help facilitate discussion, it's certainly a conversation worth having.

However, it looks like this person was competing at an upper level on a horse he seems to fear half halting... and that's a bit troubling, particularly given some of the accidents of the last several years. I've not seen him go, and if he truly goes around safely, best of luck to your assistant trainer. But the way you described the horse sounded scary.

Whoever is sending you horse abusing emails should be ashamed, certainly. Hope your day gets better.

[hey101]

And I wanted to add, I know the fence in question for PF's rider's DR penalites, and I would NOT want to be coming into that fence too quickly. I stood at that fence at last fall's 2* and it was SCARY watching some of the riders come in to it- and I don't really think it's because the riders WANTED to come into it too fast, but rather that they couldn't help it. To lower-level, smurfy me, it's an example of a trappy fence that perhaps really shouldn't even be on the course at all- what's the point. In no way does it encourage forward, bold jumping, it's trappy and after powering up the up-bank, the horse has to practically sit on it's tail down that down-bank to in any way hope to be in any way shape or form with some kind of collection and scope and power to heave itself over an offset line of quite high double-brush fences with one or two strides in between. I think I saw maybe one pair who went through with any kind of *reasonable* safety.

I want to clarify, that for this particular fence, I think the fence itself is the problem. Based on what I saw last fall, I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the the riders went through it really badly (not just PF's rider... so should they ALL have gotten DR penalties for that ONE fence?)

I agree with all who say it should be a consistent pattern of bad riding, not just ONE bad moment.

[8seconds]

How about "Dangerous Riders." I have seen a number of them - all their rides are the same, regardless of horse - dangerous. Everyone whispers "DR" but the powers that be don't call it, sometimes because of the connections or who they are. How about this rule of thumb - When you watch a ride with your heart in your mouth, your fingernails in your palm, your eyes squeezed shut at fences, and/or your heart thumping in your chest? - for a DR ruler?
Remember the horse 2 years ago at Rolex that flew around the course and eventually fell at the dray? How many pegged him as DR? I did in the first 1/4mile and and bet that he wouldn't finish. What happened to the DR call then.

Or how about the officials that try to call DR on a rider in order to deep them from winning? Been there, done that. Especially a rider with an excellent competion record without falls and many. many clean rides on many different horses.

We definitely need some standards and we need some video film as proof. A DR is a ride without control. Loss of control anywhere on a course can be hazardous, not just at fences. Loss of control in one place can mean loss of control anywhere else on the course.

[Janet]

Janet I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, but when you have three officials telling you you did a great job and one telling you you were dangerous, which official should you believe or stand behind? How are you supposed to know who is right?

That's the kind of question this meeting seeks to answer.
Not snarky at all.
I completely agree that we all (riders and officials) need better guidance on what is, and isn't DR.

But even if the guidance were crystal clear (as clear as the rules about refusals at jumps without height), there would STILL be judgement calls.

There is a difference between "who you believe" and "who you stand behind".

If you trainer, who was watching, says "it wasn't really a stop", and the (experienced, knowledgable) jump judge says "it was a stop", you may well BELIEVE your trainer. And you might even "inquire" with the TD. But if the judge is competent, you need to support the jump judge who "called it as she saw it"

[flyingchange]

Phoenix - I am sorry that some asshat is sending you hate emails. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the emailer's show breeches next time s/he gallops out of the start box.

[Blugal]

I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again: what do YOU think should be the incremental value of yellow cards, dangerous riding penalties, watch list status, red card etc.? (I'm not even sure if you have yellow or red cards in the States...)

It seems to me that the following might make sense:

1. Yellow card - it's a warning, it's official, you talk to an official. But it can be done in private, it doesn't affect your results, and it could be about only one incident/one fence. Maybe this shouldn't be a 'publishable' thing - but at least it might have more guidance than 'you know it when you see it' and 'an official will talk to you.' There will be records to back it up, which will help if you as a competitor do have a problem with the assessment or the official giving it.

2. Dangerous riding penalties - it's a warning, it's official, and it's public. It affects your competition results.

3. Red card - may be used in conjunction with DR penalties if the infringement was intentional or particularly severe. Published.

4. Watch list - if you show a pattern of dangerous riding/bad decisions/offial abuse when being assessed for these. The officials will be watching you closely without any prior problems at that particular show.

People are worried about single bad fences - I would argue that these have been the cause of fatalities, so why not penalize a particularly poorly ridden one? I've had at least 3 instances of this in my career that I still clearly remember - I would have deserved at least a talking to or a DR penalty, yet nobody said anything. I recognize them for what they were - poor judgement and dangerous riding - but some riders wouldn't.

People are worried about the public nature of DR penalties. Why not change the way things work, and make the public humiliation factor only come into play when there is a pattern of DR?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

People are worried about single bad fences - I would argue that these have been the cause of fatalities, so why not penalize a particularly poorly ridden one?


Because our sport is more objective that that. It isn't about who rode that fence the best.....that is a different sport. Yes, you ride a fence poorly but survive...you should be thinking about how lucky and what you will do differently next time......Good riders do.....but no, that shouldn't affect the results of the competition.

Good riders remember that "bad" fence. They do because they know that "bad" fence could have really hurt them or their horse and don't want to do that again. That comes in the education of the rider....that is in their training. Trainers/coaches/parents/friends must teach them to know a good fence from a bad fence before they are at the competition...and even with that training, riders will have bad fences and make mistakes. Riders MUST understand the danger of this sport and RESPECT that.....it is that respect for the dangers of the sport that causes people to strive to improve their skills. This is NOT a safe sport nor will it ever be unless we eliminate the horses and jumps...and put it in a flat padded room.

That is not the role of the competition or officials to teach. If a rider....through a pattern of poor riding decisions shows that they are not learning their lessons from the occassional bad fence.......that is arguably when officials should step in.

I don't like all the regulation....and don't think it does much for safety in the sport. I'm not seeing all this bad bad riding all the time. Yes, riders make mistakes...and one mistake can kill you or your horse...but the vast majority learn from those mistakes. The vast majority are seeking good training to improve their skills....which is really the best form of safety in a dangerous sport. It just irks me that we are throwing all this time and resources at rules like these....... You can not pass rules that are going to take away riders making a mistake. And a rule that penalizes the one off mistakes really has very little to do with safety.

[VCT]

However, it looks like this person was competing at an upper level on a horse he seems to fear half halting... and that's a bit troubling, particularly given some of the accidents of the last several years. I've not seen him go, and if he truly goes around safely, best of luck to your assistant trainer. But the way you described the horse sounded scary.

I didn't read it as the rider had a fear of half halting... but that he thought it would not be the best choice to half halt in the middle of a combination where he had one stride to play with. I read it as his "bit of a mistake" was that while trying to keep the horse forward he came to the combo a bit too fast and once in it, had to own it on the stride he was on. I think it's a pretty rare instance where making a real adjustment to your horses stride in the middle of a combination and/or with only 1 stride left is a good idea... ?

Edited to add: I agree with BFNE and flyingchange...

[Blugal]

That is not the role of the competition or officials to teach. If a rider....through a pattern of poor riding decisions shows that they are not learning their lessons from the occassional bad fence.......that is arguably when officials should step in.



Well stated, I am in agreement.

[retreadeventer]

So as written, a single act can constitute dangerous riding. It need not be a pattern observed over the course (which may be something folks disagree with, in which case, it could be appropriate to propose a rule change). An individual member of the ground jury may eliminate or penalize a rider on their own authority (which does leave room for differences in opinion, etc especially since there is no appeal). .......


I vehemently and vocally pointed this out when this rule was being discussed lo many months ago. I warned this would result without a definition that officials could rely upon to help them make these very important, long-reaching and onerous decisions. If you cannot get a definition together then scrap the darn thing. Until someone can command the English language in this sport, we are just all doomed. (Some people need to learn to read as well.)

More yakking, less real help to safety....hope the meeting brings up something we haven't heard that defines Dangerous Riding for once and for all. Ya think?

[broodmare]

Like pornography, dangerous riding is a subjective call and is in the eye of the beholder. We are not going to get a concrete definition. Until recently it has been difficult to get officials to make some of these tough, unpopular calls. If the rider and the horse finish , at least some portion of the competitors are not going to like being brought to task. And many officials just won't go there. If they have a terrible accident, of course it is already too late. And then there is the vast grey zone.
While it is entirely possible that the pendulum will go a bit too far the other way on occasion, it helps to have the conversation. And the mere fact that there are 4 pages of discussion is a good thing.

[Onawhim]

I realize this is purely anecdotal, but I was jump judging at an event recently (N) early on in the course. I saw a number of nice, steady rides and a few sticky jumps where the horses just weren't forward enough. Then, along came a combination that was going faster than the others had been, but was also in good balance IMO...jumped my jump clean and in control (forward and out of stride, as compared to quite a few others that chipped and scrambled a bit). But they were clearly much faster than the others. I tend to be on the slower side myself, and briefly thought about radioing in to say "she's moving, but looks to be in control" and thought better of it as I didn't want to overreact. She'd been in control the first three fences (which had oddly enough caused some problems with other rides), position was good, and she looked comfortable with the pace so I figured "benefit of the doubt." Basically, it seemed to me they were at a solid Training pace -- and who was I to say that they weren't about to move up and so were pushing for a faster go.

A few minutes later I hear other jump judges on the radio saying she's going quite fast and they get pulled up and DQ. I could not see that part of the course, so maybe they got faster, maybe they looked out of control, maybe the jumps started to look dangerous. Or maybe it was the same ride but since it looked quite different from the previous pairs, it looked somehow scarier, or maybe it is just an example of the different opinions from different people.

Honestly, some of the chip-in, jump ahead, unclear stearing, and scraping over a smallish coup made me much more nervous than a speedy combo that nevertheless looked good over the jump.

I agree that something needs to be done to improve safety, and I agree that the yellow card/red card is a good start, but I do also worry about the pendulum swinging too far the other direction. What can be done to clarify the point at which something is DR? Speed alone is not DR, but if it is the easy default, without looking also at balance and control, the system won't catch who it needs to -- or if it does, it will catch others who are not a problem.

[gardenie]

Phoenix Farm, I hope that you do not think I am the one sending emails! I enjoy what we are discussing, and basically think we are on the same page. I have been involved in other thoughtful discussions that you have weighed in on, and I respect what you have had to say.

"I just think we need a more full and open discussion of what the rule REALLY means and how it is applied."

I agree wholeheartedly.

"Will this horse be turned around? I don't know yet. We have a good history with castaways--hubby's two star horse came for free off the meat truck, his youngster we paid a whopping dollar for, and my horse washed out as a race horse, fox hunter, show jumper, and junior's event horse before coming to me. I do believe they all deserve a chance. I do believe the best thing about this sport is that we make room for the quirky. But ultimately he may be too damaged. I just would hope that the horse's other trainers, his owner, and myself, will be allowed to try and if necessary make that determination because he truly isn't suitable--not because we're afraid of a rule or official."

I agree wholeheartedly. I currently own four freebies. And believe me, they aren't free! And one of them is the horse I told the Phillip story on. And the quirky mares and the quirky appy were free too. I love quirky. Challenging. And I get my share of gasps. Still. The not free ones have sold. :-)

I've just tried harder to not go faster than I should. I've just made the promise that smooth and forward is the goal, not the next level. The next level is allowed after smooth and forward. Not always successful, but I try.

However, I do think that in today's environment, you cannot expect to get ignored on bad days.

Bad kharma to whoever is sending nasty emails.

[EventerAJ]

I tend to agree with BFNE. "Dangerous Riding" penalties should only be assessed for a pattern of poor riding, bad decisions, or other clearly unsafe behavior.


Whatever happened to rider responsibility? Do we seriously not trust riders enough to PULL UP and call it a day? (obviously not, given current events). Where did the horsemanship go in this sport.


I admit, I'm not perfect (who is???). I had some uneasy moments on course last year. Not just from a bad fence; but from a bad fence, and then my heart in my throat for several moments later thinking "Oh no, did an official see that, will I get pulled up???" And by "bad fence," I don't mean near-death flipping over. I am talking about what GotSpots referred to... the "oops, that long one was silly, thanks for fixing the short one" mistake that feels/looks ugly, but the horse corrects it, you give a pat, gallop on and put it behind you. I don't like dwelling on the bad moment-- I analyze *what happened/why/how to correct* immediately, and then right back to focus on the next obstacle (obviously trying very hard not to repeat the mistake!). Thinking about how spectators are perceiving you is a distraction; the proverbial action of "looking over your shoulder" when you need to be looking ahead.

I think it will make us all feel a lot better when we trust officials to make a good, safe call. There is too much speculation flying around about "what" DR is. I do agree that "you know it when you see it," but the observer is still subjective. As long as it is regarded as a pattern of repeated errors, riders can put a single bad fence behind them and not worry about over-regulation.


Maybe I am in the minority, but I will be the FIRST one to get my butt off the course if it's "one of those days"; IMO, if it takes an official to get you to quit, it's too late and the damage is done. I know when I've had a couple bad fences strung together; if my horse isn't feeling it, we weren't prepared enough, or it's just not our day...I will pull up and go home. I say this after once taking it "too far" (not anywhere near getting hurt, or unsafe, but perhaps a couple of poor decisions when I should have known better). I learned from this, and I share my experience with all who will listen, in hopes that they won't make the same mistake. I hope most don't learn this lesson the hard way, and I think that is what DR is for. Since then, I have retired 3 times (in two years) when things weren't going well. Save it for another day. THIS is what people should strive for: to do what is right for their horse, not "avoid the penalty" mentality.

[beeblebrox]

"Originally Posted by bornfreenowexpensive
I think the problem here is DR should NOT NOT NOT be assessed because of ONE bad fence....probably not even two mistakes. Sorry....this IS a dangerous sport. And riders....ALL RIDERs...will make mistakes. A rider making a mistake to a fence...either coming in too quick or taking too many tugs should NOT be given a DR."

OK so if we take the fatalities in the last five years... HOW MANY of the riders HAD ONE BAD JUMP OR TWO Before the fatality or major brain trauma, I think many were just the first bad jump and it had a VERY HIGH COST?

For some reason I was thinking dangerous riding was (IN MY MIND) a rider careening at any level and pushing horses over multiple jumps (leaving out strides, getting so deep horse is twisting, etc) due to the riders flat out poor riding. NOW of course I thought this behavior produced a yellow card in the past and of course most yellow cards I have seen people get were also due to poor sportsmanship like having a stop or getting a E and taking it too far with punishment of the horse.

Then I think: Were some of the recent fatalities or bad accidents out of control or were some just a bad jump with a one time bad judgement on approach? I think it is mixed but by the time you might have given some of those riders a DR or yellow card they are dead or the horse? I think it is more than ONE KIND of problem.

Is it really preventable? OK sorry that was multiple questions but clearly the DR thing in my mind is being used as a educational tool which could prevent some "future" accidents. Maybe in some ways the tool is better designed for lower levels as a tool but I am not sure how well it will work on the upper levels because so many of those mistakes are catastrophic and while grasping the organization MIGHT be issuing DR's in a vain attempts to wake up some riders in their opinion but seriously Frodo, Mia, Quiet Man and others "MIGHT" have received them had they lived. Also I have not read anyone who had ever received a DR who has owned it.. YOU know WOW I did a bad and I have learned my lesson....

[gardenie]

OK, Beeblebox, I'll bite!

I think that the rule makers have grasped at a straw to make it appear that they are doing something about a sport that is inherently dangerous. I neither agree with the DR rule or disagree. Its a rule now, and we need to figure out how to live with it. This is a sport. One with an ever growing rulebook.

No rule is going to fix the physics. Did you ever wonder what motivates us to gallop a thousand pound animal at a solid obstacle?

We can try to make things better, go home and train better, be willing to hear when we do get called on "dangerous riding," adjust the jumps so they are "safer" when we do make mistakes.

Ultimately, horses will injure and kill themselves in the field more often than they do on xc. My quirky mare sits out in the pen with a hairline fracture for the next four months...she did some mystery thing in the field. People get killed by horses when they are on the ground and hacking. Life cannot be taken too seriously because none of us get out alive.

I love xc because it makes me feel alive. My horses get the best of care, and they come to me in the field willingly whether I bring tack or a feedbag. I am so blessed.

[gardenie]

"But they were clearly much faster than the others. I tend to be on the slower side myself, and briefly thought about radioing in to say "she's moving, but looks to be in control" and thought better of it as I didn't want to overreact. She'd been in control the first three fences (which had oddly enough caused some problems with other rides), position was good, and she looked comfortable with the pace so I figured "benefit of the doubt." Basically, it seemed to me they were at a solid Training pace -- and who was I to say that they weren't about to move up and so were pushing for a faster go."

This is the type ride that I wonder if DR goes too far, does anyone have input on this ride?

[Ajierene]

OK, so the horse balked at the second fance and decided to have a temper tantrum/meltdown. The rider got the horse through it to the otherside and convinced the horse that "no, bud, what you are gonna do here is you're going to go jump that jump and gallop on" i


Somebody said the horse should be doing novice and not intermedieate due to the fugly jump. Hysteria much?

Yes, he should be doing Novice or Beginner Novice. Not because of the meltdown, as much as the comment that he felt he could not give a half halt to bring the horse into better control. Why are you jumping heights that prevents you from making sure your horse is in control? When we had problem horses that were rushing jumps, we never had them jump 3', we had them walk, then trot over x-rails until they calmed down, then started adding height.

Post #10:

Was he a bit quick coming in? Yes, and he admits he made a bit of a mistake, but how often have we heard that mistakes should be made going forward? This is a horse who can spit out the bit and go backwards at the drop of a hat, taking a tug one stride out didn't seem prudent.

Isn't this why people say Laine Ashker had her accident - she did not half halt her horse? From an amateur armchair, lack of ability to properly half halt and set up her horse looked like Poggio and Amy's issue in the Olympics that ended in a fall. Whereas if the height were at something where the horse at Galway could throw a fit, then be told under no uncertain terms to trot the fence like a gentleman, it could help training and prevent any Dangerous Riding issues. What's going to happen when he gets on the forehand and rushes at the jump and the rider 'doesn't think taking a tug would be prudent'? What's going to happen when he cannot get over the jump because of it and slams into it instead?

I remember watching a video of the 1986 WEG when Priceless / Ginny Leng practically mowed down a number of spectators (behind ropes) when the horse bolted / veered sharply to the left after the first fence. Apparently the horse had a history of such antics early on course until settling down. DR? Make the horse stay at home till the issues got worked out?

I don't care if that was a 5 time Olympic gold medal winner - as a spectator, I don't want to be subject to being run over by a horse with a history of running people over. I do not see where this is OK. I understand that things happen and a horse may have a bad day, meltdown, run into the spectators area, but to put a horse on a course with a history of that, before fixing it at say shows where there are greatly less competitors...yeah, that may be a good idea. I have to wonder about the horsemanship of this person...why is this person constantly showing a horse that, for some reason, seems to not like doing the job? Is there a pain issue, a mental issue? Does the horse just not like Eventing - are problems being ignored for a ribbon? What's going on here.

I do agree that Dangerous Riding Rule is vague and needs to be made more concrete, but I also agree that when an official makes a decision we need to back up that decision. The more people back up the decision instead of questioning it, the more likely officials will feel more comfortable using the rule on some people that may otherwise not be subject to the rule, due to influence/popularity. Hopefully people will find blatant misuse of the rule to be minimal, if nonexistent.

[broodmare]

This is another thorny one. spend some time at a *** or **** and watch the third or fourth fence from the last. Not uncommonly you will see a few really tired horses. Not all, usually just a few. We know that we get some significant tired horse/rider crashes towards the end of courses, and some of the time we get advance warning that the horse looks tired and is not jumping well. Should they be pulled up? Maybe only one bad fence, and a poor gallop away. If so, this is a split second decision for the GJ because the next fence comes up in less than 30 sec.
Generally riders that close to home are not inclined to stop, operating on the belief that they can get those last couple of fences done and complete. Or do you cross your fingers, let them try to finish. Do you penalize them for finishing on an exhausted horse?

[Trixie]

Whatever happened to rider responsibility? Do we seriously not trust riders enough to PULL UP and call it a day? (obviously not, given current events). Where did the horsemanship go in this sport.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, it seems apparent that the attitude of beating the odds and finishing no matter what is quite prevalent, regardless of what a poor idea it is. Combine that with the obsession of moving up the levels quickly (and likely before one's ready) and that's why accidents are happening. Clearly, folks are not policing themselves, and therefore, the sport is suffering.

I do wish people would take responsibility for themselves and their horses. It's sad that we have to shame them into leaving or outright disqualify them.

[enjoytheride]

I believe I was the one that suggested the horse be doing novice or training. No, it wasn't because of one bad jump, it was because of the behavior on the flat involving the herdbound issue that could potentially lead up to chesting over a sizeable fence if the horse was going to fast or not going at all.

If you are having problems like that then your issue isn't the fence but the space between the fence so you drop down the fence height so you can get over safely and easily while working on everything in between.

Un an unrelated note, several people have mentioned adding up the horse's shows to determine a DR. How do we do this unless we make sure every single official is at every single event keeping an eye on every single horse?

Either we want to make the sport safe or not and we can't do that making excuses which is what I'm hearing.

big deal it was only one fence, so the rider made a mistake, the horse is quirky and officials should let that by, the officials should take into account the 5 prior shows as well, the horse has been worse, perfect horses cost too much, etc.

It's the desire for excuses that make the desire for the penalties subjective. Nobody thinks they are riding dangerously and everyone wants an exception. So if we should take into account everything else and whatever excuses are happening then we shouldn't have a rule in the first place because nobody would have to follow it. Can we make a rule that people do not find ways to fight?

[Ajierene]

This is another thorny one. spend some time at a *** or **** and watch the third or fourth fence from the last.

I remember being very shocked when I was reading an article about Rolex last year. Maybe the interviewee meant something different, but she stated that her horse got tired and she needed more leg, a few jumps later, she was jumping the duck and it got a bit squirrelly for the team, but then he seemed to get his second wind and did ok for the last 5 fences. The way the rider explained it, her horse was getting tired halfway through the course! Very disconcerting.

I believe I was the one that suggested the horse be doing novice or training. No, it wasn't because of one bad jump, it was because of the behavior on the flat involving the herdbound issue that could potentially lead up to chesting over a sizeable fence if the horse was going to fast or not going at all.

I know I have repeatedly asked why this horse was above Novice. With issues like this, you need to not worry about a half halt making it impossible to make the jump - you should be at jumps you can trot over and teach the horse 'gentlemanly' manners no matter where he is or his friends are.


big deal it was only one fence, so the rider made a mistake, the horse is quirky and officials should let that by, the officials should take into account the 5 prior shows as well, the horse has been worse, perfect horses cost too much, etc.

It's the desire for excuses that make the desire for the penalties subjective. Nobody thinks they are riding dangerously and everyone wants an exception. So if we should take into account everything else and whatever excuses are happening then we shouldn't have a rule in the first place because nobody would have to follow it. Can we make a rule that people do not find ways to fight?

I agree with this. No one wants to think they are the dangerous ones, but if we always find a reason that they shouldn't have gotten the penalty and question officials, then the safety this rule is trying to instill will never come about.

[Speedy]

I have hesitated to respond to this because I have mixed feelings about the topic. On the one hand, I have seen some really poor riding that was certainly dangerous at events in Area II. On the other hand, I do not believe that eventing can "be made safe" - it is an inherently dangerous sport for both horses and riders, and the riders need to take responsibility for being prepared, or not, as the case may be, on a given day.

My inclination, on balance, is to say that there is a place for a DR penalty, but that it should be reserved for the worst of the worst. Most riders have one "bad" fence on course on a given day (due to poor judgment, inattention, poor riding, or plain old bad luck - whatever - and, let's face it, a "bad" fence is sometimes obvious, but a subjective judgment based on the experience and quality of training that the person making the judgment has themselves in many cases), so if you are going to apply a DR penalty across the board, in a fair manner, you would end up having to penalize most of the riders at every event for that one "bad" fence, which isn't realistic at all, or really the point as I understand it. If it becomes relatively commonplace to get a DR penalty, there won't be much, if any, impact on the rider - over time, this will become the equivalent of an unfair dressage score or another rail in stadium. It will be much more effective if it is something that is so sparingly applied, that when it is applied, the rider will take it very seriously and engage in more than a little self-reflection.

[enjoytheride]

My assumption is that the one bad fence caused the penalty because it was one bad fence preceeded by the horse acting like a loon. Perhaps the judge was willing to give the horse a pass but upon seeing the fence was worried about a potential accident.

So can actions on the flat be penaltied and not just a fence? Does the horse need to be going to fast or can it be doing other things like stopping and rearing, etc?

[onthegrd]

I do worry about the subjectivity of the whole DR thing. I wonder if the sport is no longer for me! I've always thought I was an effective but not a 'pretty' rider. That's why I don't do hunters:D I can see myself getting pulled off course, though I think I am totally safe and would only compete at a level I am SURE I am ready for! I came to eventing cause it seemed like a sport that those of us with 'back yard' horses and not alot of money could enjoy.
Probably a thing of the past, huh?:(

[Trixie]

I wonder if the sport is no longer for me! I've always thought I was an effective but not a 'pretty' rider. That's why I don't do hunters I can see myself getting pulled off course, though I think I am totally safe and would only compete at a level I am SURE I am ready for! I came to eventing cause it seemed like a sport that those of us with 'back yard' horses and not alot of money could enjoy.
Probably a thing of the past, huh?

There's a difference between riding safely but not pretty and riding dangerously. While it may be a bit hard to define on paper, in person, it's generally rather evident.

If you can see yourself being pulled off course because you look dangerous to everyone else, maybe you DO need to re-evaluate and take some lessons.

BTW, chip on your shoulder, much? I've ridden my homebred "back yard" horses at some of the biggest horse shows in the country. Plenty of "back yard" horses are high quality or more importantly, well-trained and SAFE. It doesn't cost a thing to make safety a priority and not compete above what you're capable of.

[magnolia73]

Backyard and cheap does not have to mean dangerous.

At my hunter barn- by god, there is a back yard and cheap horse... LOL, I do believe she was well south of even OTTB prices. She is not pretty over fences, but by god, she is safe because she is ridden thoughtfully.

I think at the higher levels- in this case- it sounds like the horse was ridden thoughtfully. There was a decent reason behind the error. I mean, he wasn't DQ'd, just assessed a penalty that should re-inforce the need to work through the horses issues for future success. Honestly- you can't always predict how a horse is going to behave on course and quiet and easy can get scary in 2 strides. And any rider can make the wrong call.

[holagirl]

I do worry about the subjectivity of the whole DR thing. I wonder if the sport is no longer for me! I've always thought I was an effective but not a 'pretty' rider. That's why I don't do hunters:D I can see myself getting pulled off course, though I think I am totally safe and would only compete at a level I am SURE I am ready for! I came to eventing cause it seemed like a sport that those of us with 'back yard' horses and not alot of money could enjoy.
Probably a thing of the past, huh?:(

I'm not surprised to see you would have this attitude since clearly you've had an issue with being called on DR in the past...

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=101286

[asterix]

wow. So did you come on here and spend your first hours on COTH searching for a 2 year old thread that you could drag in and throw at this poster? I am assuming you know the poster in real life and feel the need to continue some offline feud.
Please don't.
That's not the tone the community here appreciates.

And, technically, no, the incident descibed in the thread you linked to is NOT dangerous riding. It's also not particularly subjective. Whole 'nother can of worms.

[retreadeventer]

.....TD's are cops, they see what's in front of them only. And when pulled over, they don't care if you're late for a very important meeting, you're lost, etc. They just see an infraction of the code and hand you a penalty......

This is exactly what is happening.
And here's the meat of the problem.

The "code" for Dangerous Riding is an ephemerous, vaporous cloudy whisp of an idea that floated around a room once upon a time, and somehow got in the coffee cups of everyone seated in there....and became a "rule". My problem is that this "rule" is a uselessly written piece of ... well.... find an appropriate label. If it were smashed flat in the middle of the road you would roll up your windows and swerve around it, and go "ooooouuueeeee".

We need to find a way for our PTB to act like they speak and understand English and write a better rule if they hope to enforce anytime soon.

[Carol Ames]

Thank you ! This is what concerns me , there are many talented but quirky horses; If Ian were riding Murphy, would he be a good candidate for a DR and what about a horse who, twists badly in the air?:eek:

[Carol Ames]

My personal fueling is that DRcould/ should be given out in the warmup for stadium; riders gunning their horses, leaving LONG:eek: They are usually with instructors who, are saying the mostassinine things:o:no:

[Hony]

My personal fueling is that DRcould/ should be given out in the warmup for stadium; riders gunning their horses, leaving LONG:eek: They are usually with instructors who, are saying the mostassinine things:o:no:

I would disagree. The warmup is where we can get our mistakes out. Sometimes we need to make a few mistakes to realize we need to ride a bit better, or put our leg on, or stop pulling to the fence.

DR penalties are a rediculous concept in my opinion. Too subjective, too often judged by people who are unqualified to judge. Instead we need to stick to creating rules that can objectively be enforced.

[vali]

I would hate to see DR penalties being assessed in the warm-up. Many a wound up young horse or rider can have a bad fence in warm-up, only to have a perfectly nice round out on cross country. I've ridden a fair number of young horses, and the warm-up ring can be a very difficult place, especially at the Novice or BN level. To me, the lower level warm-up rings are one of the best reasons to move up to Training quickly if you have a capable jumper and have competed at that level previously.

BN warm-up = most dangerous place at an event.

[Janet]

I would hate to see DR penalties being assessed in the warm-up. Many a wound up young horse or rider can have a bad fence in warm-up, only to have a perfectly nice round out on cross country. I've ridden a fair number of young horses, and the warm-up ring can be a very difficult place, especially at the Novice or BN level. To me, the lower level warm-up rings are one of the best reasons to move up to Training quickly if you have a capable jumper and have competed at that level previously.

BN warm-up = most dangerous place at an event.
I don't think that DR penalties should be given out for a "bad fence" in warmup.

But I think it is reasonable to give out DR penalties for soemone that runs into other horses- just to take an extreme example.

[luise]

At an event I was at recently, a BN junior rider either got a DR, or at least wasn't allowed to continue to XC after SJ. My trainer, friends and I saw her stadium round. Scary! She galloped around the stadium course in her half seat on her pony, no effort at all to slow him down, rebalance, etc. It looked like she was doing a jump-off. After her round the TD came out from the judges area and talked to her while she was still in the ring. She came out in tears. My trainer found out later she wasn't allowed to go XC. So I'm not sure what specifically she got--a DR or what, but in this case it was totally called for. This is the kid whom if she moved up the levels, would be running her horses at fences, flipping them over.

[gardenie]

Anyone else want to talk about actual DR penalties they've incurred or seen given? To get back to the real subject...

[SevenDogs]

There are two actions that the Ground Jury can take in response to "Dangerous Riding": Assess the Rider Penalty Points (but they get to continue) or, at the election of the GJ, Elimination. Sounds like this rider was either eliminated or convinced to Withdraw. Either way, they didn't get to continue.

[8seconds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuqAiFRoP2M


There was an attempt to assign DRs to this ride. What do you think? The only thing that happened was the horse slid slightly into the shark's tooth because he unbeknownst to his rider pulled both front shoes earlier in the course and, of course, the studs were gone. It is a prlim ride. Would be interested in your comments.

[rivenoak]

Doesn't look like DR to me.

But what do I know?

[8seconds]

Obviously you know more than the people running the event.

[SLR]

8 seconds...When did the DR concept come into use? This young lady is a very good rider and that video must be from 2006 or 2007 because she hasn't competed since then, but I don't think the DR penalty was in force then. She placed 4th/29 in a CCI* long format on that horse.

[8seconds]

Am sending you a pm

[SLR]

8seconds.. got it and am having trouble replying by PM As I said, I just didn't know when the DR penalty came into existence, so did not understand how it could have been used 3 years ago.

[8seconds]

I will have to go back and look it up when I have time, but it was in the rule book, I had just never seen it used.

[8seconds]

Sorry, I had to empty my pm box...I am inept at these things,

[asterix]

It's been in the rules for a while but until this past year was not used much.
When I competed in the AECs in 2006 they gave a DR in the Training division to a rider (on an ex-Rolex horse) who jumped OUT the Training water complex backwards over the Advanced IN (Training had a ramp out, no jump effort at all)...

[Meredith Clark]

The video looks like she's going fast but I think some of that has to do with the filming.

...I've seen worse! :eek:

[canterlope]

DR penalties are a rediculous concept in my opinion. Too subjective, too often judged by people who are unqualified to judge.Ridiculous concept!?! Humm... Considering it was enacted in order to help keep horses and riders safe, I question whether the concept is ridiculous or not. And unqualified to judge!?! Another humm... Considering that DR penalties are assessed at the discretion of the Ground Jury who is made up of knowledgeable horsepersons trained and hired to do what they do, I would have to say they're as qualified as any to judge what they see happening in front of them.

[LisaB]

Well, ain't that offensive Hony. Have you ever been around a GJ and/or a TD before? I'll tell you what, every one of them I know I would take lessons from and ask advice any day.
And I'm surprised that the person in the video was about to get a dr. Then again, the person might be on the watch list and it's really hard to tell the speed on a video.

[8seconds]

The person in the video was right on the money for optimum time, so it can't be too fast. As well, the ability to pull up at any time, even to a stop, was never lost. Remember, this is a prelim ride.

[Hony]

Well, ain't that offensive Hony. Have you ever been around a GJ and/or a TD before? I'll tell you what, every one of them I know I would take lessons from and ask advice any day.
And I'm surprised that the person in the video was about to get a dr. Then again, the person might be on the watch list and it's really hard to tell the speed on a video.

My post was in no way meant to be offensive. DR penalties are often first seen by a JJ or someone watching, not the TD. Infact my post was not refering to TDs at all. JJs are great but there are circumstances, particularly at PN to T where less than qualified people are JJs because they are kind enough to volunteer. They could easily be unsure of how to judge something they saw that just seemed "not quite right."
DR penalties are too loosely defined to judge fairly.
If you consider the whip rule, one can whip twice without incurring penalty, the third and fourth will cause elimination (I may be off on this rule, it may be three whips without incurruing penalty, I can't remember). This is a simple rule to monitor fairly.
Similarly the one fall rule is a simple rule to monitor as is spur length and whip length.
If a person tries something on the risky side and it works they are a hero, if a person tries something risky and it doesn't they are a dangerous rider.
A good example of this would be Lucinda Fredricks at Rolex. She motored around that course having a great time despite having taken a ton of long routes. Had she fallen many would have chastized her for riding too fast. Since she didn't nobody said a word. It was a fantastic round to watch but one can see how easily it could have gone the other way and why something so subjective should not be judged.

DR penalties would work better if they were broken down into a series of measurable rules, however the sport is over ruled enough as it is so I don't know if I want ot see that either.

I just wanted to add that I just watched the video and if that riders was at risk of getting a DR penalty then that explains why I am anti-DR penalties. Too subjective.

[Hony]

Ridiculous concept!?! Humm... Considering it was enacted in order to help keep horses and riders safe, I question whether the concept is ridiculous or not. And unqualified to judge!?! Another humm... Considering that DR penalties are assessed at the discretion of the Ground Jury who is made up of knowledgeable horsepersons trained and hired to do what they do, I would have to say they're as qualified as any to judge what they see happening in front of them.

I'm not sure that we have a ground jury at many of our one day lower level horse trials. I know I have never noticed them.

[Janet]

I'm not sure that we have a ground jury at many of our one day lower level horse trials. I know I have never noticed them.
EVERY recognized event HAS a ground jury.

At smaller events it may consist of just one person, the President of the Ground Jury, who also judges dressage and/or show jumping.

The jump judges do NOT have the authority to impose either Dangerous Riding OR Abuse penalties. All they can do is take notes on the situation, and inform the TD and/or the PoGJ, who will then consult and make a decision.

WRT Abuse, it is NOT as clear cut as you seem to think. Yes, ther are a few specific actions (e.g., using the whip overhand) that are automatically assumed to be "abusive".. But it is still up to the discretion of the Ground Jury whether or not to disqualify the rider for Abuse.

Finally, it would be advisable to actually READ the rules (which you imply you have not done) before declaring them "ridiculous".

[Hony]

EVERY regognized event HAS a ground jury.

At smaller events it may consist of just one person, the President of the Ground Jury, who also judges dressage and/or show jumping.

Yes, and just one person can't be everywhere at all times. Just because you are a judge of dressage doesn' mean you are a judge of dangerous riding. Same as just because you're a professional rider doesn't make you a pro on safety.

[LisaB]

The jj usually alerts through the radio about something amiss. The td on course can then observe person in question and make an assessment from there.
Glad we cleared it up that it's the td and gj that make the decision, not the jj!

[Janet]

There is one important thing I have learned from the extended discussion of his subject:

Something that looks "dangerous" when observed "live" may look quite different on video (and vice versa).

[Janet]

Yes, and just one person can't be everywhere at all times. Just because you are a judge of dressage doesn' mean you are a judge of dangerous riding. Same as just because you're a professional rider doesn't make you a pro on safety.

The PoGJ MUST be a licensed Eventing Judge, not just a Dressage judge. In order to be licensed as an Eventing Judge, they go through the equivalent training and testing as the TD- and that DOES include training and testing on both Dangerous Riding and Abuse.

[Hony]

The PoGJ MUST be a licensed Eventing Judge, not just a Dressage judge. In order to be licensed as an Eventing Judge, they go through the equivalent training and testing as the TD- and that DOES include training and testing on both Dangerous Riding and Abuse.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for pointing it out. I will however stand by my view that DR is too subjective a rule to be judged with an even hand at all times as we saw in the video that was presented to us.

[LisaB]

Maybe Janet can shed some light on this but thought there were certain 'points' that signify looking at someone for DR.

[EventerAJ]

If a person tries something on the risky side and it works they are a hero, if a person tries something risky and it doesn't they are a dangerous rider.
A good example of this would be Lucinda Fredricks at Rolex. She motored around that course having a great time despite having taken a ton of long routes. Had she fallen many would have chastized her for riding too fast. Since she didn't nobody said a word. It was a fantastic round to watch but one can see how easily it could have gone the other way and why something so subjective should not be judged.


Going "fast" is not specifically dangerous. Out-of-control and out-of-balance ARE dangerous. Lucinda Fredericks was FLYING at the end of that course; but she was NEVER out of control, and she approached the fences with the proper balance.

"Risky" is defined by each individual situation; what is "stupid" for one horse/rider to do, is a smart decision for another. It has to do with JUDGMENT (experience + reasoning) and execution of the plan. Success does not always equal smart, either. I don't think anyone would argue that!

[HotIITrot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuqAiFRoP2M


There was an attempt to assign DRs to this ride. What do you think? The only thing that happened was the horse slid slightly into the shark's tooth because he unbeknownst to his rider pulled both front shoes earlier in the course and, of course, the studs were gone. It is a prlim ride. Would be interested in your comments.

That was an awesome round, with 2 exceptions:

1. The shark's tooth, which was an unfortunate accident.

2. The in of the water. That wasn't 'accidental', but an alarming hesitation on the horse’s part, which the rider rode well & was prepared for. The out, from what could be seen, looked good.

Those hesitations are dangerous, but they happen. In terms of DR penalties, it depends how far somebody wants to take it. The fact is hesitations happen; no matter how well a rider rides, a horse may still hesitate if he/she wants to. Hesitations can range from mild (a second look before take off) to severe (not enough thrust to get over the obstacle, which can lead to a fall, rotational nonetheless).

In this particular case, that clip would need to be studied in order to get a better understanding of how severe that hesitation was. Even then, the video footage is rather far away. If most of the fences taken by this pair looked like the one at the water, then maybe a DR penalty may need to be incurred. However, it was one part of an element, and a DR penalty could be seen as overkill and unfair (many people have fences like that; including the best of the best).

Overall, it was lovely! :yes:

[Hony]

Going "fast" is not specifically dangerous. Out-of-control and out-of-balance ARE dangerous. Lucinda Fredericks was FLYING at the end of that course; but she was NEVER out of control, and she approached the fences with the proper balance.

"Risky" is defined by each individual situation; what is "stupid" for one horse/rider to do, is a smart decision for another. It has to do with JUDGMENT (experience + reasoning) and execution of the plan. Success does not always equal smart, either. I don't think anyone would argue that!

I agree with you entirely AJ. My beef is when a rule has to take too much JUDGEMENT because it means it is subjective which is never the same from person to person to person and leaves too much room for interpretation.

[enjoytheride]

My concern was that the horse pulled BOTH front shoes, how often does that happen?

[flea]

From what I understand there was an "attempt" to call this dangerous riding. (I can't see the video on my ancient dial up) So that phrasing means to me it was called to someones attention, studied, then it was decided not to asses the penalities. If that is the case it sounds like the system worked.

[8seconds]

The DR penalties were trying to be called on the Shark's tooth. Both shoes had come off because of a very bad bank previous to the downhill combination. The bank was not within the control of the rider, but was the organizer's responsibility. The hesitation at the water is typical of this horse and the rider was prepared. Trust me, he will never fall as he is a very technical horse. Ironically, at this same event this year there were 30 horses between prelim and training and 5 RFs and 1 mysterious MR that disappeared from the results and NO DR penalties assigned anywhere. This figure does not include other E and W. Go Fig!!!

[Carol Ames]

As a longtime jump judge the most dangerous DR I see, is the following horse and rider approach at a good strong gallop; horse sees fence and line and raises head; at which point, rider takes hold of horses':eek: head, sits down hard on hollowed:no: back, and still holding the head,chases horse to fence which., horse gets under but, does :yes:jump, though he does hits it with what sounds like all 4 feet:eek: and gallops away; to me this is dangerous riding:yes:, but, does it deserve aDR?
and is this not then becoming a style issue? ?

[8seconds]

Carol, I don't think "style" is an issue. One either jumps a fence correctly or one doesn't. If the horse is hitting the fence, then is the "style" correct? There is no "style" but correct form and this is a problem in eventing.

[Dr. Doolittle]

My thoughts; having been a competitor *and* a jump judge (and I also just showed the footage of the "rider/horse in question" to my hubby, who has JJed numerous times, knows ALL the rules--thanks to me ;)--and who is a keen observer...) He and I both agreed that the horse got a bad distance to the "Shark's Tooth" (got underneath it, but jumped out okay), and hubby commented that the "rider got ahead" a bit--and they obviously stuck at the water before dropping in. (Apparently typical for this horse, according to another poster?...)

THIS is "dangerous riding"?!?

:rolleyes:

I agree with whoever (RAYers?) who compared it to porn; DR is difficult to qualify and quantify, and its identification has become WAY too subjective. (Not to say that identifying and "regulating or cracking down on" porn is a bad thing, of course, but I think the degree of punitive judgement on *this* particular subject depends on which continent is assessing it. ;))

I think everyone who has posted has contributed some great points, so I don't feel the need to repeat them. BUT, I think there is a general feeling (or impression) of "dangerous riding" (or should be! subjectivity aside); does it scare you to watch the pair jump? Are you concerned that they will be able to SAFELY get over the course, based on watching them negotiate a jump or two? Do they look OUT OF CONTROL!? Is your heart in your throat watching them jump every fence you see them jump? Is the horse at the outer limits of its scope, and being pushed to or beyond its limits? Is the rider clearly pressing (or exceeding) the levels of his or her ability/experience, and scraping by merely on nerve or adrenalin?

Are they simply running TOO FAST? (which seems to be more prevalent among the younger riders ;))

These are the things that should determine DR, not one bad distance--or a sticky fence. Who doesn't have those things on occasion? (Geez, even the vaunted ULRs...) Maybe we should *all* be given a 25 point penalty for a less than perfect ride. :p (I know I punish my*self* if I get even ONE jump wrong on course, but then again, I have attempted to prepare my horse well enough so as to enable her to get the job done--confidently--even if she gets to a less than optimal distance, or wants to peek a little. That's simply horse AND rider preparation, and insufficient preparation is what they should be looking at--because THAT, IMO (at every level) is what often results in *actual* DR.

[enjoytheride]

So if someone looked at the evidence after a DR was suggested and decided it wasn't necessary what is the problem? The rider didn't get the penalty because the decision was made that it wasn't dangerous so the system worked.

Wouldn't you rather someone look at the ride and decide it was a little fast but not dangerous? The fact that there were NO penalties means the system works.



How is the bank and the removal of the shoes the organizer's problem?

[8seconds]

The bank was/is very bad with erosion and ground-hog holes and presented innumerable probles to many, many horses and riders. That is the organizer's responsibility I do believe.

[8seconds]

The system worked because of a good TD that knows his job. The ride was almost on optimum, so it wasn't too fast. This is prelim ride. Maybe you should notice that fences were mostly jumped in stride with NO "pull-and-jerk"
riding and no loss of control.

[Dr. Doolittle]

The bank was/is very bad with erosion and ground-hog holes and presented innumerable probles to many, many horses and riders. That is the organizer's responsibility I do believe.

Agreed, and surprising that they (the organizers) would be so cavalier, and wouldn't address this problem before running the HT :no:

[annikak]

The only thing I saw was at the bank, and the rider was not as balanced as would be wanted following a bank and a slight downhill. Riders reins were too long and therefore (going prelim speed) hard to get "your knitting back" as it were. The ride with the hesitation (which I thought was a coffin type jump?) was well ridden, IMHO- at some point in time, you have to make it happen.

DR? I think it's an overall thing. How many threads on here have we seen describe and show jumps that are "near misses" and we applaud the rider/horse for getting the job done. IF every fence that we had seen in that video (which, BTW, is great that we saw more of the entire, rather then then the single incident) had been as the fence in question, then okay. Bad riding, unfit, sad horse. DR for the day. Don't think that was the case here. But it must be said, that if the rider was on the OT and those hesitations were seen, someplace, they must have been flying. Those few seconds make a huge difference. Ask me how I know!

NO comparison to LA- she had been being looked at from almost the beginning of the course that day. Overall- it was a too fast, out of control day. That was DR anyway you look at it. She paid, and paid dearly for that. (I still wonder why there was nothing done by the PTB- I can't find any sort commentary on this- and it seems that someone should have examined something about it- Yes- she paid, but doesn't the person that is in an accident still get the ticket? Maybe I am wrong about this)

DR can be seen in warm up sometimes- the out of control rider, screaming around, no clue.

I live in fear ( if I ever event again!) of getting a DR. I value those TD's and jump judges, and their opinion of my horsemanship means a lot!

[Carol Ames]

I saw nothing that even approached :yes:being dangerous All fences were jumped out of stride,:yes: with e exception of the one they slid into but, still jumped; What reasons were given hor a DR?:confused:

[Janet]

It COULD be argued that it is the rider's responsibility to REALIZE that the horse has lost traction (lost shoe, lost studs, ground is slipperier than expected) and adjust accordingly.

Not in terms of a DR penalty.

But "We slid into the fence because he had lost his shoes" sounds like a pretty lame explanation/excuse to me.

[Middleburg]

what I don't understand is that the official that assessed the penalty for the two offset skinny fences. By that point in the course the horse was going well, and the rider came in a bit fast but from what I understand from Phoenix Farm, the horse jumped cleanly and neatly. This has nothing to do with the stint coming towards the second fence. It has been said many times that "unruly behavior towards the second fence should have been given dangerous riding." But that was not the case, the jump judge gave him 20 and he continued on his merry way.

I agree with previous posts saying fence judges should judge what they see. I have jump judged many times and so I know that the officials gave the jump judge a radio, and they are supposed to radio in so that everyone can here if the rider jumped the fence cleanly, had a fall, or exhibited any unruly behavior At the combination in question the official gave him dangerous riding for coming into the fence a bit too quick even though he jumped neatly and cleanly (from my understanding)? It doesn't seem right that the jump judge would give him penalties just for that. It would make more sense if the JJ heard over the radio the incident at fence two and allowed that information to influence his/her opinion.

Talk to Jim Wofford, he will tell you that we as humans are always going to make mistakes. Everyone, even at the top of the sport. He believes we should train our horses to have the initiative to get us out of situations where we come in a bit too fast, too slow, get a long spot, get a short spot. I got the opportunity to travel to Hong Kong to watch the eventing and was standing at the fence where Amy Tryon fell and even though Amy is a tremendous horsewoman and a fabulous rider, she came into that fence too quickly and it didn't look like she balanced enough. IMO riders shouldn't be given dangerous riding for making a slight miscalculation. Period.

Are we getting to a point in the sport that penalizes making mistakes such as coming in a bit too fast, having an awkward fence etc..

When I get a awkward jump on course I say to myself, "ugh, survived that one, but this next fence I need to not do whatever mistake I just made.

I expect and train my horses to jump in less than perfect situations so that they have the initiative and ability to bail me out when I get them into the occasional bad spot. If we focus so hard on getting the horse to the perfect spot to every single fence how would he ever know to bail his rider out when he/she makes a miscalculation. I train my horses to be athletes, not brain-dead motorcycles.

[8seconds]

janet - the rider had no notion of lost shoes as the ground is a bit rough, until the ride was over. Lost shoes are not a problem unless a lameness results from the act of pulling, which did not happen.

Middleburg - amen, someone else that thinks the horse should be taught to think for himself and deal with the situations that come up because of pilot error and bless the pilots that trust their horses to make the right decision.

[Carol Ames]

Shoot!:lol: Had you stood at the old Tiger Trap :eek:at Rolex, you could have said this for the majority of the horses and riders:o!Is your heart in your throat watching them jump every fence you see them jump? Is the horse at the outer limits of its scope, and being pushed to or beyond its limits? Is the rider clearly pressing (or exceeding) the levels of his or her ability/experience, and scraping by merely on nerve or adrenalin?

[Dr. Doolittle]

Shoot!:lol: Had you stood at the old Tiger Trap :eek:at Rolex, you could have said this for the majority of the horses and riders:o!Is your heart in your throat watching them jump every fence you see them jump? Is the horse at the outer limits of its scope, and being pushed to or beyond its limits? Is the rider clearly pressing (or exceeding) the levels of his or her ability/experience, and scraping by merely on nerve or adrenalin?

Well, yes...but it shouldn't be an obvious *pattern*--as in every single jump you watch is jumped this way--and it's really not desirable (nor should it be ignored and tolerated!) at the lower levels. I think the DR penalty is designed to nip "accidents waiting to happen" in the bud, if and when that might be possible.

[Dr. Doolittle]

what I don't understand is that the official that assessed the penalty for the two offset skinny fences. By that point in the course the horse was going well, and the rider came in a bit fast but from what I understand from Phoenix Farm, the horse jumped cleanly and neatly. This has nothing to do with the stint coming towards the second fence. It has been said many times that "unruly behavior towards the second fence should have been given dangerous riding." But that was not the case, the jump judge gave him 20 and he continued on his merry way.

I agree with previous posts saying fence judges should judge what they see. I have jump judged many times and so I know that the officials gave the jump judge a radio, and they are supposed to radio in so that everyone can here if the rider jumped the fence cleanly, had a fall, or exhibited any unruly behavior At the combination in question the official gave him dangerous riding for coming into the fence a bit too quick even though he jumped neatly and cleanly (from my understanding)? It doesn't seem right that the jump judge would give him penalties just for that. It would make more sense if the JJ heard over the radio the incident at fence two and allowed that information to influence his/her opinion.

Talk to Jim Wofford, he will tell you that we as humans are always going to make mistakes. Everyone, even at the top of the sport. He believes we should train our horses to have the initiative to get us out of situations where we come in a bit too fast, too slow, get a long spot, get a short spot. I got the opportunity to travel to Hong Kong to watch the eventing and was standing at the fence where Amy Tryon fell and even though Amy is a tremendous horsewoman and a fabulous rider, she came into that fence too quickly and it didn't look like she balanced enough. IMO riders shouldn't be given dangerous riding for making a slight miscalculation. Period.

Are we getting to a point in the sport that penalizes making mistakes such as coming in a bit too fast, having an awkward fence etc..

When I get a awkward jump on course I say to myself, "ugh, survived that one, but this next fence I need to not do whatever mistake I just made.

I expect and train my horses to jump in less than perfect situations so that they have the initiative and ability to bail me out when I get them into the occasional bad spot. If we focus so hard on getting the horse to the perfect spot to every single fence how would he ever know to bail his rider out when he/she makes a miscalculation. I train my horses to be athletes, not brain-dead motorcycles.

Agree with this :yes:, and with JW...there needs to be the ability--in the horse--to "figure out the footwork" in tricky situations, and save its own ass (and in doing so, the rider's ass ;))

Luckily my present horse is a chestnut Alpha mare, so "total submission to me" is not an option anyway, and she will ALWAYS opt to save her own skin and figure out how to extricate herself from questionable spots or situations; she will always default to her self-preservation instinct.

I've tried to train that into her (though it comes naturally :lol:), but is this particular thing "trainable" into an otherwise mostly cooperative and submissive horse, who relies on and waits for the rider's cues, even when the rider makes a mistake?

Probably a topic for a different thread...

[gardenie]

Bump