Horse Deaths and the Possible Future of the Sport

[RAyers]

I listen to Triple J Australia at work and recently, this week, in Australia, jump racing was banned after 3 horses were killed at a meet.

http://www.racehorseowner.com/art/rho-jumps-racing-banned-in-victoria-after-deaths-05-09-09.html

This struck a cord with me given the past 2 years here in the US and now with the incident at Jersey Fresh, I think this is even more telling.

Regardless of ability, cause or how much we work at things, public perception has the greater power to have our sport terminated in this country. Consider that in a horse oriented country such as Australia that this could happen, we are closer to the abyss than we think. Eventing is already losing support from associated disciplines as evidenced by posts on both the Rolex and Jersey Fresh threads, and telling folks that "it's my ball and I'm going home." isn't the way to garner support.

Reed

[LexInVA]

It's like the Terminator franchise (no pun intended). How bad can you make it before people simply accept it and watch anyway? We have probably already reached that point. Since the public isn't acutely aware of Eventing (or any other horse sport outside of racing) and does not get any information apart from the occasional (and often missed) article or blurb in whatever mainstream media outlet, I think it's safe to say that all equestrian sports (with the exception of racing) are safely blanketed by the ignorance of the public at large. However, given the continuing increase in equine/rider injuries resulting in eventual fatalities and those instances where death is instantaneous for rider and/or horse, that could change VERY quickly if animal rights organizations take notice. That is what I could very well see happening at some point though it is still unlikely given the focus on dogs/cats and meat-producing animals that those organizations have. I don't see the government getting involved and banning anything since they really don't give two shits about any of it unless there's some serious political gain for them.

[SevenDogs]

I think there is one thing EVERYONE can agree upon: Change is needed and it is needed NOW.

I just posted the following on the USEA Suggestion Box thread but think it makes more sense over here. We need to clean house in the leadership department and I strongly believe it needs to start either with the resignation or termination of Mark Phillips in any leadership role of U.S. Eventing.

The following is an excerpt from Mr. Phillip's own bio:

In March 1993 the United States Equestrian Team appointed Captain Phillips as Chef d'Equipe and Coach for Three Day Eventing. He was also appointed Course Advisor to the American Horse Shows Association, making him responsible for the safety and design of all Upper Level fences in North America.

Does anyone feel that safety and design of all upper level fences in North America has improved during his tenure? .... or even stayed at the same level? Yes, there have been some improvements to design and construction, but has he had anything to do with those or has that been done by others with knowledge and love of the sport? Have his own courses proved to be safe? Has he been shown as a "leader" in course design that should be paid to oversee ALL upper level courses? Has he made any useful public statements or done ANYTHING to further fence safety or even study the issues?

The fact that the significant trend in serious accidents and deaths is happening on his watch is reason for him to step down (or be terminated).

Further, has he made significant positive changes to our international teams? Instead, can we trace trends in aggressive competition schedules, "factory" riding of multiple horses, and a general philosophy of "expendable" horses to his own statements?

WHY is he still here?

[ceffyl]

I think there is one thing EVERYONE can agree upon: Change is needed and it is needed NOW.

I just posted the following on the USEA Suggestion Box thread but think it makes more sense over here. We need to clean house in the leadership department and I strongly believe it needs to start either the resignation or termination of Mark Phillips in any leadership role of U.S. Eventing.

The following is an excerpt from Mr. Phillip's own bio:



Does anyone feel that safety and design of all upper level fences in North America has improved during his tenure? .... or even stayed at the same level? Yes, there have been some improvements to design and construction, but has he had anything to do with those or has that been done by others with knowledge and love of the sport? Have his own courses proved to be safe? Has he been shown as a "leader" in course design that should be paid to oversee ALL upper level courses? Has he made any useful public statements or done ANYTHING to further fence safety or even study the issues?

The fact that the significant trend in serious accidents and deaths is happening on his watch is reason for him to step down (or be terminated).

Further, has he made significant positive changes to our international teams? Instead, can we trace trends in aggressive competition schedules, "factory" riding of multiple horses, and a general philosophy of "expendable" horses to his own statements?

WHY is he still here?

Because he winds everyone with money and power in the sport around his little finger. He has everyone where he wants them - his own little band of surfs and no one will dare to oust him. As far as the UK is concerned we do NOT want him back!!!:no:

[RAyers]

True to a point. I will counter with the lack of popularity can also make us even more vulnerable because it can make politicos and animal rights folks LOOK like they are doing something about perceived animal abuses without affecting many of their constituents.

Reed


It's like the Terminator franchise (no pun intended). How bad can you make it before people simply accept it and watch anyway? We have probably already reached that point. Since the public isn't acutely aware of Eventing (or any other horse sport outside of racing) and does not get any information apart from the occasional (and often missed) article or blurb in whatever mainstream media outlet, I think it's safe to say that all equestrian sports (with the exception of racing) are safely blanketed by the ignorance of the public at large. However, given the continuing increase in equine/rider injuries resulting in eventual fatalities and those instances where death is instantaneous for rider and/or horse, that could change VERY quickly if animal rights organizations take notice. That is what I could very well see happening at some point though it is still unlikely given the focus on dogs/cats and meat-producing animals that those organizations have. I don't see the government getting involved and banning anything since they really don't give two shits about any of it unless there's some serious political gain for them.

[JER]

I think there is one thing EVERYONE can agree upon: Change is needed and it is needed NOW.

I just posted the following on the USEA Suggestion Box thread but think it makes more sense over here. We need to clean house in the leadership department and I strongly believe it needs to start either with the resignation or termination of Mark Phillips in any leadership role of U.S. Eventing.


I agree with this but I think it's David O'Connor that needs to go first. Our sport will not change under his tenure.

Eventing is run by a very small group of individuals who appoint each other to every meaningful position and wear so many hats it's a joke. The mantra is 'we know better than you.'

It may very well be that the only way to change the sport for the better is to enact a PR campaign against eventing. For instance, a group could convince Horse Park of NJ to stop hosting an event that results in the the death of a horse every year. Or asking local animal welfare authorities (as in county or state agencies) to investigate and/or be present at or even ban the Rolex KY event.

This has happened to racing over the years and racing has had to respond and adapt, so we know that this sort of pressure and PR does work.

If change can't happen from within, you may have to make it happen from the outside, and that might be more painful for everyone involved.

But horses are dying. Let's not kid ourselves about 'natural causes.' No horse shows up in the XC start box on his own.

As horsemen first and eventers second, how can we let this happen on our watch?

[JAM]

It's seems like it's been about a year since HBO and ESPN did their respective stories on eventing. I wonder what the public perception would be if they each (or even one of them) did a story along the lines of, "Eventing one year later -- what progress has been made." It would be an even blacker eye than the original stories.

My own sense is that the PTB who run this activity (sport is perhaps a misnomer at this point) don't give a FF about the adverse publicity or the views of any detractors. The horses are fungible commodities and, if a rider dies, well, served him/her right. In their view, they have survived the publicity, the HBO and ESPN segments, etc. In an odd way, maybe because this discipline is so at the margin in terms of numbers of participants and visibility, it is able to avoid the consequences of bad publicity in a way that football and auto racing aren't -- the mainstream public doesn't care enough --- at least not yet.

[denny]

Let`s face facts. 2009 eventing is a totally different sport from 1999 eventing, (and prior), so what real difference should it make if we change things further in the interests of horse and rider safety?

LET the dressage and show jumping influence results more. Make the xc less lethal, probably by creating tracks that the good riders find fairly easy.

Someone will still be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, and there won`t be many dead horses and riders.

This "thing" we now call eventing is a train wreck.

And, no, I don`t believe that the FEI will EVER go back to long format, much as many of us might wish so. Forget that dream, focus instead on things we CAN do.

[RAyers]

I agree that the LF is gone in the FEI's eyes. Long live the king.

I was helping a couple of GP jumper trainer friends of mine at a horse show yesterday. I went to spend some time in the schooling area and educate myself on the nuances of stadium jumpers (even though that is where I started in the sport). Over the years, that has evolved as well.

What I noticed and discussed was that as the levels get higher and the riding get more exact, the riders HAVE to change hats for each phase. The HARD part is that sometimes those hats get blurred.

My thought is that could having to be so accurate and precise in the stadium be affecting riders in their form on XC and vice versa. The equitation for each phase is NOT the same but one can not help but use a single basic form in both, especially when tired or having to react very fast.

Reed

[JAM]

I couldn't agree more, in particular with the bottom line that making eventing less lethal should be THE goal. And there was much commentary by Mike Tucker, Ian Stark, and Tina Cook (nee Gifford) to that exact fact -- they all commented that Badminton was noticeably easier than in previous years, and they were all willing to put up with that if that meant no deaths. (On the other hand, they also said Badminton was still harder than Kentucky, which Tucker described as a 3-1/2 star, which suggests to me that many of our riders are just not up to the challenge right now, are preparing their horses incorrectly, or both.)

But, I do have a question for you about one of your comments, i.e., about letting dressage and show jumping be more influential. That has been happening over a period of time, it seems, and may be a contributing factor in the carnage we're now seeing. As people focus more on D and SJ, they spend less time on XC. I think Jimmy Wofford made this point, or a similar one, last year, when he commented that people are going more for the warmbloods or the crosses because that's what wins dressage. Do you think it's possible that making D and SJ more influential in the scoring could be making eventing less rather than more safe?

Let`s face facts. 2009 eventing is a totally different sport from 1999 eventing, (and prior), so what real difference should it make if we change things further in the interests of horse and rider safety?

LET the dressage and show jumping influence results more. Make the xc less lethal, probably by creating tracks that the good riders find fairly easy.

Someone will still be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, and there won`t be many dead horses and riders.

This "thing" we now call eventing is a train wreck.

And, no, I don`t believe that the FEI will EVER go back to long format, much as many of us might wish so. Forget that dream, focus instead on things we CAN do.

[SEPowell]

What are the breeds of the horses who've died over the past two years?

[EventFan]

I think we can all agree that seeing yet another horse death is devastating. I know that many on here have been working hard to improve the sport. What can we fans and smurfs do to support these efforts?

Is there a foundation, or committee that can be drafted without the USEF/FEI being directly involved? Perhaps the research done by the committee/foundation would be much deeper and contain more Data Driven suggestions.

I know that I do not wish to contribute financially to the "powers that be" whom, in my estimation, are not using data to develop strategies for making this sport safer for all involved. Or do you (speaking to YOU eventers) feel that I am mistaken in this belief?

Would a grass roots effort be effective or even possible?

[denny]

Dressage and show jumping will necessarily count for more if xc is made more straightforward, because the fewest faults wins, and if more go clear across country, those faults have to come from somewhere.

What`s changed already is that speeds are slower (570 is slower than 690), and distances are MUCH shorter. (3 to 4 miles as opposed to 16 to 18 miles), so the qualities of STAMINA and ENDURANCE, have been replaced by qualities of technical skill, creating a very different sport.

Some say better, some say worse, but very surely, DIFFERENT.

But because the technical questions on xc sometimes create cartwheeling flips, this is currently one of the most dangerous sports on earth.

Who comes back from, say, Dressage at Devon, or from some big hunter-jumper show and says: "This was a great event. No horse or rider got crippled or killed."

But lots of people say exactly that about modern events, and that situation can`t last, before the sport is ruined for good and all.

[LLDM]

I think we can all agree that seeing yet another horse death is devastating. I know that many on here have been working hard to improve the sport. What can we fans and smurfs do to support these efforts?

Is there a foundation, or committee that can be drafted without the USEF/FEI being directly involved? Perhaps the research done by the committee/foundation would be much deeper and contain more Data Driven suggestions.

I know that I do not wish to contribute financially to the "powers that be" whom, in my estimation, are not using data to develop strategies for making this sport safer for all involved. Or do you (speaking to YOU eventers) feel that I am mistaken in this belief?

Would a grass roots effort be effective or even possible?

This is something I thought about after Rolex this year. I know I would be much more likely to contribute financially to an independent foundation dedicated to improving eventing safety. Even one that looks at additional horse sports as well. But one that had NO ties to the existing NGBs and/or performance orgs. I would love to see a Think Tank type aspect to it as well.

Not that there could be no interaction - just that money could be granted in larger chunks with strings (dedicated funds) and after satisfying specific criteria (like low admin costs, directed funds, scientific integrity, etc.).

There are many good "old names" who no longer compete (and have had no interest in the politics of it) around for a fabulous Board of Directors.

Something like a "Safety for Horses in Sport Foundation". I would also happily "lick stamps" for such an organization. Safer horses means safer riders too.

SCFarm

[4Martini]

But lots of people say exactly that about modern events, and that situation can`t last, before the sport is ruined for good and all.

The more I think about it the more the lower levels should be spun off. Don't ruin the great riding skills learned by millions of pony clubbers, ammies and juniors really learing combined training by the ambitions of a few. I feel creepy telling people I event - but at BN it's not the same thing at all as what they see on TV.

[JER]

The Australian jump racing ban -- actually, it's just the state of Victoria -- came about in part because the animal welfare/rights groups have been campaigning against the sport. Then you have 3 deaths at a high-profile meet and the state feels it has to do something.

It's like the Mexican rodeos or charreadas out west. The animal rights groups decided they didn't like horse-tripping because it left a lot of horses lame and horses often got sent to slaughter when their career was over. (Lame ≠ dead, BTW.)

And because the local authorities didn't want this stuff happening in their backyards (and probably didn't want Mexicans in their backyards for anything other than yardwork), many states have banned charreadas.

In eventing, horses are dying. How hard would it be to start getting local jurisdictions to ban the sport? All it takes is one smart campaign and some good leadership.

TPTB should be showing leadership by getting out ahead of this.

[ivy62]

I normally do not post much here but read often. I am fairly new to eventing about 6-7 years..Watched the long format which I though was awesome and then watched a few years later the short format and started seeing horses hurt or worse dead. The other thing I noticed was the type of person riding. But my REAL question is, Why did they change the format at all? It has been that way forever so why change it.

Another thing came to my mind, if no necropsy was done would a mortality policy pay out? Or would the fall be accepted as the cause?

I enjoy watching the long format and wonder what happened to remove it...

[jumpsnake]

I think either an overhaul of current leadership or a completely separate, independent group (and probably both) are warranted. It may not really be that the current leadership doesn't give a FF-- sometimes it is impossible to think clearly and rationally when you're in the thick of it.

I read a lot on here, don't post much- but the one thing I really want to see is a good statistical study on horse falls and deaths, and a retrospective one that truly compares yesterday to today. As much as it seems like more horses are falling, I've seen no good info on what exactly the rate now is compared to the rate 20 years ago. The studies I have seen are very narrow in focus and don't address many of the questions at hand.

We are a sport of wealthy, intelligent people (well, I hope I fall into the intelligent category, anyway) and I dont' see why we are not using more science-based methods to tease this apart.

I love love love eventing, and riding xc is like nothing else in the world. I keep trying to make excuses why it is ok to do, but I am running out of them, at least for the higher levels. Lower levels I feel much better about, but those too should be examined as we look at the broadest picture we can.

[poltroon]

Let`s face facts. 2009 eventing is a totally different sport from 1999 eventing, (and prior), so what real difference should it make if we change things further in the interests of horse and rider safety?

LET the dressage and show jumping influence results more. Make the xc less lethal, probably by creating tracks that the good riders find fairly easy.

Someone will still be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, and there won`t be many dead horses and riders.

This "thing" we now call eventing is a train wreck.

And, no, I don`t believe that the FEI will EVER go back to long format, much as many of us might wish so. Forget that dream, focus instead on things we CAN do.


Agreed 100%.
Even if it means Advanced cross country becomes 3'6" and all straightforward, that is how it has to be.

[poltroon]

I read a lot on here, don't post much- but the one thing I really want to see is a good statistical study on horse falls and deaths, and a retrospective one that truly compares yesterday to today. As much as it seems like more horses are falling, I've seen no good info on what exactly the rate now is compared to the rate 20 years ago. The studies I have seen are very narrow in focus and don't address many of the questions at hand.


I'm not sure it even matters if there are more falls today than before. Times have changed, news travels rapidly, and the injuries to horses and riders are not tolerable, regardless of what happened in the past.

[Gnep]

EventFan, there are quiet a few people that are loosly conected and are working on several aspects of the savety issue.
We tried to work with the USEF, but the USEFwanted to apply a censorship, only suporting or endorsing work in areas they did not work on. All current private initiatifs are naturally hobbeled by the cost of the work.
For example, I have to buy Pins for my jump designs in Germany, because I can not get any Pins in the US, Buy that stuff with a weak currency, ship it, custom, etc. very expensiv, the $70 set cost me $120.
At least the Speedstudy gets some money from the Organisations.

USEF and to a smaller part USEA are very slow, complicated and cumbersome in their reactions to the savety problems of the sport. They are afraid to ask for outside help.
Has anybody ever heard about the X-C Savety Jump Cups, that a German ingeneer developed some 10 years ago, realy neat stuff, no rotation possible. The idea, you save the horse you save the rider.

The future for the sport, as long as we accept fatale accidents as part of sport and as long as a accident that kills a horse has not serious consequences for the rider nothing will change. Rider responsebility is a nice word, but without making the rider responsible it is meaningless.
We have jet to hear or see that a upper level rider gets a DR, or gets flagged. The Killing Fields are in the US the real upper levels and nobody has the guts to tackle that problem, to many conflicts of interest.
If this keeps on going, than somebody from the outside will do it and than kiss eventing good by.

[Wheel Whip]

I am a bit intimidated by the illustrious participants in this discussion, and I respectfully and humbly add my two cents. The problem is not the lower levels per se, Through training level the injuries seem to be acceptable (I know there are exceptions), and adding costly changes will be the "kiss of death" to many organizers. Higher lies the problems. I also know from business experience that the best "fix" is often the simplist (not to be confused with the easiest). The jumps are killing the riders and horses. It does not matter if it was pilot error or horse error. Even with the frangible pins, the horse takes quite a hit. Can the jumps be modified to have more brush tops with electronic sensors to gauge if they are going thru or going over?
As a jump judge I have seen more horses daunted by ditches. What's wrong with jumps based on the famous Irish hedges and ditches. As a spectator I would also like to see more questions centered around natural obsticles and terrain changes. Another simple addition is to add an equitation componant to XC. The TD or PGJ could judge three or four jumps in close proximity (so they aren't chasing riders all over creation) and have the scores added or subtracted from the xc score.
I understand where eventing evolved from. As a former fencer (sabers and epee) I would have never competed if the weapons still had their "bite" and something tells me that eviscerated competitors would be frowned upon by the Olympic Committee. There is no disgrace in modifying military competitions for the playing field. I want to be able to go back to Rolex for the joy of it, without the dread that is now present. To have a risk free equestrian sport is impossible. To have a skillful, risk reduced sport is possible.

[jumpsnake]

I'm not sure it even matters if there are more falls today than before. Times have changed, news travels rapidly, and the injuries to horses and riders are not tolerable, regardless of what happened in the past.

You have a point there. In the suggestions thread there are many posts about fall stats, which we need (ie the actual mechanics and contributing factors to the fall.) At second thought, I think those stats are more necessary than a comparison to yesteryear.... but they could be combined into one study as well.

Its just that so many people are saying 'there are so many more deaths now' and things of that nature it got me wondering if there really are more deaths now. I just want to know! But, you don't always get what you want, do you?

[JER]

Some lessons from other sports...

Formula 1. I've written about this forever on here. Good leadership led to the appointment of a medical director who was given carte blanche to make the sport safer. And it worked.

However, in 1994 following Ayrton Senna's and Roland Ratzenberger's deaths (in separate crashes) at Imola, Italian authorities charged the race director, the heads of the Williams team and some track officials with manslaughter. All were eventually cleared but there's nothing like a manslaughter charge to motivate you to investigate and improve.

Since 1994, there have been no fatal accidents in F1.

Cycling. Cycling is a festival of pharmaceuticals with a bit of pedaling about on two wheels. The UCI (governing body) went to laughable lengths to not clean up the sport. But then local authorities in Spain, Belgium, France and Italy started to crack down on all the drug trafficking in team cars, arresting people, issuing subpoenas, etc. It also helped that sponsors filed lawsuits, not wanting to pay out to dopers. But it was getting hard to field teams for races in countries where riders would be pursued by the police as well as the peleton.

(And don't think doping is just doping. Many young cyclists have died from 'heart attacks', which seem to coincide with the introduction of a new au courant performance-enhancer.)

It's now safe to say that cycling is beginning to clean up. But it took some serious legal intervention that came from outside of the UCI.

Fencing. (WheelWhip, I'm an epeeist.) Fencing used to be fairly lax about equipment. Fencers used old masks, worn-out clothing, fought with weapons made of brittle carbon steel. And people occasionally died or got seriously injured, usually due to equipment failure and broken blades. A broken weapon blade is a lethal implement. But fencing is a small world and rarely makes the sports pages.

But then, in 1982, came the Smirnov Incident. At a competition in Rome, the USSR Olympic champion foilist was wearing an old mask, so when his opponent's blade broke, it pierced his mask and went through his eye socket into his brain. And yes, he died.

The Italian authorities wanted to treat Smirnov's death as a manslaughter case. The governing body of fencing, the FIE, didn't want this and promised the Italians that they'd make the sport safer. The FIE is like the FEI in more ways than just the letters, so it took about two years before the safety regs came into effect. But the FIE and NGBs formulated standards and safety measures for equipment and clothing, as well as mandating testing/inspection of ALL equipment at the start of every competition. Blades are now made from maraging steel but they still break.

There have been no deaths in fencing since Smirnov's.

Conclusions? Cycling and fencing required outside pressure to change their sports. F1 did it through bold, take-no-prisoners leadership.

So, with tongue party in cheek and partly sticking out at TPTB, maybe what eventing needs most is a high-profile accident in Italy or Spain. Italian and Spanish authorities tend to take on these cases -- just like with the recent CIA rendition trial in Italy or the torture stuff in Spain.

[SuZQuzie]

I definitely can understand the analogy to F1 and fencing needing a manslaughter charge to finally change their ways, however, there aren't that many high profile human deaths as there are high profile horse deaths. Unfortunately, animal abuse charges hardly hold the same weight as manslaughter charges; just ask any active horse rescuer.

[denny]

One possible reason that the USEF won`t enact more stringent investigative techniques is because most of our Olympic riders have had horses die in competition.

If those riders got set down, it could mess up team selection.

I can`t think of any other conceivable reason why these protocals haven`t been instituted YEARS AGO.

If that IS a reason, it`s an inexcusable reason.

[belambi]

The Australian jump racing ban -- actually, it's just the state of Victoria -- came about in part because the animal welfare/rights groups have been campaigning against the sport. Then you have 3 deaths at a high-profile meet and the state feels it has to do something.

It's like the Mexican rodeos or charreadas out west. The animal rights groups decided they didn't like horse-tripping because it left a lot of horses lame and horses often got sent to slaughter when their career was over. (Lame ≠ dead, BTW.)

And because the local authorities didn't want this stuff happening in their backyards (and probably didn't want Mexicans in their backyards for anything other than yardwork), many states have banned charreadas.

In eventing, horses are dying. How hard would it be to start getting local jurisdictions to ban the sport? All it takes is one smart campaign and some good leadership.

TPTB should be showing leadership by getting out ahead of this.

Jump racing is already banned in the other states of Australia.it only exists in Vic and SA

[LLDM]

One possible reason that the USEF won`t enact more stringent investigative techniques is because most of our Olympic riders have had horses die in competition.

If those riders got set down, it could mess up team selection.

I can`t think of any other conceivable reason why these protocals haven`t been instituted YEARS AGO.

If that IS a reason, it`s an inexcusable reason.

So who do we write to request a break from medal mania? At least until we figure some stuff out?

SCFarm

[TB or not TB?]

My god, if our Olympic riders are sidelined with investigations, we might not place well on the world stage! :eek: Why, other countries might come on to our home turf and beat us. How embarrassing.

I hardly even want to chime in on these threads anymore because it's so disheartening. I so, so want to do this sport but these discussions are getting old - not because of the tremendous ideas or productive conclusions, but because it's all falling on deaf ears.

How do you support eventing if you largely disagree with its policies and outcomes in the current times?

[LLDM]

How do you support eventing if you largely disagree with its policies and outcomes in the current times?

Underground eventing?

SCFarm

[denny]

Everybody always gripes about "The Powers That Be" as being insensitive to what is going on, but just who, exactly, do we mean when we sat TBTB?

Is it Mark Phillips? David O`Connor? Jim Wolf? WHO? What actual human beings have this sport under their control?

Because if those people are hidden, they aren`t held accountable, are they?

[BarbB]

To start with you hold accountable the people who get to step forward and take the bows when things are going well. Chances are that if they do not actually have the power that they appear to have...when you hold their feet to the fire they will point at the real powers.

Everybody always gripes about "The Powers That Be" as being insensitive to what is going on, but just who, exactly, do we mean when we sat TBTB?

Is it Mark Phillips? David O`Connor? Jim Wolf? WHO? What actual human beings have this sport under their control?

Because if those people are hidden, they aren`t held accountable, are they?

[LexInVA]

How do you support eventing if you largely disagree with its policies and outcomes in the current times?

You stop supporting the recognized stuff and enjoy the unrecognized stuff. That's about as good as it gets right now because it will take money away from the machine that currently runs the show. With the lack of sympathetic leadership at an organizational and individual level in the sport, positive change simply will not come without a hostile takeover or a culling of the herd that runs the sport.

[SevenDogs]

Everybody always gripes about "The Powers That Be" as being insensitive to what is going on, but just who, exactly, do we mean when we sat TBTB?

Is it Mark Phillips? David O`Connor? Jim Wolf? WHO? What actual human beings have this sport under their control?

Because if those people are hidden, they aren`t held accountable, are they?

I'm willing to put myself out there:

#1 on the list to be held accountable -- Mark Phillips. As the "team leader" and the individual who states in his own bio that he is RESPONSIBLE for the safety and design of all Upper Level fences in North America, it is happening on his watch. Period.

I also strongly believe that his philosophies and business models for eventers that want a shot at making an international team have been extremely detrimental to the sport.

Finally (and least important in my book), by any performance standards, his program to obtain medals for the U.S. has been largely unsuccessful.

I will let others discuss David and Jim. My suspicions are at least one of them needs to go, if not both.

[RAyers]

At this point Mark Phillips is the DIRECT target. As has been pointed out in other posts here as well as by his own biography:

In March 1993 the United States Equestrian Team appointed Captain Phillips as Chef d'Equipe and Coach for Three Day Eventing. He was also appointed Course Advisor to the American Horse Shows Association, making him responsible for the safety and design of all Upper Level fences in North America.


I would say this indicates a DIRECT link between any accident and Mr. Phillips. Since horses and riders are still crashing, Phillips has FAILED to do his job and should be FIRED and held RESPONSIBLE (per his bio).

Reed

[LexInVA]

Everybody always gripes about "The Powers That Be" as being insensitive to what is going on, but just who, exactly, do we mean when we sat TBTB?

Is it Mark Phillips? David O`Connor? Jim Wolf? WHO? What actual human beings have this sport under their control?

Because if those people are hidden, they aren`t held accountable, are they?

None of the above. It's more of a collective hive mind. Kind of like the Borg but without the snazzy outfits. Marky-Mark is a facilitator for the group in that he is tasked with accomplishing certain things by the USEF and USET but he's still nothing more than a public face for what is wrong with the people who are controlling the sport at the leadership and policy making levels. Yes, a lot of the screw-ups in recent history can be laid at the feet of certain individuals who are or were active competitors making policy decisions but if you want to break the machine instead of just slowing it down, you have to break the hand that puts gas in the fuel tank and that requires a bit of digging into who is paying for what those folks are doing as "leaders" and why they feel it's perfectly acceptable to do things they way they have been.

[TB or not TB?]

You stop supporting the recognized stuff and enjoy the unrecognized stuff. That's about as good as it gets right now because it will take money away from the machine that currently runs the show. With the lack of sympathetic leadership at an organizational and individual level in the sport, positive change simply will not come without a hostile takeover or a culling of the herd that runs the sport.

Ah, but what then of the recognized events who are trying to make a difference, like the LF contingent? What of the trainers who adhere to true horsemanship and not to the current business model, yet need show fees and horse sales to survive?

I worry that pulling the plug on recognized eventing could have FAR more serious consequences for the future of the sport than the many deaths.

[JER]

I would say this indicates a DIRECT link between any accident and Mr. Phillips. Since horses and riders are still crashing, Phillips has FAILED to do his job and should be FIRED and held RESPONSIBLE (per his bio).


I think he should go but doesn't everyone? And the people who hired him should go too.

But what about the horses who die of hemorrhages, ruptures, 'heart attacks'? Who should take responsibility for that?

Who does David O'Connor speak for these days? This question has come up before but no one's ever answered it. Is he the USEF President, equally concerned with reining and driving and Paso Finos? Or is he the Canadian eventing team coach? Or is it right for his fingers to be all over eventing?

A responsible USEF President would be telling eventing to clean up its act. But he's not.

A responsible USEF President would be mandating all the things we've discussed here and that he's paid lip service to. But he's not.

[LexInVA]

Ah, but what then of the recognized events who are trying to make a difference, like the LF contingent? What of the trainers who adhere to true horsemanship and not to the current business model, yet need show fees and horse sales to survive?

I worry that pulling the plug on recognized eventing could have FAR more serious consequences for the future of the sport than the many deaths.

Obviously you can pick and choose but I think many of the events would happily go unrecognized if they could do so without the fear of losing a lot of potential competitors and therefore needed money. When I said what I did, I was making more of a general statement in that if you really wanted to send the folks a message, that would be the quickest way to do it if you had large numbers behind you. Though I doubt it would ever happen, imagine what the perception would be from the USEF/USEA leadership if an immensely popular or significantly attended event as the case may be suddenly went unrecognized and still performed well as far as rider attendance goes or they offered an unrecognized event separately that attracted even more riders or a significant amount of them. Just food for thought.

[LLDM]

Everybody always gripes about "The Powers That Be" as being insensitive to what is going on, but just who, exactly, do we mean when we sat TBTB?

Is it Mark Phillips? David O`Connor? Jim Wolf? WHO? What actual human beings have this sport under their control?

Because if those people are hidden, they aren`t held accountable, are they?

As usual, follow the money. And not just the money that is accounted for by the USEA, USEF and USET Foundation. Look at who funds the Team activities, the horses, the rarefied riders and all the *stuff* they need. Then try to find out who's whispering in their ears.

Who else would write and rewrite all the safety rules in such a way as to keep certain riders riding as many money horses as possible no matter what? The sad part is that they have all convinced themselves that *Eventing* would die without them. And while it might need life support for a while if medal madness took a vacation, it certainly would not die, no matter what they tell themselves. Who do they think we are? ;) Ya know, the rest of eventing.

SCFarm

[LexInVA]

I think he should go but doesn't everyone? And the people who hired him should go too.

But what about the horses who die of hemorrhages, ruptures, 'heart attacks'? Who should take responsibility for that?

Who does David O'Connor speak for these days? This question has come up before but no one's ever answered it. Is he the USEF President, equally concerned with reining and driving and Paso Finos? Or is he the Canadian eventing team coach? Or is it right for his fingers to be all over eventing?

A responsible USEF President would be telling eventing to clean up its act. But he's not.

A responsible USEF President would be mandating all the things we've discussed here and that he's paid lip service to. But he's not.

I believe was appointed because he was the most visible candidate that the people responsible for the formation of the USEF had in mind. I don't know who the others were or if there really ever were others from other backgrounds but it has been said many times by him and other people close to him that nobody else wanted the job. In my observations of him, he is more of a public face and very little of an actual policy maker beyond offering his input into occasional matters that affect multiple sports. Much like Karen has little or nothing to do with the majority of things which her name is attached to in the organization.

[RAyers]

The Borg are wusses. The only way to kill the hive is to destroy the society in its entirety. Well, that is what is naturally evolving in eventing.

I am going more for the Republican Party under Rove. They would have CRUSHED the Borg.

The only reason I point out CMP is because there are SPECIFIED performance parameters listed that can be used to judge his performance. Just like in ANY professional company/organization, employee dismissal has to be based on specific, quantifiable objectives. To this, the man has failed and as such should be dismissed.

As for others, I do not know what their job requirements are so it would be difficult for me to say "burn them all at the stake!" as much as I want.

Reed

[Blugal]

DO'C is the Canadian "technical advisor", i.e. he's "technically" not the "team coach". If you want to get on a Canadian team, however...

Gotta agree with JER with respect to people "in charge" who are wearing too many hats.

[LLDM]

A responsible USEF President would be telling eventing to clean up its act. But he's not.

A responsible USEF President would be mandating all the things we've discussed here and that he's paid lip service to. But he's not.

Um. Good point.

SCFarm

[JER]

I don't know who the others were or if there really ever were others from other backgrounds but it has been said many times by him and other people close to him that nobody else wanted the job. In my observations of him, he is more of a public face and very little of an actual policy maker beyond offering his input into occasional matters that affect multiple sports.

He certainly set the agenda at the Safety Summit.

If what you're saying is true, then it's time to get a real president who will take the job seriously.

You can't take the job as president without taking on the responsibility and accountability that should come with the job.

If he's a public face, he's a public face to rally against as he represents what is wrong with the governance of our sport. We need leaders, not figureheads.

[RAyers]

Yes, David O'Conner as the USEF president is "Mr. Spineless."

He is doing WAY too much to ever justify to me or I hope, anyone, that he actually has his eyes on the prize concerning the future of eventing. Given how many pies he has his fingers in, at best he can only give things a cursory consideration and leave the real decisions to his subordinates.

Reed

[Blugal]

Who has access to the riders & horse owners? Something like an Event Horse Owners Association? It seems to me we need a figurehead, outside of the Usual Suspects/Head Honchos, who has this access, to make a public plea - for a stand-down from the head-long rush we seem to be in, while we figure things out.

I wonder how many owners, if faced with a factual plea explaining the crisis of the sport, would be more than happy to stand their horses down for a certain period of time? I wonder how many owners, who perhaps don't follow the week-to-week as we do here on COTH, would be a bit shocked at the facts themselves?

[SevenDogs]

I was stunned when Mark Phillips contract was renewed. Perhaps I am naive about the politics, etc., or I just don't want to believe it. How has he helped the sport or the US program? Our top riders are having horrific accidents, he has designed courses that no one is willing to ride over, our performance on the world stage is dismal, and he has alienated most of the membership. WHY is he still here?

I am guessing there was some sort of committee within the USEF that made the recommendation that his contract would be renewed. Does anyone know who was on that committee or was a major player in that decision, while we are naming names (and Denny, thank you for sending us in this direction -- it is time!)? For me, that would tell a tale.

Lex, I hear what you are saying but frankly, heads need to roll. I strongly believe that there are specific people that should lose their job for cause. However, even if you don't agree with me on that, it needs to happen anyway, if only from a PR point of view.

I play in the corporate world. When you have the top position and things go wrong, you are out the door (or should be).

[LexInVA]

Lex, I hear what you are saying but frankly, heads need to roll. I strongly believe that there are specific people that should lose their job for cause. However, even if you don't agree with me on that, it needs to happen anyway, if only from a PR point of view.


I never said I didn't want accountability. I was merely explaining what I knew of David O'Connor and why I think it's largely useless to simply stop at blaming him. He's more of a voice for what is going on than anyone else but he's still just a small part of it.

[LexInVA]

Who has access to the riders & horse owners? Something like an Event Horse Owners Association? It seems to me we need a figurehead, outside of the Usual Suspects/Head Honchos, who has this access, to make a public plea - for a stand-down from the head-long rush we seem to be in, while we figure things out.

I wonder how many owners, if faced with a factual plea explaining the crisis of the sport, would be more than happy to stand their horses down for a certain period of time? I wonder how many owners, who perhaps don't follow the week-to-week as we do here on COTH, would be a bit shocked at the facts themselves?

Well this is where it gets really ugly. When a good horse gets to the point where it is "proven" by a rider and it isn't already in the possession of them and their supporters, it gets bought up. Then you also have the few wealthy breeders/owners who are specifically giving those horses to riders to ride for whatever reason, usually as in investment in the "future". Neither one of those groups is probably going to care in most cases and I know the second one won't as they are often the same people who support everything that has happened and push for more.

[Gnep]

Lets face it, we got the PHC, we got a USEF President that was once a top gun in eventing, his wife still is, we got a Captain Cough Cough, who on top of it is supposed to keep everybody Advance and above under controll, the members of the National Team have a guaranteed special status and so on and so on.
All those guys are screwing up by the numbers, killing horses, or trying to kill themself, none of them face any consequences, never ever, because they run the show and they are buddies. Anybody think that Captain Cough Cough will take a PD, a KOC, AT or who else into a quiet room and rip him/her a new one, please. Or DOC, give me a brake.
They will take a Ashly whats her name and rip her a new one, not in private room but in public and use her shit for luck kill the horse accident to make rule changes, but the changes are made to not afect the rider, which would have hurt the buddies.

Dennie this is your crowd. As long as the sport is not willing and able to rein in the very top, we are going to see more.

[SevenDogs]

I never said I didn't want accountability. I was merely explaining what I knew of David O'Connor and why I think it's largely useless to simply stop at blaming him. He's more of a voice for what is going on than anyone else but he's still just a small part of it.

Lex: I totally agree with this statement and that is why David O'Connor was NOT #1 on my hit list and Mark Phillips IS. In fact in many ways, I will be sad if David has to go.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about David O'Connor. I was actually very pleased when he was made USEF President, because I really felt having an Eventer in that position (as opposed to the endless parade of H/J or Western Folks) would be very beneficial. It is, no doubt, a thankless and horrendous job. He is an affable guy and one who has been a positive role model for eventing over the years.

However, there do appear to be conflicts of interest (and ties to Mark Phillips that are inexcusable) that don't benefit the sport. Further, and using my own logic about those at the top being held accountable, our current state happened on his watch and to quote myself "heads need to roll". I certainly haven't seen much come out of USEF that has been helpful at a time when we need leadership and have seen much that is detrimental. Keeping Mark Phillips in his current role is tops on my list of USEF errors, and my hunch is that David had a lot to do with this.

[AlterEgoME]

I am posting under an Alter. I am not a troll. I have many friends among TPTB. Most of them are trying to do good work and they love the sport as much as any of us.

But, we are failing our horses and they are failing our horses. If we all have to post under an alter, than so be it, but let's call a spade a spade and talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Alluding to the problem does not solve it.

I love this sport, I love the people, I love the horses. I want to be proud to participate. I do not want to hide my intentions under cover because breeders do not want to sell their precious foals to an eventer.

The top 15% of this sport are talented and noble horsemen but they are not the grass roots. The grass roots is not killing horses at the rate of one per FEI event (regardless of rotational fall or physiological cause - I stop short of natural). I don't have the stats, but I remember when Polly Phillips died and I remember when Bestseller died, they were isolated incidence on the road to a dime a dozen.

WHAT are we going to do other than bitch on this board? Not studies, not more rules, not finger pointing? What action can we take that will make a difference?

[LexInVA]

WHAT are we going to do other than bitch on this board? Not studies, not more rules, not finger pointing? What action can we take that will make a difference?

It's not so much what could you do as what CAN you do. Assuming the majority of membership wants to make a big change of direction, there is absolutely no established way to remove the people who have brought things where they are today. There is no democracy behind the USEF and certainly not much behind it's umbrella organizations. There is only power, those who wield it, and those who want it. Finding a clear direction to go in with a concise plan of action is not easy in a situation like this but it is what is needed. Perhaps the sport splits into two very different levels on paper much like it unofficially already is with two different organizations running the respective shows. The people in charge do not want that because it takes away their financial resources not to mention keeps them from influencing future talent development. It's like at the end of the Revolutionary War when everyone asked "So...what now?" Only there hasn't been any change wrought by painful sacrifice and hard lessons in how to stand up on your own.

[4Martini]

WHAT are we going to do other than bitch on this board? Not studies, not more rules, not finger pointing? What action can we take that will make a difference?

How about boycotting the WEG in Kentucky. I know totally crappy towards everyone who puts so much work into it. What a statement though...

Just an idea from a total smurf who didn't even join the USEA this year due to personal conflicts with what's going on with the sport.

[SevenDogs]

The biggest problem we have in getting change is the "carrot" of international competition. An awful lot of riders have Olympic dreams (or WEG or PanAm games or whatever other international competition there is out there) and they only see that path, even though the vast majority of them will never even get close. Right now, the gatekeepers for that path do not have the best interest of the sport in mind, whether by choice, circumstance or ignorance.

Is that Mark Phillips? Is that David O'Connor? Is that USEF? Is that FEI? Is that????

It is the "carrot" of international competition that is giving the power to all the wrong people.

[lolalola]

I'm a journalist who regularly covers all types of horse sports for a general interest equine publication as well as a local newspaper chain that covers three counties in central NJ. I was shocked but perhaps not surprised by the attitudes of some of the officials at the JF when I brought up the three horse deaths in three years. "Fate," was the reaction of one figure. "It happens at racetracks all the time," was another. Well, there were 89 participants at the JF. That's a little more than the number of horses running every day at a major racetrack. Can you imagine the outcry if a horse died every single day at every single track? For those of you who are better at statistics, let me know if I'm wrong here. My favorite was "It happened at Rolex, too," like this excuses the JF. Something has got to be done. I don't know what the answer is, but you in eventing do know, and you must act.

[JER]

I'm a journalist who regularly covers all types of horse sports for a general interest equine publication as well as a local newspaper chain that covers three counties in central NJ. I was shocked but perhaps not surprised by the attitudes of some of the officials at the JF when I brought up the three horse deaths in three years. "Fate," was the reaction of one figure. "It happens at racetracks all the time," was another. Well, there were 89 participants at the JF. That's a little more than the number of horses running every day at a major racetrack. Can you imagine the outcry if a horse died every single day at every single track? For those of you who are better at statistics, let me know if I'm wrong here. My favorite was "It happened at Rolex, too," like this excuses the JF. Something has got to be done. I don't know what the answer is, but you in eventing do know, and you must act.

It's time to name names.

While I respect a journalist's right to protect her sources, I'm sure that none of the officials referred to above spoke to you in exchange for anonymity. Moreover, you'd have very little reason to protect their identities as they are licensed officials in the sport and this is not a matter of national security.

If these officials think a horse death in competition is excusable and/or tolerable and/or destiny, I'd like to know who they are.

[NMPonyClubber]

So an idea came to me when I was cleaning stalls (which is completely irrelevant) and I am completely unsure as to whether it is at all worth any discusion, but let me have it

We (Somebody) should print out (at least parts) of this discussion, and the other one on this same topic

We then should send them to Mr. David O'Conner, The USEA, and whomever else we deem worth of our comments

With a note attached that somehow politely says:

We all care and are ready to help move towards change and a solution, ARE YOU?
And
You are the only one who can REALLY instigate change, so would you please hurry up and do something!!!!!

[snoopy]

So an idea came to me when I was cleaning stalls (which is completely irrelevant) and I am completely unsure as to whether it is at all worth any discusion, but let me have it

We (Somebody) should print out (at least parts) of this discussion, and the other one on this same topic

We then should send them to Mr. David O'Conner, The USEA, and whomever else we deem worth of our comments

With a note attached that somehow politely says:

We all care and are ready to help move towards change and a solution, ARE YOU?
And
You are the only one who can REALLY instigate change, so would you please hurry up and do something!!!!!




You would be surprised at just who reads this board. These conversations do not go un-noticed...they do, however, go un-heeded.
That is too say...noticed but ignored.

[Mary in Area 1]

Could we initiate a petition to oust CMP??? Would it hold any weight if we got 500, 1000, 5000 signatures?

Carol Kozlowski got rid of the weight requirements. Change can happen. I'm willing to walk around the Area 1 events with a petition. Are you?

[kt-rose]

Let`s face facts. 2009 eventing is a totally different sport from 1999 eventing, (and prior), so what real difference should it make if we change things further in the interests of horse and rider safety?

LET the dressage and show jumping influence results more. Make the xc less lethal, probably by creating tracks that the good riders find fairly easy.

Someone will still be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, and there won`t be many dead horses and riders.

This "thing" we now call eventing is a train wreck.

And, no, I don`t believe that the FEI will EVER go back to long format, much as many of us might wish so. Forget that dream, focus instead on things we CAN do.

And this is the only thing we can do...when rider's like PD, the very best in the world, have 2 rotational falls in a short time frame, what can we do but realize we've gone too close to the limit of what a horse can do and retrench to safer ground...so that at least we can keep eventing.

[SevenDogs]

Could we initiate a petition to oust CMP??? Would it hold any weight if we got 500, 1000, 5000 signatures?

Carol Kozlowski got rid of the weight requirements. Change can happen. I'm willing to walk around the Area 1 events with a petition. Are you?

Yup. Unfortunately, I believe he is under contract. Does anyone know if that contract is available to the general membership?

[AlterEgoME]

Here's a thought...

What if those of us who disagree with the direction the NGB and USEA are taking start calling the sport Combined Training again. Just to make the point that we aren't in agreement with what is happening. While we may not agree on what to do, we all seem to agree that we don't like what has happened or the road that we are going down.

So what if, while we work to find a solution, we call ourselves something else as some form of solidarity. I suppose with calling ourselves something different we probably have to make a statement as to what we stand *for* rather than what we stand against, but I am a thought in process right now...perhaps someone else can take the next step, if this is an idea that everyone can cling to.

As I continue to think outloud, CT is a notion from our past...so maybe we would like to look to our past to find what was good about the sport, take from our roots, support the ideals of riding cross country in the days of open space when a brave horse with lots of heart was more important than fancy movement - regardless of breed, of teaching our riders how to ride xc properly and safely and rewarding that - instead of rewarding flying changes, of rewarding CLEAR xc rides, not 20 penalty rides...

[RAyers]

... Can you imagine the outcry if a horse died every single day at every single track? For those of you who are better at statistics, let me know if I'm wrong here. My favorite was "It happened at Rolex, too," like this excuses the JF. Something has got to be done. I don't know what the answer is, but you in eventing do know, and you must act.

Go back and read the article from Victoria Australia and why I started this thread. You may see an answer there, sadly.

[lolalola]

They did not speak to me on the record, and are not high-profile figures in the sport. The show secretary was the individual who said it was fate, and pointed out that all of the horses had died of different causes over these past three years. Last year it was Tigger Too and the year before Eight Saint James Place. I don't want to name the other person who commented because while she is a lower-level eventer she is prominent in another field and is also a friend. At the actual press conference, no one brought up the death. I asked if there was a USEF representative there to speak with and was told there was not. It will be interesting to see how much prominence the death of this horse receives in the equine media - whether it is the lead or buried near the bottom of the story. Mine is a general interest story and will be the lead. It is not for sensationalism - I wish it were otherwise. It is, as others have remarked, the elephant in the room. Michael Pollard did a great job and deserves all the kudos he will receive. Nothing would have made me happier today than having his well-deserved win be the headline.

[SevenDogs]

Here's a thought...

What if those of us who disagree with the direction the NGB and USEA are taking start calling the sport Combined Training again. Just to make the point that we aren't in agreement with what is happening. While we may not agree on what to do, we all seem to agree that we don't like what has happened or the road that we are going down.

So what if, while we work to find a solution, we call ourselves something else as some form of solidarity. I suppose with calling ourselves something different we probably have to make a statement as to what we stand *for* rather than what we stand against, but I am a thought in process right now...perhaps someone else can take the next step, if this is an idea that everyone can cling to.

As I continue to think outloud, CT is a notion from our past...so maybe we would like to look to our past to find what was good about the sport, take from our roots, support the ideals of riding cross country in the days of open space when a brave horse with lots of heart was more important than fancy movement - regardless of breed, of teaching our riders how to ride xc properly and safely and rewarding that - instead of rewarding flying changes, of rewarding CLEAR xc rides, not 20 penalty rides...

I honestly had a similar thought from the post that brought up the original documents from the USCTA formation days. USCTA sounded so free of all of the crap!

[SevenDogs]

They did not speak to me on the record, and are not high-profile figures in the sport. The show secretary was the individual who said it was fate, and pointed out that all of the horses had died of different causes over these past three years. Last year it was Tigger Too and the year before Eight Saint James Place. I don't want to name the other person who commented because while she is a lower-level eventer she is prominent in another field and is also a friend. At the actual press conference, no one brought up the death. I asked if there was a USEF representative there to speak with and was told there was not. It will be interesting to see how much prominence the death of this horse receives in the equine media - whether it is the lead or buried near the bottom of the story. Mine is a general interest story and will be the lead. It is not for sensationalism - I wish it were otherwise. It is, as others have remarked, the elephant in the room. Michael Pollard did a great job and deserves all the kudos he will receive. Nothing would have made me happier today than having his well-deserved win be the headline.

While I agree with your overall message that change is necessary, this post conveys a bit of a different picture than your original one where you stated that the quotes were from "officials". I came close to posting the exact thing that Jer did in asking for names. Now, I see that it was the show secretary and a lower level eventer/friend and are "not high profile figures in the sport". That is quite different from "officials".

I would also ask about the context of the remarks. For example, "it happened at Rolex, too" could be construed as someone trying to diminish the Jersey Fresh incident or stating their concern about increasing numbers. Similarly, the remark "Fate" could imply that someone is radically out of touch or that they believe that the horse died of a condition that was completely unrelated to the event. You were there and I will defer to your interpretation but ask that you are certain about your accuracy before posting fairly inflamatory things.

[lolalola]

My interpretation of "Fate" was that there was no rhyme or reason to three deaths in three years. "It happened at Rolex too" was sort of similar - i.e., these things happen. Maybe they are right - but from the reaction on these threads, it doesn't seem to be the majority view. Also, some reporters at the press conference had previously spoken to officials so their not asking about the Bailey Wick death is understandable - just wanted to make that clear. There was no USEF or USEA official present, which was not the case in previous years.

[SevenDogs]

My interpretation of "Fate" was that there was no rhyme or reason to three deaths in three years. "It happened at Rolex too" was sort of similar - i.e., these things happen. Maybe they are right - but from the reaction on these threads, it doesn't seem to be the majority view. Also, some reporters at the press conference had previously spoken to officials so their not asking about the Bailey Wick death is understandable - just wanted to make that clear. There was no USEF or USEA official present, which was not the case in previous years.

Appreciate the clarification. :)

[LexInVA]

Waffles!

[TB or not TB?]

You would be surprised at just who reads this board. These conversations do not go un-noticed...they do, however, go un-heeded.
That is too say...noticed but ignored.

I have a hard time fathoming this. Not because I don't think it's true, but because I can't understand how anyone could look at the sport in its current state and either not care enough to entertain ideas, or simply disregard the voices of so many educated, brilliant minds. I don't even just mean the RAyers or the Deltawaves of the crowd, but depth of experience of so many professionals and thinkers who contribute. Can you imagine how much it would cost to hire analysts to spend as much time considering the issues facing eventing as the people on this board have done? All from folks intimately familiar with eventing. And my god, the solutions and recommendations that have been made... But heck, I'm just a no name smurf and a meanie pants on top of it. :cool:

[Carol Ames]

could we initiate a petition to oust CMP???

[Gry2Yng]

could we initiate a petition to oust CMP???

How about just cause he's hard on the eyes. ;-)

[Carol Ames]

Are you saying , for the good of the sport some need to be "sacrificed? Who would replace :confused:them?x, I hear what you are saying but frankly, heads need to roll. I strongly believe that there are specific people that should lose their job for cause. However, even if you don't agree with me on that, it needs to happen anyway, if only from a PR point of view.

I play in the corporate world. When you have the top position and things go wrong, you are out the door (or should be).

[Carol Ames]

What do CMP andDOC have to do with horse fatalities?

[SevenDogs]

Are you saying , for the good of the sport some need to be "sacrificed? Who would replace :confused:them?x,


First and foremost,I strongly believe Mark Phillips should be terminated for failure to meet the objectives of his job. Period.

I also think that those in leadership roles (starting with Mark Phillips) must be held accountable for failures in the sport, because it is happening on his watch. That is what it means to be a leader. There is a reason why there is a call for the resignation of a CEO when there is a corporate failure.

There are plenty of individuals that could do better and we would be well served to make an informed and organized search for better leadership.

[Carol Ames]

o horse shows up in the XC start box on King pin had been to the Olympics,:yes: ie., his health had been monitored closely, before, during and after XC; What more could have ben done?:confused:

[Carol Ames]

Why don't we call a moratorium on all eventing at The advanced level, of course this means no WEG,:eek: and require that all entries, complete first Badminton or Burghley before running Advanced in our countr:lol:y?

[kdow]

o horse shows up in the XC start box on King pin had been to the Olympics,:yes: ie., his health had been monitored closely, before, during and after XC; What more could have ben done?:confused:

Monitoring is only useful if you know which deviations from the norm are acceptable, and which are indicators of a problem. Obviously, we know the indicators for SOME problems, but without further research and detailed inquiries following deaths like Kingpin's, we have no way of knowing if something that we've been assuming is a normal deviation is actually, perhaps in the context of other data, an indicator of a problem.

So maybe there IS something that could have been done and we just don't know about it yet. (Note: This is not placing blame on Kingpin's owners or support staff - obviously, if no one knows about the indicators to catch them, there's no way they could be expected to have known he was going to have the problem.)

Thing is, if we throw up our hands now and say "we know everything we're ever going to, there's no point in doing research/studies/investigations" then we are significantly reducing our chances that at some point in the future we'll be able to improve things.

[denny]

When I wrote in a Between Rounds some months ago about an emerging "split" in our sport between a few hundred upper level riders, and their connections, and all the thousands of "the rest of us", David O`Connor was quick to rebut me in his next Between Rounds.

I like David, and admire him as one of the greatest riders produced by the USA, but I am afraid that he`s being pulled this way and that by various powerful (wealthy?) people in this sport whose primary interest is in Team success, not "the good of the sport."

Isn`t it time to have a major letter writing campaign to the USEF, saying, in effect, "enough is enough."

Because Snoopy is correct, they hear but they don`t heed.

How can this be orchestrated? Should it be?

[LLDM]

Denny - I have no idea how to make people hear what they really, really don't want to hear. I've said before that they are stuck and stuck absolutely in their current mindset. Unfortunately, they believe with a passion their own assumptions and hold that we are the ones who just. don't. get it.

Sometimes the answer IS to walk away. And I hate the thought of it. But I would be in favor of reconstituting the USCTA - at least as a non-profit foundation to study these deaths. And maybe more. Hundreds of people walking away - well not just away but towards an alternative - might begin to make a dent. But I really see no point in pushing the point with those who will not see or accept that their assumptions are not as unshakable as they believe.

JMHO

SCFarm

[BaroquePony]

I know several riders/instructors that have already said they would stick to Combined Training only until something was done with eventing (as it has become) ....

Reestablishing the USCTA may not be a bad idea at all.

ETA: it also has versatility ... for some venues, XC courses can be included and so could endurance and vet checks ... etc..

[RAyers]

I disagree that the establishment of the USCTA is the answer.

The problems are at the top level governance, the USEF and FEI. The USEA/USCTA is subordinate and has only partial control at the level where problems/difficulties are. I would push to separate the USEA from the USEF/FEI with focus on the long-format series.

Carol,

While I respect your opinion, I feel that your view point is the perfect example of why we are in the position we are in with this sport. Your few posts here exhibit a typical point of view that says, "Since we don't have answers, we can't get answers so let's ignore the problems." Health monitoring does little good if one does not know what is being monitored or how it changes.

The continued series of high profile deaths are an indicator something is wrong with the system. If these were few and very far between, then we could consider that they were isolated incidents. This happened last year and here we are again.

Reed

[BaroquePony]

RAyers,

Ok, I can see both sides of the coin here, and I believe in the old adage, "united we stand, divided we fall" - so how do we change the top of the political structure?

[redlight]

This topic has been discussed several times. My question is why are we still here discussing it? What is it going to take to make the changes the sport needs? I was at Jersey Fresh and I thought the same thing as you Denny; what if xc was made easier? Maybe the sport has gone past what is doable for the horse.

Was there not someone a few years ago compiling statistics on the number of horses who died before and after the changes to the long format were made?

There is a real disconnect between the ULR's and the rest of the levels. This has been stated before but nothing has changed.

Maybe it's a situation where you know things could be better but once you make one change then more come and what if you don't like those changes. You get so used to things being the way they are you don't know what you would do if they were different. So you keep doing things the same way because you are afraid of what may come. In other words, it takes courage to enact change and perhaps the PTB lack this important trait.

[frugalannie]

Crittertwitter posted this in an independent thread, but it so describes what is going on in the eventing hierarchy, I thought it deserved to be posted here:
----------------------------
HORSE STORY
Common advice from knowledgeable horse trainers includes, “If the horse you’re riding dies, get off.” Seems simple enough yet in education we don’t always follow that advice. Instead, we often choose from an array of other alternatives which include:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Trying a new bit or bridle.
3. Switching riders.
4. Moving the horse to a new location.
5. Riding the horse for longer periods of time.
6. Saying things like, “This is the way we’ve always ridden this horse.”
7. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
8. Arranging to visit other sites where they ride dead horses more efficiently.
9. Increasing the standards for riding dead horses.
10. Creating a test for measuring our riding ability.
11. Comparing how we’re riding with how we did twenty years ago.
12. Complaining about the state of the horse these days.
13. Coming up with new styles of riding.
14. Blaming the horse’s parents, the problem is often in the breeding.
15. Tightening the girth.


OK. Now we have to come up with a better, if not best approach.

[retreadeventer]

I am just a low level eventer.
Most of us posting here, and reading the posts are just low level eventers.

Many more people who have very little invested in our sport (i.e., not competitors or connected to competing) are still interested in our highest profile events, like Rolex, Jersey Fresh, Badminton - to watch and attend as great horse sporting events. Kids line up for autographs from top riders. Families picnic on course. People go back year after year. Our fan base.

Then there is a small group of top level riders, owners, and supporting sponsors and significant others.

Then there is a group taken from all sets, the leadership group.

I don't think it is fair to paint all with a broad brush and say, "they don't listen". I spoke with a member of the USEF Event Committee at Rolex who is just a regular, low level rider guy with a 25 year history in the sport and nonetheless has a savvy, regular guy outlook.

I don't think on the whole, the entire sport - that we're real good at communicating. Those of us on the bulletin board kind of ARE - we can type, we message, we read and email LOTS. So we get caught up in our own maelstrom.

I know I posted this before but I have to reiterate this. If you want to make changes, politically, you must be involved. It's like the bumper sticker I saw yesterday...Don't Complain If You Don't Vote.
You can't stand outside the door and complain that the political process isn't your cup of tea. You have to make it a skill you possess and move forward in the confines of the skill and do what you can.

I hear what is being said, that all seem tired of the process, not seeing any changes, not seeing what they feel must be done to "save" the sport or change the sport significantly enough that the two MOST IMPORTANT SETS OF PEOPLE, the Fans, and the Low Level Riders (as the vast majority involved in the sport) are happiest.

What our leadership is doing, I think, is giving ***equal weight to the top level riders and sponsors as the fans and low level riders*** and that doesn't sit well with us. We feel our numbers, seeming cohesion of opinions, and combined horror at the bad things that happen in our sport, should matter more than world class competition and honing USET potential team members for gold medals.

Honestly I don't know which is more important any more. The top is important, you all know that. Sponsors and supporters fuel the sport and make it possible for ALL of us. What attracts these people to put thousands of dollars into our sport? Winning. It's what makes the world go round, it's what gets us the things we want, the funds for the research, the Young Riders, the FEH classes, the prizes, the porta-potties, the better jumps, the better footing. Gold medals DO make a difference. I know the leadership has a terrible weight on their shoulders and judging from comments and lack of clear statements, they can't figure out what to say that helps. So they appear to do nothing -- to us. Maybe behind the scenes, things ARE going on. However, a couple of people who post here, whom I greatly respect, are kind of giving us hints that in fact, not much is going on behind the scenes, not enough - not the right kind of things - that would fix this terrible problem.

Last year when there was an uprising, we got a Safety Summit. This year, with an uprising, what will we get? Do you know what you want? Where are the concrete, written-down things that we want from leadership?

Our leaders are voted into their positions. Attend your area meetings. Vote for the representatives that you think will represent your opinions. Talk to your fellow competitors and members before the meeting. Email your friends in the fall prior to the meeting dates. Discuss the issues and ideas. Campaign for someone you think would help. Change the board of directors around. Yes - your vote will matter. Never underestimate the power of one caring, committed person. It has been said somewhere one person can't change the world, but indeed, it is the ONLY thing that ever has!

Those are two things I think, as a one-time political animal, (lobbyist for equine laws) might get us what we want or at least down the path to it. I don't know and I don't have all the answers. But we just have to get organized, and we have to get EFFECTIVE. The action can't be just fingers typing on keyboards. It has to be bodies packed in rooms, meeting after meeting, email after email, letter after letter, phone call after phone call, petition after petition. Don't give up and don't let off the pressure - politely, positively, persistently.

JMHO.

[Carol Ames]

Obviously NO ONE remembers the le Goff years:no:




ause he winds everyone with money and power in the sport around his little finger. He has everyone where he wants them - his own little band of surfs and no one will dare to oust him

[RAyers]

RAyers,

Ok, I can see both sides of the coin here, and I believe in the old adage, "united we stand, divided we fall" - so how do we change the top of the political structure?


I honestly don't know and am at a loss to even think of a way.


Redight, some of those thoughts have crossed my mind as well. I know somebody was working to look at past statistics.

[caseyjones]

Hey was't this a motto of one our political canidates. We were all for hope and change and guess what we got more of the same and than some.

Just because we vote someone into office does not necessarily mean they will do as we "hope" they will. If you don't look over the candidates thoroughly you will never know for sure what that person will or won't do once they hold the reins.

CMP has a new contract. Is that what we wanted? Has he done what is best for our sport? Is he too much of "I won you lost" type of guy.

We have had the changes to our sport shoved down our throat. They (guys at the top) know best for the "surfs"

A letter campain may not move the mountains it will take to reclaim our sport, but it could by cutting off the fuel line. Membership will vote by way of pocketbook and not renew. What do we get anymore for our dues, not even the Omnibus!!

More LLR are turning to unrecognized / schooling horse trials. More recognized events are holding more unrecognized / schooling horse trials and riders are flocking to them. Wake up USEA / USEF you too can end up like GM.

[BaroquePony]

First of all, we sucked at the Olympics. It was won by an amateur dentist.

So, all of those "professionals" may be missing something in the very core of what it really takes to win and win well with people feeling they love to watch you ride.

Second, I do think all of the knee-jerk stuff is a problem .... on all sides .... TPTB and the rest of us.

I think the development of a proposal should begin somewhere somehow, and that it should be made available for all to see and add to and rework and think over.

[BaroquePony]

Wake up USEA / USEF you too can end up like GM.

:lol:

[Jealoushe]

First of all, we sucked at the Olympics. It was won by an amateur dentist.



Perhaps they should be taking notice to those who aren't in the spotlight 24/7 already then, and maybe the team would stand a better chance. Mabye a safer sport could found in those who would do anything to be at the top, but have no chance because certain someones are hogging all the limelight.

[His Greyness]

I know I posted this before but I have to reiterate this. If you want to make changes, politically, you must be involved. It's like the bumper sticker I saw yesterday...Don't Complain If You Don't Vote.
You can't stand outside the door and complain that the political process isn't your cup of tea. You have to make it a skill you possess and move forward in the confines of the skill and do what you can.

JMHO.

Apparently you have never read the USEF bylaws. Bylaws are different from the Rules and cover the governance of the USEF. The Bylaws, in my opinion, are more appropriate to the former Soviet Union than to the "leader of the free world". There is no way that ordinary USEF members can vote these people "off the island". The USEF is run by a self-appointed oligarchy. The US Eventing Association is no more powerful than a Parent-Teachers Association is against the School Department.

The Ted Stevens Amateur Act is also partly to blame. It requires that 20% of the members of all NGB boards and committees be made up of "active athletes"; active athletes being defined as those who have represented the United States in international competition in the last 10 years. So upper level riders have direct representation, ordinary USEF members none.

[Carol Ames]

By all accounts the fence where he fall happened , was straightforward, a nice, solid oxer on level ground; galloping over solid fences a speed leaves NO :no:room for error


Dressage and show jumping will necessarily count for more if xc is made more straightforward,

[JSwan]

Who comes back from, say, Dressage at Devon, or from some big hunter-jumper show and says: "This was a great event. No horse or rider got crippled or killed."



I'm not a ULR and don't even event anymore - but here are my thoughts anyway.

While we don't sigh with relief that no horses or riders were killed in the disciplines you mention - plenty of us are dismayed by the quality of the riding. 4 beat canters, horses on the forehand, perching over fences, hand riding.... the list goes on.

The infrastructure that produces such riders and horses is the same infrastructure that produces the current type of event rider and horse.

Pop in to a H/J thread about a George Morris clinic and you'll see what I'm talking about. Whatever his faults that man demands the best from horse and rider. The comments from attendees is pretty much whining that he's not nice, that he's biased against fat people, that he's too hard, mean, etc.

Well, no sh**. What makes people think that expertise does not require extreme dedication, hard work, physical fitness, and discipline?

For Christ's sake these sports ARE hard. Eventing is NOT a sport for the masses. There is a reason the old tough cavalrymen and their horses could take gigantic fences with style, brilliance and come back with a sound healthy mount.

And it was not because they whined that their coach was mean and discriminated against fat people. Or that they didn't want to spend 6 months trotting without stirrups, or not be permitted to use spurs- they wanted to go to a show.

And they go.

I am deeply saddened by the death or injury to any rider or horse, any time it happens. In eventing, it seems there are many factors at work and there is no way to "fix" the sport by kicking out a leader or the addition of foam jumps. It doesn't appear to be that simple. Wish it was.

Mr. Dutton is certainly not an undisciplined or lazy horseman, and I don't mean to imply that he is. I also don't intend any insult to anyone whether they event at BN or Advanced.

It's just that I see, across disciplines..... something very very very wrong. I see people that take lessons, buy the "stuff", and want to get out there and "do it". I'm seeing children in shadbellies. Lower level riders in top hats. People with wiggly legs wearing spurs. Horses on the forehand jumping. Laying on the horses neck, legs back, asses in the air.

I see it in the hunt field too - and those riders come off. A lot. It would never occur to them to take a step back and hilltop - because they want to jump and not doing so is being a coward or "lame". So they keep on - unable to half halt and balance their horse, unable to negotiate around trees without hauling on the horse's mouth, slamming the horse's back - and the horse are strung out, hollow, or on the forehand.

That's just not right. If I saw an occasional rider like that I wouldn't think anything of it.

But I see A LOT of riders like that. A LOT. And the younger the rider is, the more likely I am to see it.

Anyway......I am so very sorry that this sport - the most wonderful horse sport there is - is going through a rough time. It does not appear to be the same sport I left 10 years ago... but I hope it can be one day.

[Regal Grace]

This topic has been discussed several times. My question is why are we still here discussing it? What is it going to take to make the changes the sport needs? I was at Jersey Fresh and I thought the same thing as you Denny; what if xc was made easier? Maybe the sport has gone past what is doable for the horse.

Was there not someone a few years ago compiling statistics on the number of horses who died before and after the changes to the long format were made?

There is a real disconnect between the ULR's and the rest of the levels. This has been stated before but nothing has changed.

Maybe it's a situation where you know things could be better but once you make one change then more come and what if you don't like those changes. You get so used to things being the way they are you don't know what you would do if they were different. So you keep doing things the same way because you are afraid of what may come. In other words, it takes courage to enact change and perhaps the PTB lack this important trait.

I am paraphrasing here but listening in on the banter between Mark Todd and Ian Stark during the webcast of Badminton XC day. They and along with Tina Cook agreed that Badminton this year was bit "softer" but was still testing without PUNISHING the horse. In addition, Ian Stark commented that you cannot make (or should make) the XC courses today anymore difficult than they are now (particularly with the technical questions) . Both he and Mark thought that they should go back in time and reintroduce the XC courses from years ago as a way of mixing things up instead of pushing the envelope on XC. I suppose retro XC ....."everything old is new again"

Since many of today's young riders never road that kind of XC, would it make things safer? It does not look like the XC's of yesteryear are less difficult but maybe it will make better riders in the long run if there "rider frighteners" to help them respect the fences more. I do lament the loss of the Long Format and yes it's not coming back but I do think it made for better horsemanship for our U.S. riders.

I also sadly agree that our riders are not up to par with the European. It was very apparent watching Badminton vs. Kentucky and especially watching the European riders vs. the Americans at Kentucky.

[BabyGreen]

Constant internet discussion and hand-wringing will accomplish nothing. Here are some suggestions for action:

1. Set up an executive committee at the grass roots level.
2. Decide quickly on specific actions that can be realistically accomplished quickly.
3. Set up web site with clear position statement and a few easy to understand goals
4. If the USEF won't act, research local and national humane laws. Get support of local authorities, county commissioners, legislators. Identify those who may be sympathetic.
5. Build a network of supporters through the web site
6. Raise money
7. Decide on long-term goals
8. Set up a time line. Don't let this drag on forever.
9. Involve the media. Write press releases, contact news organizations.

[Carol Ames]

When did I ever say, just ignore the:confused: problem? NEVER, What I did say is that I fail to see how getting rid of CMP, or DOC will fix the problem;:no:

[BaroquePony]

It is often the easy fences that can really create havok as the rider sometimes eases up ... (I can relax for a moment kind of attitude).

Some kind of vet check for recovery rates on XC might help balance some things out. As well as a optimal time and the rider cannot circle or ride around in order to create an optimal time if they covered too much ground too quickly. If they have a horse that has a ground-eating stride, then they will just need to hack/trot part of the course.

[MintHillFarm]

I'm not sure it even matters if there are more falls today than before. Times have changed, news travels rapidly, and the injuries to horses and riders are not tolerable, regardless of what happened in the past.


Change in Cross Country needs to happen soon. No sport is worth the risk of losing more horses out on course. I cringe and am I sure I'm not alone, everytime I hear of a big 3 Day Event coming up. It seems the odds of fatal accidents seem to have increased... how many more horses will die before there is a radical change? One does not go to a horse show fearing to watch the 4' Working Hunters compete!

[JER]

Isn`t it time to have a major letter writing campaign to the USEF, saying, in effect, "enough is enough."

Because Snoopy is correct, they hear but they don`t heed.

How can this be orchestrated? Should it be?

To this end...

The Eventing Technical Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx) and their contact info.

The High Performance Eventing Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx) and contact info.

The Safety Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx).

The Veterinary Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx).

All this makes me wonder how all these committees (many are cross-pollinated) deal with the deaths of horses in eventing or if they deal with it at all.

snoopy's points about the UK are very valid. British Eventing has had a number of shake-ups in the past few years, the Coral Cove fall out being just one of them. They don't seen to have any sacred cows and anyone might find themselves on the chopping block. These positions shouldn't be positions for life and they shouldn't be for chair-warmers. (The Ted Stevens act is a problem, however.)

The Coral Cove incident was interesting because the root of the problem was a hopelessly misguided rider who, by the time the inquiry happened, had already DR'd her way to an early grave. She'd tricked the team vet into complicity in her bizarre doping plot -- all he was really guilty of was of not filling out a legal D&M form (horse would not have tested positive based on what the vet gave him -- the rider had already doped the horse). But they cleaned house anyway -- this was amid a half dozen high-profile rider deaths -- which was ultimately for the better of the sport.

Anyway, I'm willing to write letters to anyone and everyone. But I don't think it will make any difference to the people involved. There appears to be either arrogance or ignorance at work here, maybe a good dose of both, that precludes any real collaboration with outside experts or even with experts from inside the membership.

Now I expect someone from one of these committees to post here something to the effect of 'How dare you say that! You have no idea how hard we work! You have no idea what we're doing!"

And you know what, they'd be right. That's a big part of the problem -- communication. How about publishing meeting minutes? How about updating the membership with what's going on? How about admitting that you don't have a clue what's really happening to these horses and putting out a call for outside assistance? How about justifying why there are no mandatory inquiries or necropsies or even proper data collection?

[SevenDogs]

When did I ever say, just ignore the:confused: problem? NEVER, What I did say is that I fail to see how getting rid of CMP, or DOC will fix the problem;:no:

No one step will fix the problem. However, IMO, Mark Phillips has been a large part of a philosophical change that has created at least part of the mess we are in (a large part, in my opinion) and he has shown absolutely no leadership or even interest in changing things. He needs to go as a FIRST step towards change and fixing the problem.

[gjump]

Could we initiate a petition to oust CMP??? Would it hold any weight if we got 500, 1000, 5000 signatures?

Carol Kozlowski got rid of the weight requirements. Change can happen. I'm willing to walk around the Area 1 events with a petition. Are you?


I'm game... I'll get signatures in Area I as well.

[Carol Ames]

Have you ever seen GP riders out cantering around a field, dealing, or not with uneven terrain:eek:? It is not pretty to watch :no:; what is a minor "hiccup :winkgrin:to an eventer or foxhunter is " too dangerous:eek: "to a jumper rider and reason not to do our sport.helping a couple of GP jumper trainer friends of mine at a horse show yesterday. I went to spend some time in the schooling area and educate myself on the nuances of stadium jumpers (even though that is where I started in the sport). Over the years, that has evolved as well.

What I noticed and discussed was that as the levels get higher and the riding get more exact, the riders HAVE to change hats for each phase. The HARD part is that sometimes those hats get blurred.

My thought is that could having to be so accurate and precise in the stadium be affecting riders in their form on XC and vice versa. The equitation for each phase is NOT the same but one can not help but use a single basic form in both, especially when tired or having to react very fast.

Reed __________________

[BabyGreen]

Petitions are a waste of time. Action is what's needed.

[Carol Ames]

large part of a philosophical change :confused:hillips has been a large part of a philosophical change that has created at least part of the mess we are in (a large part, in my opinion) and he has shown absolutely no leadership or even interest in changing things. He nee

[Carol Ames]

large part of a philosophical change :confused:

[SevenDogs]

What do CMP andDOC have to do with horse fatalities?

As discussed here and in other threads, Mark Phillips is RESPONSIBLE for the design and safety of all upper level fences in North America. Have courses become safer under his watch? Has the entire over-technical issue been created under his watch (granted, it is somewhat of an international issue but hasn't he been on the forefront of it in the US? -- look as the course he designed and count the accidents)?

Has he (through his own published words) told riders that unless they have a string of upper level horses going AND sponsors, they will NOT be considered for international competition thereby motivating upper level riders and owners to move horses up rapidly? Doesn't he (by his own program) tend to run horses off their feet to see who's standing prior to naming an international team (look at how late the US team was selected for the Olympics -- didn't seem to produce great results). In fact, the riders with the multiple horses didn't fare nearly as well as the one who had ONE horse that she had brought along for years with very little imput from Mr. Phillips. Anyone remember the PanAm Games when Mr. Phillips had same horse and rider warm-up too long for dressage and potentially caused the loss of an individual gold medal? Even Mr. Phillips (who will never admit a mistake) came as close as he is ever going to come to admitting that mistake... of course, he backhandedly (is that a word?) blamed the horse and rider.

In the past couple of years, a SIGNIFICANT number of serious horse and rider injuries and deaths have come from the elite ranks (those on the "Winter Training List", etc) that are under Mr. Phillips direct training. What does that say? Seriously, if you go back to the 2008 Olympic process, there were so many rider/horses on the "Winter Training List" that were seriously or fatally injured, that they had to keep replenishing the list.

Even if you ignore everything else (and that is impossible for me to do), he is in one of the positions of leadership(if not the most responsible for the technical state of US Eventing). We are in a crisis. Has he made any significant changes or even shown any type of leadership in fixing the problem? ... or has he whined when he was replaced as the Course Designer for Red Hills and puffed out his chest?

I could go on but....

We have a serious problem that needs real leadership. Getting real leadership is only a start, but without it, we won't get even close to fixing the problem.

[poltroon]

One possible reason that the USEF won`t enact more stringent investigative techniques is because most of our Olympic riders have had horses die in competition.

If those riders got set down, it could mess up team selection.


I think perhaps more to the point (and more charitably), it means that they know it can happen to anyone, and are therefore not particularly willing to make the next incident the big scapegoat.

I think also, that when you've been doing this sport and only this sport personally and professionally for your whole career, it's hard sometimes to appreciate how it is seen from the outside, or to realize that there are resources and strategies for solving problems like this outside of professional horsemen. We are fortunate in eventing to have more than our share of scientists and researchers and engineers and smart problem solvers.

But the point is, as long as a horse or rider death can happen to anyone, and does happen to anyone many times a year, and specifically on cross country, not in warmup, not in stadium/dressage/stabling, we have a problem specific to our sport. It has to change. We've had over a decade worth of wake-up calls.

[SevenDogs]

large part of a philosophical change :confused:hillips has been a large part of a philosophical change that has created at least part of the mess we are in (a large part, in my opinion) and he has shown absolutely no leadership or even interest in changing things. He nee

The way in which a horse headed for international competition is trained and competed. I wish I had kept my old USEA magazines when he came on board and stated all of the things he "thought" we were doing wrong. We weren't competing enough, needed to be pushing harder, etc., etc., etc., I remember vividly reading his articles and thinking this is a man with a "last horse standing" approach to picking international teams. Unfortunately in 2008, that came very true.

I strongly believe this aggresive philosophy, coupled with the short format, and the significant increase in availability of upper level events in the US (which is not a bad thing unto itself, but has factored in) is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

Carol, you may disagree with me and that is absolutely fine. Seriously, I wish someone would tell me exactly what Mr. Phillips has done correctly, because I'm not hearing anything positive and at least we would have something to discuss.

I am going to leave it at that for now. Anyone else?

[Carol Ames]

the combinations needing to be jumped at SJ speed were supposed to slow:yes: horses down; and yet, that was cited as a reason for riders going too fast:winkgrin: to make up for lost time:no:

[SevenDogs]

[QUOTE=JER;4085434]To this end...

The Eventing Technical Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx) and their contact info.

The High Performance Eventing Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx) and contact info.

The Safety Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx).

The Veterinary Committee (http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs/Committee/CommitteeDisplay.aspx).



There are quite a few great people on these committees that are trying to make a difference and that we need going forward.

[Jealoushe]

Are horses really as fit as they used to be? Are riders??

Are the tired, broken down horses making it through where they might not have in the past?

[JER]

To add to what SevenDogs is saying about the esteemed Capt. Phillips:

Last summer in Beijing at the Olympics, Phillip Dutton was disqualified in SJ for having 'over-weight' hind boots on his horse. The 'official excuse' for this was that PD didn't know the rule nor did the US Team Chef d'Equipe, Capt. Mark Phillips.

A failure to know the rules results in Olympic disqualification.

That is a massive failure for the coach. Yet another reason to wonder why he was rewarded in October with a new four-year, $1million contract.

[SevenDogs]

To add to what SevenDogs is saying about the esteemed Capt. Phillips:

Last summer in Beijing at the Olympics, Phillip Dutton was disqualified in SJ for having 'over-weight' hind boots on his horse. The 'official excuse' for this was that PD didn't know the rule nor did the US Team Chef d'Equipe, Capt. Mark Phillips.

A failure to know the rules results in Olympic disqualification.

That is a massive failure for the coach. Yet another reason to wonder why he was rewarded in October with a new four-year, $1million contract.

JER: Have you seen a copy of that contract? Is it available to the membership?

[JER]

There are quite a few great people on these committees that are trying to make a difference and that we need going forward.

I don't doubt that. But people should know what these committees are and who is on them -- and they should direct their letters to the most relevant groups.

It also would be helpful to know who the good ones are. There's no reason to shroud any of this in secrecy. The committees and their contact info is published information. There shouldn't be any kind of curtain between the membership and the committee members.

[RAyers]

Have you ever seen GP riders out cantering around a field, dealing, or not with uneven terrain:eek:? It is not pretty to watch :no:; what is a minor "hiccup :winkgrin:to an eventer or foxhunter is " too dangerous:eek: "to a jumper rider and reason not to do our sport.

Actually, the trainers I grew up with and those who I still help, all did the hunt (some still do), galloped across the fields and jumped off cliffs into rivers with their horses. It was the way we learned how to be horsemen and women. As a matter of fact, one friend plays polo at a relatively high level (I am not sure of their goal rating though). It is now they do the hunters and jumpers as their vocation at a very high level so they have a feel for the art that should be expected of an Advanced or Intermediate eventer.

My point there is that given the challenges of upper level eventing and the expectation that a rider must be as good at dressage as any dressage rider and jumpers as any jumper rider, something has to give and generally it is XC.

I will use a quote by KOC, "This sport will find your weakest point and kill you for it."

Reed

[Carol Ames]

last horse standing" approach to picking international teams. Unfortunately in 2008, that came very true. The demolition derby aspect of selection trials has been with us for years since 1974:no:, yet produced medal winning teams :yes:, what was the difference? and, is that the criteria, medal winning:confused:?
?

[snoopy]

last horse standing" approach to picking international teams. Unfortunately in 2008, that came very true. The demolition derby aspect of selection trials has been with us for years since 1974:no:, yet produced meal winning teams :yes:, what was the difference? and, is that the criteria, medal winning:confused:?
?


Actually no. Most international teams are picked well before the North American teams so that the horses can be monitored, rested, trained, etc to peak fitness and performance level for a championship that summer. The USA horses...what are left...are usually half cooked when they get on the plane.

[AKDragooPhoto]

This is the fence where Phillip fell. It is a single oxer with a long approach and gallop afterward.
http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/akdragoo/image?&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJxtkE9vwjAMxT8NPVerWrZKOYTYAwNNtvyB9WQhNEEPQ wjYkPbpl1TbQGw.JO_97CdHsZNlNVw.rycv3YPTzfmzKKZmM_v YzWRd3Q_rMq9rYnBKvK0Op26XETuQHgflqGkGJYgrAJAAwBVqY yWY7ojxNop_o_h_VJFv.2U.tpNQJmhvWyZnkjWWUMceGZ0sObY 4R.kQvu3TxbMaMUUgTj8y_Er7eJFNlHGjsV6kR2X9R7DU0PPg0 DKBCHms6thNQ.Het3fnbJFoNu5PlsqL4.vqsN7GyIKsD3LOcox atf3Afr8RZf4F9QlwlA--&GI_ID=

[LLDM]

I disagree that the establishment of the USCTA is the answer.

The problems are at the top level governance, the USEF and FEI. The USEA/USCTA is subordinate and has only partial control at the level where problems/difficulties are. I would push to separate the USEA from the USEF/FEI with focus on the long-format series.

Reed

The problem with that is several fold. Kevin B. has made it crystal clear that is not an option. We are not a voting org. like the USDF, so no way to force change there. And, as has been stated elsewhere, The USEF is the one with the rule making powers (again, a non-voting org.) Any ideas on how to force change from within, I'm all ears. Unfortunately I think the only real power we have is to go away - and I don't like that option either.

There is a real disconnect between the ULR's and the rest of the levels. This has been stated before but nothing has changed.

Sure it has - they think we're dumber than they thought we were before! :lol:

Obviously NO ONE remembers the le Goff years:no:

And Le Goff was pretty much over thrown. And yes, I remember that there were a lot of fatalities back then too. And it hurt the sport immensely, although many at the top did not realize it. Some of the best horseman I came up with left eventing rather than kill or maim their horses. They never came back. Eventing would be a whole lot more popular if they had done a better job back then. On the other hand, eventing would be gone by now if they had done nothing. *Some* very good things came out of some of those dark times.

Removing DOC and CMP would not solve the problem. But it might get the attention of those who can. As my DH says, heads on pikes at the gates get most people's attention.

Retread - While I understand what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. No ULR's, wealthy patrons and owners, nor sponsoring corporations are worth the current carnage. Our sport's reputation is going down the drain fast. Public perception is bad - and other horseman are starting to think we are cruel. Cruel to our horses. Which is difficult to combat since they are dying on course at every. major. event.

So what about that means that the lower level riders interests are more important than the ULRs, et.al.? What the problem is, IMHO, is that we are hearing and seeing and agreeing with the rest of them - eventing is somehow going off the rails - and we don't know why. And it needs to stop doing that. But we don't know how to stop it. Because we don't know why.

If it goes completely off the rails - meaning the treand continues and something/somebody steps in and shuts us down, all the ULRs and all the medals and all the sponsors are down the drain anyway.

We just disagree about the timeframe we have.

SCFarm

[LLDM]

Actually no. Most international teams are picked well before the North American teams so that the horses can be monitored, rested, trained, etc to peak fitness and performance level for a championship that summer. The USA horses...what are left...are usually half cooked when they get on the plane.

Well said, my son. :(

SCFarm

[SevenDogs]

last horse standing" approach to picking international teams. Unfortunately in 2008, that came very true. The demolition derby aspect of selection trials has been with us for years since 1974:no:, yet produced medal winning teams :yes:, what was the difference? and, is that the criteria, medal winning:confused:?
?

My first priority is the horses, so for me, medals at any cost is not acceptable (and as you pointed out Carol, it has not been successful under Mr. Phillips). I was not around for the LeGoff "golden years" (well I was, but as an adult beginner, I was more concerned with the posting trot at the tlme). Question for the history folks. Who immediately preceded Mr. Phillips? In my opinion, there was a significant shift to a more "last horse standing" approach at that juncture. Maybe it was more of a "return" to the approach? That I don't know.

By the way, I refuse to call the man "Captain" of anything. Perhaps I am being spiteful...

[rabicon]

*flamesuiton*

Looking at photos from the fresh it just blows my mind the amount of scary riding there. If you look there are many riders that drive in to deep or leave to long, hang on to mouths and pound on backs to say the least. I am all for eventing but it does scare me and thats why I will never ride upper levels. :no: Its really sad that I'm a smurf and my form is better o/f than alot of the advanced riding people. Form is function and maybe alot of riders should go back to that and get grilled for a while to spot the distance again and to keep out of the horses mouth, not to jump ahead and not to land to soon. Maybe its not so much the sport as it is the riders moving up to fast and/or moving horses up to fast. No one seems to take the time anymore to better themselves or their horses because they are to concerned about getting to the top as fast as possible. We don't have patience anymore to take the time needed to be ready for such levels of this sport. Just because a horse can jump prelim clean for 6 months doesn't mean its ready to move up. The same goes for the rider. This is just MHO and I maybe flamed for it but look at the photos and tell me what you think.

http://www.dotphoto.com/GuestViewImage.asp?AID=5838072&IID=216888244&INUM=1&ICT=173&IPP=72

[denny]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

[SevenDogs]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

Baileywick?

[JER]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

I don't understand (aside from the obvious about CMP).

Which horse are you referring to? Did this happen at JF or is it in reference to a separate incident?

[snoopy]

My first priority is the horses, so for me, medals at any cost is not acceptable (and as you pointed out Carol, it has not been successful under Mr. Phillips). I was not around for the LeGoff "golden years" (well I was, but as an adult beginner, I was more concerned with the posting trot at the tlme). Question for the history folks. Who immediately preceded Mr. Phillips? In my opinion, there was a significant shift to a more "last horse standing" approach at that juncture. Maybe it was more of a "return" to the approach? That I don't know.

By the way, I refuse to call the man "Captain" of anything. Perhaps I am being spiteful...



Lars was brought in for the 92 olympics and they was not well received. Mike made himself the unofficial leader of that team. I do not have to go into detail at what a disaster that effort was in Barcelona. I do not know much of the programme between Jack and Lars.

[SevenDogs]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

Mark Phillips has never given a rats ass about any horse. He sees them as expendable tools and always has.

[JER]

Mark Phillips has never given a rats ass about any horse. He sees them as expendable tools and always has.

I see Mark Phillips as an expendable tool.

[tx3dayeventer]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

AGGH What an ASS!!!! He said something similar to me when I found out that my mare was not going to make the Pan Ams/Fair Hill due to a bone chip in her coffin joint. I swear the man thinks they are disposable!

[SevenDogs]

I see Mark Phillips as an expendable tool.

BEST post of the day!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[denny]

Yes, Bailey Wick.

[SevenDogs]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

Is this who we want as the face of US Eventing? Is this prevailing attitude going to help our sport or put another nail in the potential coffin. I am personally ashamed of my sport at this juncture, as are many, many others.

How in the world can I defend my sport with this man at the helm?

[tangledweb]

Consider that in a horse oriented country such as Australia that this could happen

Australia is not a horse oriented country. The horse industry apart from flat racing is economically very small and has no political clout or voice.

Given your interest in eventing safety, a specific part of the current debate in Australia may interest you. The two states in Australia that still permit jumps racing have debated banning it before. The compromise last time was to make it safer by making smaller softer jumps. Anecdotally, many people feel that this has had the opposite effect. Smaller, softer jumps increase race speeds and reward trainers or horses that jump flat and scrape through the jump, rather than balancing and taking more of a jump.

Obviously there is too little data for anybody to prove that safety has been helped or harmed, but it may be in interesting case of a well meaning safety initiative with an unintended consequence.

The 2008 review report is long, but may interest you:
http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/asset/cms/Jumps/jumps%20review%20report_nov%202008.pdf

[SevenDogs]

Yes, Bailey Wick.

Would it be correct to assume he broke the pelvis upon impact on the jump?

[LLDM]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

How could they tell without a necropsy? I mean the broken pelvis might be obvious, but a severed artery is not. Oh. Unless it was a compound fracture. Dear God.

Even so, there is no way to tell if there was anything else going on which may have contributed.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

Nice. Classy. I am so impressed. Not.

:sigh:

SCFarm

[AKDragooPhoto]

His pelvis didn't contact the jump. His chest and forelegs did.

[snoopy]

His pelvis didn't contact the jump. His chest and forelegs did.

Have you seen a rotation and how the horse lands? All of the weight comes down on the hind end.

[RAyers]

I swear the man continues to push the boundaries of idiocy to the point we need the Hubble Telescope to find where he stands.

I wish Mr. Phillips would spend some time in my lab and at my job, maybe he might get a better appreciation of what "expendable" is. He treats this idea that "we can all die on XC." with such a cavalier attitude and with such bravado that it is a punch line to his personality. Come spend some time in a place where you know that if you mess up it isn't just your life or even the guy next to you but it could be an entire lab or building. Or maybe he needs to spend the day running a REAL company and taking on the responsibilities of the lives of hundreds of people. Responsibility, leadership, and consideration take on whole new concepts.

But, canning MP is NOT the only answer. WE still have a huge image problem within the horse world and potentially in the general public.

Reed

[RAyers]

His pelvis didn't contact the jump. His chest and forelegs did.

It is pretty easy to snap a spine or the pelvic joints by stopping a horse in the front end. At the same time the pelvis could have shattered upon impact after rotation.

None of that matters because once a pelvis is broken (such as a closed or open book fracture) it is VERY easy to bleed to death as that is the place in a mature body where most blood cells are created so it is highly vascularized.

Reed

[denny]

Reed, check your personal emails; I just forwarded you her email.

[SevenDogs]

But, canning MP is NOT the only answer. WE still have a huge image problem within the horse world and potentially in the general public.

Reed

It's only a start, but a damn good one and completely required in order to START fixing the bigger issues. He is an absolute impediment to the needed change and a huge liability both from an actual and a image/PR standpoint.

I asked before but am going to do so again, just in case anyone knows. Who (what committee, etc) was in charge of recommending renewing Mr. Phillips contract with the USEF?

[Lostboy]

I evented some as a kid, low level..so I am not expert but...I see alot of up an coming eventers. What I see most and hear from these riders is.. "My horse is a God on the cc" meaning he gallops and blows through the obstacles.. fine and dandy.. however I see these people trying to school the staduims and their horses are difficult to control, hang, don't roll their shoulders, power/speed over, so not so much jumping off their hind ends.. and occasionally dangerous. As they move into the higher levels they are going to splat at some point because the focus has been on just getting around instead of considering form and function.
I watch the high end competitions and feel that perhaps making the staduim portion more difficult would be better.. the CC portion needs to stay challenging but why not make the staduim section significantly difficult ? I don't me just height.. using tricky distances,making it more of a challenge to the rider.

also makes it more spectator friendly. and yay, the jumps fall down when your not careful so spectators can understand the scoring.



oh and phillips needs to move along.. actually most of the powers that be should be replaced.. get some fresh eyes and minds in there and become more pro active about protecting horse and riders and and saving the future of this sport. Heck even some active PR about what is going "right" in horse sports would be good

[rabicon]

*flamesuiton*

Looking at photos from the fresh it just blows my mind the amount of scary riding there. If you look there are many riders that drive in to deep or leave to long, hang on to mouths and pound on backs to say the least. I am all for eventing but it does scare me and thats why I will never ride upper levels. :no: Its really sad that I'm a smurf and my form is better o/f than alot of the advanced riding people. Form is function and maybe alot of riders should go back to that and get grilled for a while to spot the distance again and to keep out of the horses mouth, not to jump ahead and not to land to soon. Maybe its not so much the sport as it is the riders moving up to fast and/or moving horses up to fast. No one seems to take the time anymore to better themselves or their horses because they are to concerned about getting to the top as fast as possible. We don't have patience anymore to take the time needed to be ready for such levels of this sport. Just because a horse can jump prelim clean for 6 months doesn't mean its ready to move up. The same goes for the rider. This is just MHO and I maybe flamed for it but look at the photos and tell me what you think.

http://www.dotphoto.com/GuestViewImage.asp?AID=5838072&IID=216888244&INUM=1&ICT=173&IPP=72


As I said above form has function.

[AKDragooPhoto]

As I was photographing the fence, I know what happened. So yes, I have seen a rotational fall. On more than one occasion. Seeing it, and documenting the stages of it are vastly different things.

And I stand by my exact words. The PELVIS did not make contact with the fence. I am not debating weather it was broken or how it was broken if so, just the fact that it didn't make contact with the jump. I was replying to SevenDogs'
"Would it be correct to assume he broke the pelvis upon impact on the jump?"

[JAM]

Very good double entendre.

I see Mark Phillips as an expendable tool.

[EventerAJ]

I've sort of resisted posting on this thread, because I don't have any answers, only more questions. I don't know what to do. I believe the recent rash of new rules has made problems worse. Creating new rules/qualifications doesn't seem to be the right solution. I don't know where we should go, but I am scared for this sport. Not scared that I will die, or my horse will die, but fearful that Eventing will cease to exist. You could make the case that this sport has been dying for some time, with the loss of the long format. I would agree. I don't think there is a miracle cure, but perhaps some long hard research and "therapy" could right the ship. I have no idea where to begin.


I went xc schooling yesterday; the first time my advanced mare has been out since last fall. It was so much fun-- I realized how much I had missed it, taking this winter/spring off. I love my horse, and I would NEVER EVER willingly put her in a situation to get hurt. I accept that there are risks to jumping solid obstacles. I have schooled my horse properly, brought her up the levels, and I trust her athletic ability. I cannot prevent all mistakes, but I can lessen them with education and training (hers and mine), and with sensible judgment.

I do think XC has gone in a dangerous direction, though I don't know how to fix it. Something about COMPETITION xc is not right. XC jumps themselves aren't killing horses... or else far many more would be affected when schooling xc. It is something about the flow of a course, the complicated questions asked, or the heat-of-the-moment decision-making, something NOT simulated in a xc school. I'm not saying xc schooling is 100% safe; I do not know of any equine deaths, but I'm sure it has happened. Is there any research on this? Even anecdotal? Just throwing more questions out there.

Also, while dumbing-down xc at the upper levels may make it safer, I somewhat wonder if it could create its own set of problems. You could argue that making dressage/SJ more important in recent years has contributed to the sport's demise. How will placing even MORE emphasis on these two phases affect the performance on xc? Would catering to the lowest common denominator merely create increasingly lower standards? A continuing downward spiral. Will we just perpetuate the possibility of having upper-level dressage/sj specialists "just making it around" the xc?

Again, I don't know. I am a competitor at the upper levels. I feel that I am as safe as I can be; maybe I will not ride for the team someday because I won't do "what it takes to win," but I will do what is right for my horse. I do not believe competing my mare at intermediate/advanced is "cruel" or signing her death warrant. I know we all think "that could never happen to me," but if we only thought about ways to die, what's the use in living?

[SEPowell]

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

Flat racing studies coming out of California identified pelvic fractures in many horses who had never jumped (sorry I can't remember the numbers). So, might it be reasonable to look into the possibility that his pelvis fractured, severing the artery before he came to that jump, resulting in his chesting the fence and flipping, putting the cause of death on the fractured pelvis/severed artery and not the jump/course design?

If so, it puts a whole new spin on this horse's death as it relates to the apparent need to revamp cross country course design.

[RAyers]

I've sort of resisted posting on this thread, because I don't have any answers, only more questions. I don't know what to do.



That is why I started the thread. I don't have answers either but the ideas and thoughts presented can guide a way.

Reed

[poltroon]

Flat racing studies coming out of California identified pelvic fractures in many horses who had never jumped (sorry I can't remember the numbers). So, might it be reasonable to look into the possibility that his pelvis fractured, severing the artery before he came to that jump, resulting in his chesting the fence and flipping, putting the cause of death on the fractured pelvis/severed artery and not the jump/course design?

If so, it puts a whole new spin on this horse's death as it relates to the apparent need to revamp cross country course design.

They found pelvic fractures that they attributed only to galloping? I would think all would be related either to the starting gate or to being bumped in a race. Or possibly being cast in a stall.

(BTW, I've known two horses with broken pelvises who had long, glorious careers afterwards into their 20s.)

[redlight]

So if twenty percent of the eventing committees at the USEF are made up of active athletes one would think they would have some influence on where the sport is going. What do the riders competing at the three and four star level think of the situation in their corner of the world?

The collective voice of the CoTH is quite strong. Look what the group did when Jersey Fresh needed cash to run the event. The CoTH group got the money together and sponsored one of the water complexes. If the PTB want to know what the pulse of eventing is perhaps they should be on the forums. It would be a good thing for them to do before the humane rights people start lurking.

[JER]

The FEI has both a mission statement (http://www.fei.org/FEI/FEI_Organisation/Profile/Pages/Mission.aspx) and a Code of Conduct (http://www.fei.org/FEI/FEI_Organisation/Profile/Pages/Code_of_Conduct.aspx) that explicitly state that horse welfare is of the utmost importance.

From the Code of Conduct:
THE FEI CODE OF CONDUCT for the Welfare of the Horse

1. The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) requires all those involved in international equestrian sport to adhere to the FEI's Code of Conduct and to acknowledge and accept that at all times the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.

2. At all stages during the preparation and training of competition horses, welfare must take precedence over all other demands. This includes good horse management, training methods, farriery and tack, and transportation.


CMP's comments in the barn, as well as David O'Connor's statements to the press ('bicycle wrecks and motorcycle wrecks'), would indicate they're both falling short of what is 'required' of those involved in international equestrian sport.

The USEF/USEA needs better PR or better figureheads or both.

[Mudroom]

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

If this was any "real" organization in the US he would probably be canned and his contract voided for sexual harassment - not for a sexual act but for creating a "hostile environment". Maybe that is the way to get him out of there. Make the USEF realize what a liability and "hot potato" he is in his leadership role, regardless of performance issues.

[snoopy]

If the PTB want to know what the pulse of eventing is perhaps they should be on the forums.



Plenty of them read these forums.

[retreadeventer]

Apparently you have never read the USEF bylaws. .....

Actually I have.
That's a rude thing to say.
Again - what I said before - if you do not know how to politic then learn how to light a candle and make a difference, don't curse the darkness.

Do you serve on a committee by the way? Or have you ever? What has been YOUR contribution to our sport, other than COTH opinions? People like Denny don't have to state the obvious, they've walked the walk and served the sport more than their share.





Just sitting here saying crap about the coach, establishment, etc. WILL. NOT. CHANGE. ANYTHING.




Get it together, start a campaign, get up in arms but do it in an organized fashion with goals, politely and persistently. We can change it. We have to. If we don't who will and what sport is left?

[ExcelEventing]

It sums up my thoughts on the matter, as well as fullfills my need to vent to the Powers that Be.
I suggest that EVERYONE on these boards writes to the USEA and suggests SOLUTIONS to the problems. That is the only way to fix our sport.
(sorry, I know its long)


I would like to suggest that some MAJOR changes are made in our sport SOON!!



It is so sad that virtually every major US event in the past 2 years has had a horse death. I do not assume to know all the facts, but I do not remember this happening in years past at such an alarming rate. Of course, eventing has always been high risk, and numerous horses have died through the years, but it seems to be much more frequent with the loss of the short format and the increase in technical combinations, and 'pretty' jumps.



It is a very sad day when seasoned horses with veteran riders die. No one can say that the rider was not prepared, nor the horse. I understand that Phillip is doing the 'politically correct' thing and taking responsibility for the horse's fall. I'm sorry, but I dont think that Phillips mistake was big enough to warrant the horses fall/death. I dont want to be in a sport where one of the BEST riders can't even make a mistake without causing his horse to fall. If he makes a 'mistake' like that, what chance do the rest of us have to go through our riding careers without making them too?? We are all human and mistakes will be made. The focus now needs to be on how to make rider mistakes SURVIVABLE.


I want the USEA to look at course desing/building and see what can be improved there in order to make the jumps safer. The frangible pins are a great start, but I am sure that more can be done. The jumps today are beautiful to look at but very dangerous to make a mistake at! Maybe aesthetics should be put aside in lieu of safer jumps. I understand money is tight, but if this sport is not safer, the future of it may be a moot point.



I also want the USEA and USEF to stop making STUPID rules that retroactively punish riders for their mistakes (i.e. the Loss of Estabishment Rule, the One Fall and your Eliminated Rule), and start being PRO-ACTIVE about stopping scary/dangerous riders BEFORE they can hurt themselves and their horses. Its not all about XC penalites, its about HOW the course is ridden. We all know that a rider can have a stupid fall, elimination, etc, but be generally safe, just like a rider can have 20 clear rounds but be an accident waiting to happen.

Making rules based on penalties alone is not going to stop the dangerous riders or help the horses that are overfaced but have hearts of gold. Lets look at the QUALITY of the rounds and the horsemanship and make decisions based on that instead of the scoreboard.

YOU CANNOT REGULATE COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!! People have to start taking responsiblity for their actions.



The DR penaly is not used NEARLY enough at shows. Lets get the word out there that these penalites can and will be used when the TD/POGJ sees fit.

How is the watch list going? I know that this is not a public watch list (which I agree with) but is it being used? I sure hope so.



I sit on the Board Of Goverors, and I am so frusturated in most of our meetings that we talk and talk but there are never any CHANGES made. Its always pushed off to another time and date.

What do I need to do as a BOG to propose rule changes? I would be more than happy to do it at the August meeting.

I presented a video at the New Orleans meeting of a DR penalty that was given in our area to show the discrepancy between how it is given out. I did this to try and establish some guidelines to be used when handing out the penalty. No one (competitors, or officials) seems to be able to tell me WHAT dangerous riding is!! The presentation became a HUGE debate on whether or not THAT particular round was dangerous riding (which was not my intention). There was never any answer to my question (what is DR?), nor was there any kind of follow up on my request to have the DR penalty explained to competitors or officials. How can it be used if no one has a clue how to DEFINE it!

I love this sport and want it to be around forever! At this rate, I do not see it happening. Tell me what I need to do as a rider/competitor/trainer/BOG/HORSE LOVER to make a change. I will do it!!!!!

Kristy Limon

[RAyers]

Thank you for the link!

In my perspective, while horse may not be economically large in Australia, the fact that this ban was announced/debated on the Australian National Student Broadcasting network, Triple J (part of the ABC), implies it is a part of the CULTURE, much like rodeo is in the US. You don't have to ride to love the sport. The ABC always has racing and horse show results, even where they discussed who was riding in the Olympics.

I feel that we are confronted with the possibility of a similar situation should anybody so choose to pursue it. Note that rodeos are under fire and only the sheer size and integration in the local cultures keeps them alive. We do not have such luxury.




Australia is not a horse oriented country. The horse industry apart from flat racing is economically very small and has no political clout or voice.

Given your interest in eventing safety, a specific part of the current debate in Australia may interest you. The two states in Australia that still permit jumps racing have debated banning it before. The compromise last time was to make it safer by making smaller softer jumps. Anecdotally, many people feel that this has had the opposite effect. Smaller, softer jumps increase race speeds and reward trainers or horses that jump flat and scrape through the jump, rather than balancing and taking more of a jump.

Obviously there is too little data for anybody to prove that safety has been helped or harmed, but it may be in interesting case of a well meaning safety initiative with an unintended consequence.

The 2008 review report is long, but may interest you:
http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/asset/cms/Jumps/jumps%20review%20report_nov%202008.pdf

[RAyers]

....Kristy Limon

Kristy, Thank you for chiming in here. That takes a lot of guts and I (and I am sure others) appreciate it! Sadly, I am in the rider and research department, not management. ;)

Reed

[ExcelEventing]

Kristy, Thank you for chiming in here. That takes a lot of guts and I (and I am sure others) appreciate it! Sadly, I am in the rider and research department, not management. ;)

Reed

Ha Ha. I dont know about "guts".
My husband says I lack the part of my brain that makes me think before I speak.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by rabicon:

As I said above form has function.

Actually, the phrase you're referring to is "form follows function" - an architectual phrase ...

Sounds backwards, but what they mean is you start with a need, or the need of a specific "function", and then develop your "form" to met the needs of said function.

Yes, the same holds true for going over fences with "good form" ... you will have the best function.

Gravity and physics ... can't avoid them.

[tangledweb]

... implies it is a part of the CULTURE, much like rodeo is in the US. ...

With the exception of racing, horse sports are not in the public eye in Australia. Other horse sports make the news every four years for the Olympics if the team stands a medal chance.

I think the jump softening is an interesting case study though. The well intentioned response to deaths last season was to reduce the hard part of the hurdle from 60cm to 50cm (about 2' to about 1'8") and I presume increase the height of the brush part to keep the same overall height. It may have had the opposite end effect to what was intended.

I think eventing already has the same problem and it might get worse. If you make jumps smaller and courses less technical speeds will increase and riders with less skill will have more clear rounds and be encouraged to move up.

[BaroquePony]

Originally Posted by denny:

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

This guy is a total _ss_ole. He sounds like something out of an old bad John Wayne movie.

[Duramax]

Regardless of ability, cause or how much we work at things, public perception has the greater power to have our sport terminated in this country.

Reed, you just read my mind! That was my first thought when I read that PD continued on with other rides at JF. What sort of message does that send to the outside observer? I think we need to put things in perspective too. Eventing is a sport. It provides recreation. In the grand scheme of things it is pretty darn low in importance. Its not like we're out there solving world hunger. I was scribing for a dressage judge at a horse trial in Area III and I thought he summed it up great. He said, "think about it this way, at least you have the opportunity to own a horse- if you were a starving person in Ethiopia, you'd probably eat it." :winkgrin: I thought it was a great way to put things in perspective. Our current state of things seems to be projecting a message to the outside world of horses' deaths being so common that we can continue on with business as usual. I think we also need to remember England's foxhunting ban- public opinion can effect us drastically. We need to find a way to fix things before they get "fixed" for us.

[SEPowell]

They found pelvic fractures that they attributed only to galloping? I would think all would be related either to the starting gate or to being bumped in a race. Or possibly being cast in a stall.

(BTW, I've known two horses with broken pelvises who had long, glorious careers afterwards into their 20s.)

The initial study was part of the California TB Necopsy Study where they identified many different types of fractures that were not associated with specific traumas; whether or not specific traumas occurred is unknown.

Haussler KK, Stover SM.
Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis 95616, USA.

Thirty-six Thoroughbred racehorses that died at California racetracks between October 1993 and July 1994 were evaluated for stress fractures in the caudal portion of the thoracic and lumbosacral regions of the spine and the pelvis. The lumbosacral spine and pelvis were collected, debrided of soft tissues and examined visually for the presence of an incomplete fracture line and focal periosteal proliferation, characteristic of a stress fracture. Sixty-one per cent of specimens had evidence of stress fracture in the caudal portion of the thoracic and lumbosacral regions of the spine and the pelvis. Vertebral lamina stress fractures were found in 50% of specimens and were positively associated with the severity of dorsal spinous process impingement and overall severity of articular process degenerative changes. Pelvic stress fractures affected 28 % of specimens and occurred more frequently in older horses. Pelvic stress fractures were positively associated with the severity of lumbar transverse process impingement and several ilial articular surface degenerative changes. A high prevalence of vertebral and pelvic stress fractures was noted in this sample of Thoroughbred racehorses that died because of unrelated injuries. Vertebral and pelvic stress fractures need to be considered in the clinical evaluation of horses with back problems or hindlimb lameness. Undiagnosed stress fractures of the vertebrae or pelvis could be a significant cause of poor performance and lameness in Thoroughbred racehorses.

PMID: 9758093 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Since then many of those injuries have been looked at more closely. Researchers in the UK looked at the conditions associated with what they call pelvic and tibial stress fractures (note they refer to these as stress fractures) and don't in any way suggest they are the results of accidents

A case-control study of factors associated with pelvic and tibial stress fractures in Thoroughbred racehorses in training in the UK.Verheyen KL, Newton JR, Price JS, Wood JL.
Animal Health Trust, Epidemiology Unit, Lanwades Park, Kentford, Newmarket CB8 7UU, UK. kverheyen@rvc.ac.uk

Few epidemiological studies have investigated risk factors for musculoskeletal injury occurring in Thoroughbred racehorses during training, although it is the major cause of wastage in the racing industry. We recently conducted a large-scale epidemiological study to estimate the incidence of fracture in racehorses in training in the UK and to identify associated risk factors. Thirteen racehorse trainers provided data on horses in their care, with daily recording of training information and provision of details on any fractures incurred. Data were collected for 2 years, including two consecutive flat racing seasons (1999 and 2000). This paper describes findings from a nested case-control study investigating factors associated with the occurrence of pelvic and tibial stress fractures in our study population. Cases were identified from the main study and defined as horses with a pelvic or tibial stress fracture, confirmed through routine diagnostic imaging. Randomly selected controls were matched on date of fracture in the case. Age and gender of the horse, its exercise history and training surfaces were examined as explanatory variables. Exercise was quantified as cumulative distances cantered and worked at high speed in 30- and 60-day periods prior to date of fracture in the case. Conditional logistic regression was used to construct multivariable models for the 30- and 60-day periods, respectively. We hypothesised that larger cumulative exercise distances would be associated with an increased risk of pelvic or tibial stress fracture and that different training surfaces would be associated with differences in fracture risk. In the 30-day period, when adjusting for trainer, the risk of pelvic or tibial stress fracture increased with increasing distance cantered, reaching a peak at around 50 km, after which the risk reduced. This trend was not obvious in the 60-day period, with no significant association between exercise distances and risk of stress fracture. Predominant use of one particular sand-based all-weather surface was related to an increased risk of pelvic or tibial stress injury, although this finding should be interpreted with caution. Surface maintenance and construction may play a role; variables that were not considered in the current analyses, which were based on a relatively small number of cases. Trainer was associated with differences in stress fracture risk after adjusting for exercise distances and surface but age and gender were not.

PMID: 16473420 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If you think about the amount of stress put on the pelvic joint with every galloping stride a stress fracture or break becomes entirely possible in Bailey Wick's case. He just seemed too experienced and talented to make the kind of mistake that led to his fall; it's much easier to understand if he had a stress fracture and aeortic bleed.

And even if this is what occurred, it may still be very important to rethink the direction upper level eventing has taken.

[vineyridge]

Without a necropsy, no one will know about Bailey Wick.

Excel Eventing, the very first thing everyone, from smurfs to BOG members to USEF Committee members, should do is DEMAND a formal inquiry as racing and the AERC do, and I believe BE does, after each and every serious accident of horse and rider. Included in that would mandatory necropsy after a horse death.

That's the first and easiest place that major change can come and and with data, support other safety improvements. Maybe I'm callous, but every time I've had an animal necropsied at our local vet school, I've felt that much good came from the death that otherwise would have just been sad.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by vineyridge:

Without a necropsy, no one will know about Bailey Wick.

Excel Eventing, the very first thing everyone, from smurfs to BOG members to USEF Committee members, should do is DEMAND a formal inquiry as racing and the AERC do, and I believe BE does, after each and every serious accident of horse and rider. Included in that would mandatory necropsy after a horse death.

That's the first and easiest place that major change can come and and with data, support other safety improvements. Maybe I'm callous, but every time I've had an animal necropsied at our local vet school, I've felt that much good came from the death that otherwise would have just been sad.

Agree totally.

[SevenDogs]

Question for those with historical perspective/technical knowledge on fence design. I'm not sure I will put this correctly but here goes.

Although Event Horse must be brave, willing, and obedient to his/her rider, I have always been taught that you want a horse that WILL stop, in certain cases. For example, if the rider brings the horse up to a large fence in an unbalanced manner and the horse can't make it, you want them STOP, rather than risk an accident. 20 penalty points is always better than a fall.

So here's the question: Is recent fence design making it more difficult for the horse to make an assessment of whether or not he/she can clear the fence, thereby putting nearly 100% of the responsibility on the rider? Are horses forced to trust the rider too much, in certain cases because they really don't understand exactly what is being asked of them?

Is that a possible theory for additional serious accidents in the sport? I don't know the answer, but given the increased technical nature of XC design, it seems possible.

[Carol Ames]

Doesn't this go back to the question of requiring riders to feel the horses' balance or lack :eek:of it? Didn't we hear a lot about his at the annual meeting:confused:?he staduims and their horses are difficult to control, hang, don't roll their shoulders, power/speed over, so not so much jumping off their hind ends.. and occasionally dangerous. As they move into the higher levels they are going to splat at some point because the focus has been on just getting around instead of considering form and function

[SevenDogs]

Doesn't this go back to the question of requiring riders to feel the horses' balance or lack :eek:of it? Didn't we hear a lot about his at the annual meeting:confused:?he staduims and their horses are difficult to control, hang, don't roll their shoulders, power/speed over, so not so much jumping off their hind ends.. and occasionally dangerous. As they move into the higher levels they are going to splat at some point because the focus has been on just getting around instead of considering form and function

Rider ability is certainly one issue, but I am also asking to explore the issue of whether or not the horse is being denied the opportunity to think on XC because of fence design. Are they less able to evaluate the fences and stop when needed, because the fences "trick" their eye, the full question is not visible until after take-off, design of the face precludes their ability to evaluate it, other issues, etc.

I'm not saying the answer is yes. I do not have the technical knowledge, history or experience to know the answer. I'm asking others if this is possible.

[Carol Ames]

I wish there were a study to evaluate a horses' spine before starting training , as well as after; I say this because it has been my observation that /tb foals not yet weaned exhibit signs of spinal vertebral dysfunction; while still running and playing with their herdmates; It is my opinion that the many tbs who, do not have the strength/ mobility to engage the haunches may well have suffered injuries earlier in life which, predispose them to more catastrophic:eek: injuries later:yes:

[WillowRidgeJ]

Does not matter how much anyone wants to rationalize and excuse the horse deaths in eventing and racing. It is not excusable and should not be condoned and quite frankly it is in both, one excuse after another on and on - year after year. It is about the money and the glory. I don't think most people think the powers-to-be really care about the rider welfare let alone that of the horse- ya let's have another study... So sad, but get real, it is not going to change that is pretty obvious by now!!!

[SEPowell]

Without a necropsy, no one will know about Bailey Wick.

I assumed Denny was referring to Bailey Wick in this post:

I just got an email from someone in the barn at Jersey Fresh. The horse`s pelvis broke, severing an artery.

The woman was deeply distressed, and Captain Mark`s advice to her was "Toughen up, Cupcake."

That quote led me to assume Bailey Wick had a necropsy afterall, but maybe not. Anyone know?

Excel Eventing, the very first thing everyone, from smurfs to BOG members to USEF Committee members, should do is DEMAND a formal inquiry as racing and the AERC do, and I believe BE does, after each and every serious accident of horse and rider. Included in that would mandatory necropsy after a horse death.

That's the first and easiest place that major change can come and and with data, support other safety improvements. Maybe I'm callous, but every time I've had an animal necropsied at our local vet school, I've felt that much good came from the death that otherwise would have just been sad.

I agree. California racing's initial necropsy research led to excellent research in areas important to all horse sports. Exactly how to apply the resulting information is difficult, but the awareness of the information may help shape the sport in subtle positive ways. Anything eventing can contribute to this base of information through their own necropsy studies will most likely impact all horse sports positively.

[Carol Ames]

From the descriptions I thought that the horse had gotten tooo deep, too forward and hit the front of the fence with his front legs/ :eek: chest. Is this not the case?:confused:What did PD say? Is there a video?

[nextyear]

I wish there were a study to evaluate a horses' spine before starting training , as well as after; I say this because it has been my observation that /tb foals not yet weaned exhibit signs of spinal vertebral dysfunction; while still running and playing with their herdmates; It is my opinion that the many tbs who, do not have the strength/ mobility to engage the haunches may well have suffered injuries earlier in life which, predispose them to more catastrophic:eek: injuries later:yes:

Totally agree with starting at the early process. We talk about rider responsibility What about breeding? The Europeans have been known to cull the horses that have traits not good enough to breed on, they geld, put down or sell to the U.S. I do think that they are not doing this type of selection in the breeding program as well as they used to and it will catch up to them also.
In another vein of this thread, Who would replace Mark Phillips??
I am sure many of you know part of the reason he was hired in the first place, I know 2010 is a lot of younger riders but still some of the same ole same ole

[RunForIt]

By and large, this thread has proven to be smart, - analytical thinking has produced bigger and better ideas....sorry, y'all, none of it is ever going to matter. There is only one group of people who can stop the problems with upper lever eventing: the riders, the Big Name Riders. If they will say, "no more till we get some answers. Our horses are NOT going to die anymore from courses...", and stick to it, the real research will begin, and answers will be found. Eventing can carry on, we may not find the US among international competitions, but our horses will be safe, our integrity will be intact, along with our ability to live with ourselves and call ourselves eventers.

No wishing or letters or demands for change in coaches, BOGs (but THANK YOU, KRISTY for having so much faith in your values that you wrote what you were thinking; you are why I am posting now), rules, for explanations whatever, NOTHING will change until the BNRs decide that their horses matter more than money. Eventing at the top is a business, the same as horse racing. At present, horses are a commodity.

I've accepted that my rose colored glasses are gone. Until the big name folks say enough's enough...hold your breath and pray for their horses. I for one am going through hell trying to decide how to participate even at the lower levels without sacrificing my self-respect.

Lynda

[AKDragooPhoto]

Carol - He was not deep on the takeoff. It might be a bit long. The horse never lifted his front legs at all.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by SevenDogs:

Are they less able to evaluate the fences and stop when needed, because the fences "trick" their eye, the full question is not visible until after take-off, design of the face precludes their ability to evaluate it, other issues, etc.

i have thought this was a factor on some of the more modern courses. Some of the jumps I've seen would pose an optical illusion for a human whose has both eyes in front. It has to be different visually for the horse due to the eyes being on the sides of their head ...

Also, I have wondered if horses could be far-sighted or near-sighted and how that might come into play.

[Carol Ames]

Unfortunately, this is nothing new; in fact, if you can find a copy of Klimkes' das "miilitaer( eventing; there is an appendix which lists the major international competitions, worlds, Europeans, Olympics with the number of starters, finishers, and number of fatalities , most due to extreme weather, or serious course design errors; When I finished I was shaken, and said to myself, and you wantto do this with Merry?She had won her first event Sr. training at Waters' Gift; and had all the ability and talent needed but, then, within a matter of weeks Bruce lost 2 horses, JJ and Caesar a paternal half brother to Merry; with much the same jumping style cross country , "Let me at it: You can't build a fence I can't gallop to and fly; I'm sure she was right; but, did not want to assume the risk;':no:s a I watch te Badminton tapes and think, she would have loved it,me, too"me but, the risk of possible catastrophic injury was too great ; I did run her at 4 prelims in Leesburg/ Middleburg all clean and,;) but, not willing to assume the risk:no: , pointed her instead to the jumper ring, which was our focus fo the next 6 yea:yes:rs;

[Gry2Yng]

By and large, this thread has proven to be smart, - analytical thinking has produced bigger and better ideas....sorry, y'all, none of it is ever going to matter. There is only one group of people who can stop the problems with upper lever eventing: the riders, the Big Name Riders. If they will say, "no more till we get some answers. Our horses are NOT going to die anymore from courses...", and stick to it, the real research will begin, and answers will be found. Eventing can carry on, we may not find the US among international competitions, but our horses will be safe, our integrity will be intact, along with our ability to live with ourselves and call ourselves eventers.

No wishing or letters or demands for change in coaches, BOGs (but THANK YOU, KRISTY for having so much faith in your values that you wrote what you were thinking; you are why I am posting now), rules, for explanations whatever, NOTHING will change until the BNRs decide that their horses matter more than money. Eventing at the top is a business, the same as horse racing. At present, horses are a commodity.

I've accepted that my rose colored glasses are gone. Until the big name folks say enough's enough...hold your breath and pray for their horses. I for one am going through hell trying to decide how to participate even at the lower levels without sacrificing my self-respect.

Lynda


I can say without hesitation that Becky Holder would never put money or her own ambitions above the care of her horses. She is a compassionate human being, a first rate horseman and a sympathetic instructor. However, for every rider and trainer of her ability that doesn't play the game, someone less ethical is always willing to step in and fill the gap. (My words and thoughts, not Becky's.) I am sure there are other horsemen at the top of the sport, or near the top, just like her, I just have not yet had the privilege of working with them. Riders like her can stand on their ethics all they want, it won't change anything because there are plenty of riders without ethics, or with ambition that makes them forget their values. USET will always be able to field a team, don't look for change to come from BNT's saying enough is enough, even if they do, selectors will just look to the next level of less competent horsemen/riders and the slots will get filled and the horses will travel.

[SevenDogs]

I can say without hesitation that Becky Holder would never put money or her own ambitions above the care of her horses. She is a compassionate human being, a first rate horseman and a sympathetic instructor. However, for every rider and trainer of her ability that doesn't play the game, someone less ethical is always willing to step in and fill the gap. (My words and thoughts, not Becky's.) I am sure there are other horsemen at the top of the sport, or near the top, just like her, I just have not yet had the privilege of working with them. Riders like her can stand on their ethics all they want, it won't change anything because there are plenty of riders without ethics, or with ambition that makes them forget their values. USET will always be able to field a team, don't look for change to come from BNT's saying enough is enough, even if they do, selectors will just look to the next level of less competent horsemen/riders and the slots will get filled and the horses will travel.

I have to agree. The lure of Olympic (or other international competition) is too great for many. Further, many top level riders have built their businesses around the current model and would be giving up their livelihood. Most of these folks are going to defend the current state of eventing right down to the end.

As a side note, I had no idea who Becky was until Rolex 2007. She came off cross country so thrilled with Comet and her performance that I had to take note of who she was because, in that one instance, she exemplified why eventing is so worth fighting for. I still smile when I think of it. I watched her from afar for the next two years, and it did seem like she was overlooked for an awfully long time on the road to the 2008 games by the selectors. It was if she was finally put on the list (begrudgingly) because her continued success was starting to make them look bad and people were starting to.... gasp.... ask questions.

[EventFan]

And it's a shame too! Becky, IMO, represents what our sport should be. She puts the horse first, why isn't she "noticed" more by the PTB?

[fatorangehorse]

Becky may be as great as you all say, but she is not the same level of competitor as the rest. The sport as it stands rewards an unflinching rider. We have have all seen Becky flinch, and it has cost her.

Putting firesuit on now.

[ivy62]

I have learned so much on this thread and am passionate to see change to protect everyone...
What if you tried to bring to the general public how event horses are not being put first and are losing their lives because of the people that own and train them. Racing got a swift kick in the butt with the losses of Barbaro and Eight Belles because it happened on national tv. They are not perfect but they are trying..
Would SI carry a story like this? or the NY Times?
Public opinoin may help, otherwise the only thing I see is to boycott the entire sport and when they lose all then maybe then they would come up with some ideas.

I have some British friends that cannot stand CMP. they call him a chicken...how could he teach others to jump jumps he would not....this ts exactly what they said!

[SaddleFitterVA]

Becky may be as great as you all say, but she is not the same level of competitor as the rest. The sport as it stands rewards an unflinching rider. We have have all seen Becky flinch, and it has cost her.

Putting firesuit on now.

And this is why, "The sport as it stands" is a problem. You have someone who is being held as an example of fine horsemanship, and someone decides that it is snark season on an excellent rider.

That and all of the people who continue to use the argument that horses die doing <insert activity # of choice here>.

My one thought is that as I looked through the Jersey Fresh pictures, that corner in the water complex looked like a terrible option, and someone else on another board commented that it was "unfair" to the horse...

Yet, we see picture upon picture of our "top" riders and "best" horsemen/women asking their horse to do that unfair combination. No, not all floundered, but a huge number did.

Activities that cause horses to die, and therefore allow many eventers to defend their sport.
1. playing in pasture
2. being lunged too much for hunters
3. racing in all forms
4. showjumping (hey, it has happened)
4. hunters
5. dressage horses drop dead too!
6. trail horses step in holes
7. horses break legs in their stalls
8. horses die of heart attacks in the field
.
.
.

I already dropped out of the sport. People see my farm logo (a dressage horse and a jumping horse) and ask me if I event, and my answer is "no, too many horses die cross country, I ride in jumping events where the jumps fall and dressage, but I do like to play on XC".

I am not a member of USEA, I do not go to recognized events or unrecognized horse trials. I do ride with many eventers, who have represented our country and ridden at the **** level. I just choose to not compete because I will not support organizations that are full of people who find all sorts of reasons that horses dying at every top level event is justifiable. Then we can add in the human fatalities or near-fatalities to that and it becomes even less appealing.

When was the last time a horse died on course at a World Cup Jumpers or Dressage competition? Nations Cup? On course during the olympics in jumpers or dressage?

Someone said it earlier in another thread, if the best in the sport can have two rotational falls in a year, then what about those of us who are mere amateurs.

I am actually one of those people who when riding thinks "this wouldn't happen to me, I'm a better rider than that, I'd see it coming, know to stop". Yet, when my analytical brain kicks in, when off the horse, I acknowledge that people who ride circles around me, know their horses and their own limitations, they don't think it could happen to them...and that list of casualties (horse & rider) is growing weekly. Horse fatalities happen so often in eventing that if my horse died and I was riding cross country, I would not classify it as an "accident", but as negligent horsemanship. If my horse died and I was riding in a jumper show, I would truly believe it was a freak accident, because it isn't happening nearly every weekend.

[fatorangehorse]

I am not saying I wouldn't rather be trained or have my horse ridden by Becky. I am in agreement with you. The problem is those with a little icewater in their veins clearly prevail. I, too, have opted out. I respect the consistent performance of those top competitors - but the wake of horses following them is difficult for anyone to reconcile - I would imagine them as well.

Becky's humanity is what people like about her - I suspect it will also keep her from consistently being in the mix @ the world class level. There are the same issues in Dressage, Jumping reining - you name it. Sure the stakes are higher b/c of XC and I agree it's hard to even pretend you aren't putting yourself and your horse @ risk with all the tragedies, but how many crippled horses do you see held together with injections and bute still competing when they should be in a field somewhere - across all disciplines? I don't know that I think that is different from many other sports - far beyond the horseworld. Frankly, it all makes me a little sick. I think we all have to ask ourselves why we are in this competitive pursuit with our horses and know at what cost we are comfortable paying.

Still expecting to need firesuit for suggesting Becky is not perfect. . .

[Duramax]

My one thought is that as I looked through the Jersey Fresh pictures, that corner in the water complex looked like a terrible option, and someone else on another board commented that it was "unfair" to the horse...

Yet, we see picture upon picture of our "top" riders and "best" horsemen/women asking their horse to do that unfair combination. No, not all floundered, but a huge number did.



I studied those pictures for over an hour last night. Some of the best of the best had frightening rides over that complex. My initial thought was that I cannot be a part of something that is so punishing to the horses.

[Duramax]

Still expecting to need firesuit for suggesting Becky is not perfect. . .


I think thats why we all like her! :lol:

[Gry2Yng]

I am not saying I wouldn't rather be trained or have my horse ridden by Becky. I am in agreement with you. The problem is those with a little icewater in their veins clearly prevail. I, too, have opted out. I respect the consistent performance of those top competitors - but the wake of horses following them is difficult for anyone to reconcile - I would imagine them as well.

Becky's humanity is what people like about her - I suspect it will also keep her from consistently being in the mix @ the world class level. There are the same issues in Dressage, Jumping reining - you name it. Sure the stakes are higher b/c of XC and I agree it's hard to even pretend you aren't putting yourself and your horse @ risk with all the tragedies, but how many crippled horses do you see held together with injections and bute still competing when they should be in a field somewhere - across all disciplines? I don't know that I think that is different from many other sports - far beyond the horseworld. Frankly, it all makes me a little sick. I think we all have to ask ourselves why we are in this competitive pursuit with our horses and know at what cost we are comfortable paying.

Still expecting to need firesuit for suggesting Becky is not perfect. . .

Your comment makes me laugh, because I think Becky would probably be the first one to say she is not perfect, whereas those who love her would stand up and tell you that she is perfect. Perhaps we need to define "flinch" and "icewater". Becky is as brave and as stubborn as it gets, she is focused and talented. I have seen her remain calm in very difficult situations. If icewater in your veins is a euphemism for watching people gallop toward tragedy without caring, then you are correct. If by flinch, you mean that she doesn't mindless do whatever it takes to be seen by the selectors in the most favorable light, then I suppose so. Put another way, she is not a mindless robot who has put the achievement of a pinque coat above all else including her horses and her family. If instead of trying to work within the system, she steps aside, do we like who and what takes her place?

My apologies to Becky, as I doubt she would want to have her name included in this conversation. I thought very hard about whether to just leave it as a nameless BNR, but I think we have positive examples and she is one of them.

[TB or not TB?]

I have been pondering eventing's challenges for a very long time. Even when my death-data project stopped and I toured the country in an overstuffed car, never long were my thoughts away from my beloved sport. More than the specific incidents, it appears that there are some fundamental elements of modern eventing that are broken.

I don't solely blame the short format for this, but I think it contributes to the theme that is hurting the sport: what we Can do versus what we Should do. In decades past, the upper levels were a pinnacle to be attained only by the very greatest of horse and rider teams. Now, we have young riders competing in 4*s, professionals with entire strings of mounts, and courses that make even the best look ugly. We have enabled adequacy, and to compensate for this shortcoming, increased the difficulty beyond reasonable means.

The long format, for all its own faults, required such fitness and finesse that it was a rare breed of horse or rider who could be successful. Yet in modern eventing, no longer does one wonder if a horse is capable of passing endurance day, just "can he make it over the course?" This has leveled the field to include animals merely with extravagant gaits who can jump 4'1." While still great athletes, these aren't the 'unicorns' of years past, if you'll pardon the pun. There are many horses who can jump higher than 4', and who can put in a passable dressage test; the average WB or TB can likely do so. This doesn't mean that they SHOULD compete at the upper levels, even if they physically CAN.

And riders, who used to spend hours upon hours of fitness work with each horse, knowing his ins and his outs, and spending a large portion of Endurance day with a single horse, now can have 3, 4, 6, 8 mounts when all that is required is a single XC test. But should they ride that many? Where is the preparation time, the intimate knowlege of the horse's way of going? Does riding 4 horses even allow for the same bond as 1 or 2? How does the rider really know that many horses? Even if you CAN ride a horse at Advanced without this partnership, SHOULD you?

This is not limited merely to mounts and numbers, but to that great elephant of rider responsibility. You can compete in a 4* even if you have XC penalties in a 3*, but should you? You can compete a horse at Intermediate if he is qualified, but should you? You can compete back to back weekends all year, but should you? On a broader scale, now that we have the science behind dozens of exciting drugs and maintenance programs, should horses be bombarded with them?

We have opened the flood gates for the sake of modernity and change, yet with this we are exploring uncharted waters of what it means to be an eventer, and how the horse and his welfare is impacted by this strange new world. In effort to plug this dam of enabling, we seek more complexity in all phases. Higher stadium jumps, more complicated dressage, more difficult cross country. And yet, this is an micro solution to a macro problem. Now you have the adequate jumping obstacles that are fit only for the exceptional. And yes, they can. But recent events have only come to highlight that nagging question of should.

This mentality of "I can, so I will," rather than "I can, but should I?" is widespread through the sport. I am not sure if it's a reflection of society at large, or a financially driven business model. Either way, we are pushing boundaries of horse and human physical capacity. I am not sure if additional legislation will help this issue; how can you regulate "should?"

I don't envy the folks in power. I certainly don't think any of them wish ill upon the sport. However the current authorities have long followed the seductive call of "Can," and therefore are floundering more than the rest of us in that tumultuous water of "Should?." For you see, in their era, the sport was such that Can and Should often went hand in hand; there was little need to differentiate between the two. In fact, many professionals follow that methodology today and continue to pass it along to those up and coming. It obvious, then, that the changes and initiative we need simply cannot come from those for whom Should is a preposterous question; the sport requires those who live in the balance (to quote one of my favorite players) weigh in on the outcome.

[SevenDogs]

An incredibly insightful post, TB or not TB. Thank you.

[BaroquePony]

An incredibly insightful post, TB or not TB. Thank you.

:yes:

[Equilibrium]

I too have been following this thread and TB or Not TB, that was a brilliant post.

And reading through all of it you do tend to wonder just what changes will make a difference. Just reading the part about better medicines and maintenence programs gets your mind thinking. And I don't mean doping.

I guess there are small wonders that don't always have to do with fences that are part of the bigger picture.

Terri

[EventerAJ]

Great post, TB or Not TB.

I can somewhat see how the line of "Can" vs "Should" gets a little blurred. There are so many pressures and forces involved in competing at the sports highest levels; not just Team/Country, but the sheer logistics of qualifying and competing. Sometimes "Should" is not as black and white as we would like it to be... various constraints create shades of gray that require difficult choices, especially if you are not blessed with wealthy sponsors.


Most everyone thought that stricter qualifications would be A Good Thing. But rules on paper have proven rather pointless... some obviously unprepared participants are "qualified," while some very safe competitors are "unqualified." Those "unqualified" may feel forced into some less-than-ideal horsemanship situations in a desperate attempt to achieve a goal. "Well humph, wait it out and get it done," you might say... but there are time constraints (horse's age?), financial restraints (how many events can you afford?), travel limits (how far are you willing to drive?), and scheduling conflicts (sometimes the timing is awful). It isn't always as easy to say, "well, I'll try again next time." Because next time may not be so soon; it may be prohibitively far away, or too expensive, or your horse could get hurt, or.... Events have changed in this country; you have a HUGE array of lower level events offered, and in most areas you can be selective where you attend. Upper levels, not so much anymore. You're stuck going where the events are; "plan B"s are less available. If you have a mishap, a lost shoe, anything to prevent a perfect run at one event, it could ruin your whole season-- there may not be another event at that level on your coast of the country for weeks, and you would not be qualified/prepared in time for your goal. That is an awful lot of pressure riding on each stride of each phase of each competition. Perhaps those external forces can make the "SHOULD" option a little more difficult to accept. It's one thing to call it a day and try again next week... but when there is no "next week" you must admit you've wasted time, money, miles on your horse, etc by abandoning your whole season goal (3day). And that's just from a personal standpoint...not the business end with owners, sponsors, etc. This is NOT excusing anything, just trying to identify with why some riders may push a bit harder, perhaps too far, when it seems that goal is so close to within reach.*

Not sure if my late-night rambling is making any sense. Just trying to say that what you HAVE to do sometimes conflicts with what you SHOULD do. I struggle with this concept; I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it is. I try very very hard to keep myself on the SHOULD route, so that the "HAVE TO" doesn't come into play. But it's hard, and not everyone will make it. We need to accept that, as riders and horsemen(women).

* Added:
Perhaps this is a difference between "schooling xc" and competing. There isn't such pressure when schooling... plenty of horses school big solid fences, but you don't hear of so many deaths. Riders don't HAVE to take chances when schooling, there isn't that "Do or die" (ugh bad choice of words) sentiment that is presented in competition. How can we make competition xc more focused on an appropriate challenge, rewarding good riding and preparation? Not just luck? Again, no answers only more questions. :sigh:

[TheOrangeOne]

How do you all feel about a short warmup before XC, to be supervised by a judge, designed by the XC course designer. If I did it, it would be 4'6, in very deep cups but still going to fall down, and the course designer would design it to make sure all systems are a go. 5 or 6 fences total, 2 rails down and you're out. I'm a complete HP, so this might make no sense, but the idea's interesting, and it shouldn't make a huge amount of difference in wear and tear on the horses. Ideally, it would take the place of the first 3 phases in the long format, to test the horse and make sure they can handle more than will be asked of them. Again, I really have no clue, so pardon me if there's something seriously wrong here.

[SevenDogs]

I can somewhat see how the line of "Can" vs "Should" gets a little blurred. There are so many pressures and forces involved in competing at the sports highest levels; not just Team/Country, but the sheer logistics of qualifying and competing. Sometimes "Should" is not as black and white as we would like it to be... various constraints create shades of gray that require difficult choices, especially if you are not blessed with wealthy sponsors.


Most everyone thought that stricter qualifications would be A Good Thing. But rules on paper have proven rather pointless... some obviously unprepared participants are "qualified," while some very safe competitors are "unqualified." Those "unqualified" may feel forced into some less-than-ideal horsemanship situations in a desperate attempt to achieve a goal. "Well humph, wait it out and get it done," you might say... but there are time constraints (horse's age?), financial restraints (how many events can you afford?), travel limits (how far are you willing to drive?), and scheduling conflicts (sometimes the timing is awful). It isn't always as easy to say, "well, I'll try again next time." Because next time may not be so soon; it may be prohibitively far away, or too expensive, or your horse could get hurt, or.... Events have changed in this country; you have a HUGE array of lower level events offered, and in most areas you can be selective where you attend. Upper levels, not so much anymore. You're stuck going where the events are; "plan B"s are less available. If you have a mishap, a lost shoe, anything to prevent a perfect run at one event, it could ruin your whole season-- there may not be another event at that level on your coast of the country for weeks, and you would not be qualified/prepared in time for your goal. That is an awful lot of pressure riding on each stride of each phase of each competition. Perhaps those external forces can make the "SHOULD" option a little more difficult to accept. It's one thing to call it a day and try again next week... but when there is no "next week" you must admit you've wasted time, money, miles on your horse, etc by abandoning your whole season goal (3day). And that's just from a personal standpoint...not the business end with owners, sponsors, etc. This is NOT excusing anything, just trying to identify with why some riders may push a bit harder, perhaps too far, when it seems that goal is so close to within reach.*

Not sure if my late-night rambling is making any sense. Just trying to say that what you HAVE to do sometimes conflicts with what you SHOULD do. I struggle with this concept; I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it is. I try very very hard to keep myself on the SHOULD route, so that the "HAVE TO" doesn't come into play. But it's hard, and not everyone will make it. We need to accept that, as riders and horsemen(women).

Sorry, AJ, I don't accept that at all. Integrity (and good horsemanship) is defined by doing what you SHOULD do, despite the pressure to do otherwise. Not saying that lightly or saying it is easy by any means, especially in horses. Yes, that means that you don't run just because you don't have another chance. Yes, that means that you miss opportunities. Yes, that means that you put the welfare of your horse above your own goals. Yes, that means that you do what's right even, or more accurately especially, when it is the very hardest.

I don't mean to pound on you. I see from your profile that you are fairly young and there are much older/more experienced riders having the same struggle you discuss. You have identified one of the major issues associated with all horse sports and Eventing, in particular, and this is NOT a new issue. This struggle is as old as the sport itself, but that doesn't make it acceptable to make the wrong decisions.

The rider who pulls up in an international team competition because his/her horse "just doesn't feel right" is rarely lauded (and may well be blackballed from ever being on another international team), but it is the best display of horsemanship I can think of. No one celebrates the rider who said "this course isn't in the best interest of my horse, so I am not going to run". No one gives endorsement deals to the rider that made the right decisions by his/her horse, which meant they did not pursue a medal track. The lure of success is really strong and can lead to poor decisions that we know are not right.

It's unfortunate that is integrity and horsemanship are not rewarded as much as they should be. No medals are given for horsemanship, or integrity, or for putting your horse first. But, at the end of the day, medals tarnish, ribbons fade, and big names are forgotten, and all you have is what you think of yourself and the decisions you made in your life.

Any time you think you HAVE to do something you know you shouldn't, you are in trouble. Run the other way, fast. I learned this the hard way. We always have choices in life and we need to take responsibility for the ones that we make.

[EventerAJ]

How do you all feel about a short warmup before XC, to be supervised by a judge, designed by the XC course designer. If I did it, it would be 4'6, in very deep cups but still going to fall down, and the course designer would design it to make sure all systems are a go. 5 or 6 fences total, 2 rails down and you're out. I'm a complete HP, so this might make no sense, but the idea's interesting, and it shouldn't make a huge amount of difference in wear and tear on the horses. Ideally, it would take the place of the first 3 phases in the long format, to test the horse and make sure they can handle more than will be asked of them. Again, I really have no clue, so pardon me if there's something seriously wrong here.

Interesting idea, but don't see any real benefit, other than to weed out the bad showjumpers.

Part of the GOOD thing about steeplechase was that the fences were brush, and the horses jumped through the tops... very forgiving if the horse/rider made a mistake, and you could CORRECT that mistake by going forward again on your way to the next one. It got your rhythm going, your eye clicking, took some of the jitters out, and opened up the pipes.

You don't want your horse to smash into solid fences, but rubbing his toes isn't a bad thing. Warmup is just that-- warmup-- and you might make a few mistakes. Eventers can be paranoid about knocking rails anyway, so this could encourage a tendency to "ride backwards" or override... which is the last thing you want to do on xc.

[TheOrangeOne]

No, I wouldn't have it be really stadium jumps,more along the lines of old time hunter jumps, solid but 'filler' that gives when you hit it. You'd have to give it a good hard knock to have it come down, (logistics of this are not my strong point) My idea would be to weed out the pairs who can't deal with a mistake in a non-fatal manner on a given day, in the same way that the first 3 phases of roads and tracks did.

[belambi]

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/05/082.shtml

[colliemom]

Rider ability is certainly one issue, but I am also asking to explore the issue of whether or not the horse is being denied the opportunity to think on XC because of fence design. Are they less able to evaluate the fences and stop when needed, because the fences "trick" their eye, the full question is not visible until after take-off, design of the face precludes their ability to evaluate it, other issues, etc.

I'm not saying the answer is yes. I do not have the technical knowledge, history or experience to know the answer. I'm asking others if this is possible.


I believe that in certain instances the answer is definitely YES. Whether it's the design of the actual jumpable fence, or the visual distractions that surround the fence, the mental stimulation of the horse has drastically increased. Where the rider gets the chance to walk the course multiple times and quietly evaluate the questions being posed and determine a safe path through, the horse has seconds to do the same evaluation of something it has never seen before and where intended distractions are included. I have always believed that this trend has been one of the huge issues that is often overlooked. And when you add the speed at which multiple combinations come upon a horse in the short format compared to the long, it's even more of an issue.

I also believe that PD's rotational fall at Fair Hill last October was in very large part caused by this very issue. Looking at the photo sequence (and it is VERY hard to pass judgement on an event based only on still photos, but many have clearly convicted PD based on nothing more) it seems to me that the horse was distracted by the cutout underneath the jump (it was shaped like an aqueduct, with a semi-circular opening at the bottom, over a ditch). You can see his whole body language, expression, ears focused on that and not on the top of the jump. With that being the second jump of a short combination, there were few options at that point -- the horse had no time to accurately evaluate something that distracted him, but his training, his rider, and his momentum told him to continue. Without the necessary physical effort that would have resulted in an accurate evaluation of the question, the rotational fall occurred. Without that particular design -- if the jump had been solid -- the result may have been much different for the very reasons that SevenDogs suggests.

[RAyers]

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/05/082.shtml

And it is important to note that the Brits ordered a full scale inquiry in 2006. I suspect the same will happen in Ireland.

As I stated years ago, maybe it is time to stop eventing for a bit and conduct a full scale investigation top to bottom? I know it is extreme but this is what we do in safety violations in industry and academia.

This thread is better than I thought. I am learning a lot and there have been quite a few new perspectives and ideas that make me think.

Thank you all.

Reed

[Gry2Yng]

SD,
I think you are being a bit hard on AJ and tossing out some important thoughts that are part of her post. Our qualification system has definitely created the situation she is talking about, lots of money and time spent chasing that dressage score or show jump round. We can talk about how that shouldn't be the case, but it is. We have changed a lot more than just the qualifications system, but I think it is worth a good hard look to see if the way we qualify horses hasn't contributed to the problem.

gry

Edited to add, when I started trying to qualify for my first ** in 2003, the rules in January required 4 qualifying scores, by May, TBTB had reduced that to 2 qualifying scores. Anyone want to speculate as to why? I have my thoughts.

[RAyers]

EventerAJ has definitely highlighted some of my issues with decisions about doing FEI or USEF and the qualifications process. I decided that the system is biased to the point I see no reason to run FEI unless forced and that horse trials are the best way I can focus on the welfare of my horse.

I don't have a feeling that the FEI or USEF is really concerned about my horse and qualification system has turned into a "selection" process where only those who are continuously competing a string of horses are "qualified" regardless of incidents on their record and those who may have similar abilities are "down selected" simply due to access.

Reed

[UNCeventer]

This was posted on the other thread, but I thought maybe it would be some good food for thought here....


Quote:
Originally Posted by UNCeventer View Post
Another question... what kind of a role did the vet box on long format have? Is there any way to incorporate that into modern day eventing? It was almost a stress test for the horses to see how they were doing. Would this help to "weed out"/save/spare those who are not up to the challenge on said day?

reply to question:
This is the kind of thing I'm wondering - if there's some way to incorporate some of the endurance elements of the long format into the shorter format. I gather one of the reasons why the LF was dropped was difficulty finding space for roads and tracks and the steeplechase? On current Short Format courses would there be some way to add in a track around the XC course or other elements of the venue so that the riders would have to ride a specified distance within some time frame followed by a vet check, EVEN IF the distance wasn't as long as the old roads and tracks/steeplechase requirements?

What about having a set of steeplechase style fences at the start of the XC course? People are saying that one of the benefits to the steeplechase was it let you get into the rhythm - how many fences would actually be necessary to get some of that benefit? (I'm thinking you'd have X number of steeplechase jumps that then lead right to the first fence of the XC, with an opportunity to pull up in between if you felt something was off.)

Just throwing ideas out there, dismiss/edit/whatever as desired.

[frugalannie]

Are other countries able to field successful teams with less risk to equine and human participants? IIRC, our draconian qualification system was instituted due to the threat of lawsuits by riders who were not selected. Now the law of unintended consequences has resulted in a sport that has lost its bearings as everything has readjusted to reflect this definition of success.

In addition, the qualification system has resulted in fewer upper level venues, exacerbating the situation that EventerAJ describes. Everyone is chasing the qualifications, and they are becoming concentrated at fewer competitions.

Machiavellian thought of the morning: the Star Chamber of the FEI is just waiting for there to be sufficient outcry about the risks of our sport that they will be able to eliminate eventing entirely and look good doing it ("You see, we are for the welfare of the horse!"). No wonder they have been so adamant about the short format!

(FA goes off to walk the dogs in the hopes of being more thoughtful and less grumpy.)

[Gry2Yng]

This was posted on the other thread, but I thought maybe it would be some good food for thought here....



What about having a set of steeplechase style fences at the start of the XC course? People are saying that one of the benefits to the steeplechase was it let you get into the rhythm - how many fences would actually be necessary to get some of that benefit? (I'm thinking you'd have X number of steeplechase jumps that then lead right to the first fence of the XC, with an opportunity to pull up in between if you felt something was off.)

Just throwing ideas out there, dismiss/edit/whatever as desired.

Just a thought to keep in mind, one of the benefits of Phase C was that if a horse tied up as a result of steeplechase (phase B) they were out walking and trotting and it became apparent without risk to life or limb. The rider would feel something wasn't right, tell a "fence judge" and we would bring a horse trailer out to pick up the horse and bring him back to the barn for veterinary care. Sucks to have a horse tie up at Rolex, but better on Phase C. I know of one that tied up on Phase D, after the implementation of the short format. The rider pulled up and no one got hurt, fortunately.

[kdow]

Another thought to toss out there (inspired by something in the Jersey Fresh thread, but seems more appropriate here) - there's a suggestion that the harder dressage requirements at the upper levels are basically discouraging horses from being independent thinkers. This makes me wonder - what's the actual GOAL of the dressage element of eventing? It's my understanding (if you look back at the history of the sport) that the point of dressage is just to prove that you and the horse can work as a team for subtle/more refined tasks, in addition to being able to bomb around an XC course or get around a stadium course.

If that is the goal - to show that you're in control and can communicate effectively with refined aids - then are all of the elements currently in the upper level tests actually necessary to show that? Does an event horse NEED to be able to perform dressage to the standards currently expected in order to do his job properly? (Meaning be a safe, manageable ride in a variety of situations and conditions.) Are there elements in the upper level tests which are taken from dressage tests because that's what's in dressage tests, rather than because they demonstrate a skill an eventing horse needs to have?

Note: I'm not saying that you'd drop the standards and put up with sub-par riding. I'm just suggesting that maybe each element needs to be considered independently in terms of what it's actually showing about the horse and rider - if highly collected work actually interferes with the horse's ability to go XC successfully, then I would suggest that perhaps highly collected work needs to be thrown out of the tests and replaced with something more appropriate for the job demands of an eventer.

As far as there then being difficulties ranking horses, because it's 'easier' without the highly collected work - dressage is all about how your particular horse ranks against an 'ideal' for the movement/gait/transition - and let's face it, no one's horse is going to be perfect. Judges could easily create a larger range of scores just by being more nitpicky about the accuracy of the included movements, rather than relying on success or failure at difficult movements to weed people out. i.e. if you're doing a walk-trot transition, then a 20m circle, then a halt, instead of walk-trot, highly collected trot, halt - well, your transitions had better be perfect, your figure exact, and your halt solid and square. All of which would seem to test skill at things necessary going cross country - good transitions, accurate 'steering' (for lack of a better word), and good balance. (Balance being shown in a good halt - horses who are going around heavy on the forehand tend to produce pretty ugly halts that they kind of fall into.)

I guess basically - are the questions being asked in the dressage and showjumping sections questions which apply to the horse's use as an EVENTING horse, or questions that are also being asked at a fairly high level of horses who specialize in those areas (dressage, showjumping) and thus are putting demands on the horse's mind/body which are contrary to the general all-around test that eventing is supposed to be?

(I mean, I would happily say that a horse in ANY English disciplne should be able to do one of the lower level dressage tests acceptably - not necessarily perfectly, but a good average score. But once you get beyond that, I think you have to look at the physical and mental demands of dressage vs. the other uses you intend for the horse.)

(Further, given the length of time it's generally expected to take to develop a seriously good high-level dressage horse, I'd question the practical training considerations of asking for some dressage movements in an eventing test - how much time is it reasonable to assume an 'average' horse - i.e. one not particularly naturally talented at the specific movement - will take to learn and develop the muscle to perform a more advanced movement? Is it actually POSSIBLE to spend that time, in addition to the time needed to actually condition the horse for the demands of the overall event? Are there actually enough hours in the day in which you can ask the horse to work in order to accomplish all of those things? Or is conditioning time going to have to be sacrificed in favor of time in the dressage arena?)

(erm. sorry. I got a bit long winded. :) )

[rebeginner]

Much of this discussion, including the fantastic post by TB or not TB, seems to dance around the problem that I've seen develop in my short association with eventing over the last 10 years. Eventing (at least as described by the FEI, for purposes of keeping it in the Olympics) is no longer really a sport. It's a business. The BB is chock full of outcry by LLRs, such as myself, worried about the future of our sportdue to the problems created by ULRs who are killing themselves and their horses. I think we don't see the numbers of deaths at the lower levels because the lower levels are almost entirely composed of folks with one or a couple of horses who are doing it for fun. For self-improvement. To attain a personal goal. To bond thoroughly with their horses in a way that few sports offer (perhaps with the noteworthy exception of endurance). On the other hand, in most cases the ULRs are professionals. Professionals have a different model when they go out on course: they have 5 (or 8 or whatever) horses that they have to get around the course. They are less interested in making any changes to the sport of eventing because they are in the business of eventing. It's ironic, isn't it, that we seem to have created a class of professionals with little apparent regard for the lives of themselves or their equine partners in order to maintain a place in the Olympics, which at one time was dedicated to the amateur athlete.

The business model of eventing also goes to the question that I raise every time this discussion gets going: what venues have sold off the land formerly used for phases A, B and C? Posters, including UNCeventer, perpetuate the myth that "one of the reasons why the LF was dropped was difficulty finding space for roads and tracks and the steeplechase." It seems obvious to me that the purpose of dropping the long format was not to address a real estate issue, but to increase the business opportunities for the professional riders. I mean there was some PR that the short format was going to be safer, but we all know that couldn't be true since there was no data (then or now) to support that theory.

At one time I intended to compete in recognized USEA events, although I was pretty sure I'd top out at Training. Now, I have absolutely no interest in competing in a recognized event. I love to play on XC, and I'm happy to support my local venue by competing (and volunteering) at schooling shows, but USEA is for professionals who appear willing to sacrifice themselves and their horses. That's not for me. I'll spend my fees for recognized dressage shows and take my mare foxhunting.

[fatorangehorse]

Some very good points. My cahllenge to all of us - what are you doing about it . . .besides posting? Many of us are friends, trainers, clients, sponsors to the riders we are talking about. The question for me is "what will you (I) do to make a difference?"

[IFG]

Just a thought to keep in mind, one of the benefits of Phase C was that if a horse tied up as a result of steeplechase (phase B) they were out walking and trotting and it became apparent without risk to life or limb. The rider would feel something wasn't right, tell a "fence judge" and we would bring a horse trailer out to pick up the horse and bring him back to the barn for veterinary care. Sucks to have a horse tie up at Rolex, but better on Phase C. I know of one that tied up on Phase D, after the implementation of the short format. The rider pulled up and no one got hurt, fortunately.

I wonder if any of the necropsies have done blood work to determine whether the horse was tying up?

Could a horse tie up, crash, and then have an aortic blow-out?

Could the aortic blow-out be blamed for the crash, when it was in fact the results of the crash?

I have no idea, I am just wondering out loud.

[flyingchange]

Man, that is a really good question, IFG.

[snoopy]

Much of this discussion, including the fantastic post by TB or not TB, seems to dance around the problem that I've seen develop in my short association with eventing over the last 10 years. Eventing (at least as described by the FEI, for purposes of keeping it in the Olympics) is no longer really a sport. It's a business. The BB is chock full of outcry by LLRs, such as myself, worried about the future of our sportdue to the problems created by ULRs who are killing themselves and their horses. I think we don't see the numbers of deaths at the lower levels because the lower levels are almost entirely composed of folks with one or a couple of horses who are doing it for fun. For self-improvement. To attain a personal goal. To bond thoroughly with their horses in a way that few sports offer (perhaps with the noteworthy exception of endurance). On the other hand, in most cases the ULRs are professionals. Professionals have a different model when they go out on course: they have 5 (or 8 or whatever) horses that they have to get around the course. They are less interested in making any changes to the sport of eventing because they are in the business of eventing. It's ironic, isn't it, that we seem to have created a class of professionals with little apparent regard for the lives of themselves or their equine partners in order to maintain a place in the Olympics, which at one time was dedicated to the amateur athlete.

The business model of eventing also goes to the question that I raise every time this discussion gets going: what venues have sold off the land formerly used for phases A, B and C? Posters, including UNCeventer, perpetuate the myth that "one of the reasons why the LF was dropped was difficulty finding space for roads and tracks and the steeplechase." It seems obvious to me that the purpose of dropping the long format was not to address a real estate issue, but to increase the business opportunities for the professional riders. I mean there was some PR that the short format was going to be safer, but we all know that couldn't be true since there was no data (then or now) to support that theory.

At one time I intended to compete in recognized USEA events, although I was pretty sure I'd top out at Training. Now, I have absolutely no interest in competing in a recognized event. I love to play on XC, and I'm happy to support my local venue by competing (and volunteering) at schooling shows, but USEA is for professionals who appear willing to sacrifice themselves and their horses. That's not for me. I'll spend my fees for recognized dressage shows and take my mare foxhunting.


:yes:

[S A McKee]

Are other countries able to field successful teams with less risk to equine and human participants? IIRC, our draconian qualification system was instituted due to the threat of lawsuits by riders who were not selected. Now the law of unintended consequences has resulted in a sport that has lost its bearings as everything has readjusted to reflect this definition of success.



It wasn't just a 'threat'. USET was the group responsible for selection. That group was sued as was every USET board member.
The current process is part of the settlement of that suit.
Although the original complaint had to do with the show jumping team the new method was applied to each discipline.

[UNCeventer]

The business model of eventing also goes to the question that I raise every time this discussion gets going: what venues have sold off the land formerly used for phases A, B and C? Posters, including UNCeventer, perpetuate the myth that "one of the reasons why the LF was dropped was difficulty finding space for roads and tracks and the steeplechase." It seems obvious to me that the purpose of dropping the long format was not to address a real estate issue, but to increase the business opportunities for the professional riders. I mean there was some PR that the short format was going to be safer, but we all know that couldn't be true since there was no data (then or now) to support that theory.



You forgot to quote the question mark after steeplechase. It was speculation, not a statement. Neither myself, nor the person that posted in response to my question, (whom you are quoting) know the answer to exactly why eventing went to SF. These brainstorms are exactly that, thinking about other options and speculations about other possible solutions. Maybe the real reasoning behind the change was more of a business minded change. I do not know. Another thing I do not know is what exactly I or other people can do about it to make a constructive change happen. I do not know if it means that we should all stand down to eventing and demand an overhaul (which would be difficult), or if there is any way to revamp the system, while still supporting it. We must have some power, right?

I know that at least a couple years ago, I still had upper level aspirations. But now, I think prelim will suffice until changes occur. I am not willing to put one of my horses, or a clients horses at risk until things are resolved. I had also never really noticed the big huge CANYON between upper level and lower level eventing until a few years ago- smurfs, eh?

Something needs to happen, the question is what? Why cant we get to a position where tptb are voted upon?

[JER]

Some very good points. My cahllenge to all of us - what are you doing about it . . .besides posting? Many of us are friends, trainers, clients, sponsors to the riders we are talking about. The question for me is "what will you (I) do to make a difference?"

Well, as an owner and breeder, I send my horses to people whose values and horsemanship are in line with my own.

There are some really good young riders/trainers out there who, if life is fair, should be the future of our sport. I think it's important to seek them out and support them.

[kdow]

You forgot to quote the question mark after steeplechase. It was speculation, not a statement. Neither myself, nor the person that posted in response to my question, (whom you are quoting) know the answer to exactly why eventing went to SF. These brainstorms are exactly that, thinking about other options and speculations about other possible solutions.

Exactly, thanks. (Specifically, I seem to recall hearing that it was due to land issues specifically related to Olympic venues? Needing all the space for the Long Format was supposedly making it harder for places to make sensible bids? Something like that.)

I'm not making any definitive statements about what the problems are or what we should do about them - just putting forth thoughts and ideas based on what I've read/heard so that folks with more relevant knowledge and experience can take anything useful from it. I mean, I don't care if I say something totally stupid and obvious if that totally stupid and obvious thing sets of a chain of thoughts in someone else's mind that leads to some kind of practical progress in terms of making things safer.

[frugalannie]

Also, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are many organizers who are terribly frustrated with the way things are going. They are folks who go to tremendous efforts to support eventing, and since no one I've ever heard of organizes events to make money, they do it for love. They are dropping upper levels rather than adopt the FEI regs, supporting the training three day and doing what they can to provide safe, fun events. Punishing these folks by not entering their events may cause them to cease their efforts, and that would be a terrible shame. It will not effect the USEF in any material way.

[EventerAJ]

SD,
I think you are being a bit hard on AJ and tossing out some important thoughts that are part of her post. Our qualification system has definitely created the situation she is talking about, lots of money and time spent chasing that dressage score or show jump round. We can talk about how that shouldn't be the case, but it is. We have changed a lot more than just the qualifications system, but I think it is worth a good hard look to see if the way we qualify horses hasn't contributed to the problem.

gry

Edited to add, when I started trying to qualify for my first ** in 2003, the rules in January required 4 qualifying scores, by May, TBTB had reduced that to 2 qualifying scores. Anyone want to speculate as to why? I have my thoughts.


Thanks Gry, that was my main point: creating new rules/qualifications has perhaps encouraged POOR horsemanship, instead of good horsemanship. In some instances, the rules have punished a smart, safe decision... while allowing bad judgment to continue.

Sevendogs, I completely agree with you about rider's integrity. The situations I included in my post haven't necessarily happened to me, but to other ULRs close to me; most of the time, the "right" choice was made. Bottom-line, my "goals" are to have a sound, happy horse who enjoys her job; this is far more important than any competitive achievement. The professionals I have worked with always adhered to this philosophy.

[Janet]

Exactly, thanks. (Specifically, I seem to recall hearing that it was due to land issues specifically related to Olympic venues? Needing all the space for the Long Format was supposedly making it harder for places to make sensible bids? Something like that.)
I thought it was even more specific than that.

Aachen wanted to host the WEG but didn't have room for phases A, B, C.

[CookiePony]

Also, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are many organizers who are terribly frustrated with the way things are going. They are folks who go to tremendous efforts to support eventing, and since no one I've ever heard of organizes events to make money, they do it for love. They are dropping upper levels rather than adopt the FEI regs, supporting the training three day and doing what they can to provide safe, fun events. Punishing these folks by not entering their events may cause them to cease their efforts, and that would be a terrible shame. It will not effect the USEF in any material way.

Yes, we must remember this. For example, look at the organizers who are holding Training 3 Days, and the classic format one star coalition. They are under the USEA umbrella, which has a lot of other positive stuff going on-- the technical merit awards, the medals program, the Worth The Trust scholarships, etc.

[Janet]

At one time I intended to compete in recognized USEA events, although I was pretty sure I'd top out at Training. Now, I have absolutely no interest in competing in a recognized event. I love to play on XC, and I'm happy to support my local venue by competing (and volunteering) at schooling shows, but USEA is for professionals who appear willing to sacrifice themselves and their horses. That's not for me. I'll spend my fees for recognized dressage shows and take my mare foxhunting.
Competing at the lower levels is quite distinct from the upper level issues.

At the lower levels, you are assured a minimum level of consitency and proficiency at a recognized event- the licensed officials meet a certain minimum standard, the courses meet certain requirements, there is a vet and ambulance/EMT on the grounds.

SOME unrecognized events (especially those run by the same people who run recognized events) are run to the same or similar standards.
But I have been to unrecognized events where there is
no vet,
no ambulance or EMT,
no safety cups on the oxers,
courses that are way out of spec (e.g. a "Training" course with everything under 2'9" OR a "Novice" course with fences over 3',
portables not properly anchored, so they will tip over if hit hard,
fences that have rotted,
inappropriate distances between fences in combinations,
ground hog holes not marked,
trappy stadium courses,
judges who don't know the rules.

I think that chosing to go to unrecognized events at the lower levels, because you don't like what is happening at the upper levels, is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

I DO go to unrecognized events when they fit my needs, budget and schedule better, but only ones where I know they work to a "just like recognized" standard in terms of course design, safety, and adherence to the rules.

[CookiePony]

I feel so torn about all of this.

On the one hand, we have performances like Headley Britannia's-- a beautiful, amazing horse and rider partnership that made me fall in love with the sport all over again.

And then we have these horrific falls and collapses that make me want never to watch any FEI event above * again.

This is the same sport. How difficult it is to reconcile these two realities!

What is the ratio of horse fatalities to FEI ** and above competitions for the last year, anyone know? But then, what statistic would be acceptable? My bottom line question: is it possible to hold cross country phases to CCI ***/**** specifications and not have a horse fatality at what seems like at least every other competition?

[tangledweb]

Posters, including UNCeventer, perpetuate the myth that "one of the reasons why the LF was dropped was difficulty finding space for roads and tracks and the steeplechase." It seems obvious to me that the purpose of dropping the long format was not to address a real estate issue, but to increase the business opportunities for the professional riders.

I am not sure why you ignore the obvious and public explanation.

Neither Athens nor Beijing had a suitable cross country course so had to build facilities. Beijing particularly did not want to. Finding 200 acres near the kind of large cities that host Olympics is never going to be cheap. If they are not a country with a strong eventing tradition, a *** course is going to either need tearing down, or be an ongoing white elephant.

Here is the FEI's 2002 submission to the IOC.
http://www.fei.org/Disciplines/Eventing/Committee/Documents/report-ioc-final.pdf

What makes it a myth?

[Carol Ames]

It would be interesting to take Dennys' suggestion,and "dumb down the XC courses to he level of glorified outside/ :winkgrin: hunter pace courses, requiring minimal jumping, just canter over the jumps; no time involved just a true "hunting pace" if desired this could be followed by jumping an equitation, ie., medal type of course; this could be preceded by a "program ride " as set out by Littauer.I doubt that would be any fatalities:no: but, would be interested:confused: to see the level of riding/ horsemanship

[Ajierene]

Another thought to toss out there (inspired by something in the Jersey Fresh thread, but seems more appropriate here) - there's a suggestion that the harder dressage requirements at the upper levels are basically discouraging horses from being independent thinkers.

(Further, given the length of time it's generally expected to take to develop a seriously good high-level dressage horse, I'd question the practical training considerations of asking for some dressage movements in an eventing test - how much time is it reasonable to assume an 'average' horse - i.e. one not particularly naturally talented at the specific movement - will take to learn and develop the muscle to perform a more advanced movement? Is it actually POSSIBLE to spend that time, in addition to the time needed to actually condition the horse for the demands of the overall event? Are there actually enough hours in the day in which you can ask the horse to work in order to accomplish all of those things? Or is conditioning time going to have to be sacrificed in favor of time in the dressage arena?)

(erm. sorry. I got a bit long winded. :) )

These thoughts tend to irritate me. There is no research dictating that dressage hurts cross country in any way shape or form. Taking a look at the Olympics, this theory holds no water:

Riders under 40 points in dressage:

Clayton Fredericks- 37 No jumping penalties cross country
Lucinda Fredericks- 30.4 No jumping penalties cross country
Megan Jones - 35.4 No jumping penalties cross country
Hinrich Romeike - 37.5 No jumping penalties cross country
Ingrid Klimke - 33.5 No jumping penalties cross country
Andreas Dibowski- 39.6 No jumping penalties cross country
Gina Miles - 39.3 No jumping penalties cross country
Rebecca Holder- 35.7 60 Jumping penalties
Mary King- 38.1 No jumping penalties cross country
Susanna Bordone- 37.8 No jumping penalties cross country
Karin Donckers- 31.7 No jumping penalties cross country

So, 10% of people with good dressage scores have any jumping penalties in cross country. The highest time penalty is 9.21 seconds.

Other dressage scores with no jumping penalties in cross country: 40.2, 44.6, 45.2, 50.2, 40.6, 53.3, 40, 41.5, 43.9, 53.1, 52, 54.6, 51.7, 50.6, 48, 46.5, 52.6, 49.4, 53, 48.9, 59.6, 56.3, 61.7, 65.6, 64.8, 52.8, 57.4, 60.2, 48.7, 63.5, 42.8, 78.7, 64.4, 77.4= avg 47.95 (for 44 riders, including those named above)

Those with jumping penalties:

20 penalty points in cc - dressage scores: 43.5, 50.6, 53.3, 50, 52, 49.6, 48.9, 57, 59.1= avg of 51.56 (9 riders)

40 penalty points in cc - dressage scores: 44.1, 52.4, 55.6, 70.7= avg 55.7 (four riders)

60 penalty points in cc - dressage score 35.7

Eliminated in CC - dressage score: 46.5, 65.2, 52.8, 63, 49.6, 44.6, 79.6, 56.9= avg 57.28 (8 riders)

While this is a small study, it is likely indicative of what is common in eventing - dressage score does represent better cross country scores. No time penalties were measure, but the top 37 placings all had no jumping penalties and the highest time faults were 10.31 seconds. The lowest was 8.32.

Everyone with jumping penalties also had at least 8.55 seconds of penalties (held by Rebecca Holder-which is also interesting). The highest being 10.54 seconds.

It would be interesting to see how these numbers correlated with Rolex, Badminton, Jersey Fresh and other venues.

results are from: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/Schedule/EQ.shtml

[Ajierene]

I am not sure why you ignore the obvious and public explanation.

Neither Athens nor Beijing had a suitable cross country course so had to build facilities. Beijing particularly did not want to. Finding 200 acres near the kind of large cities that host Olympics is never going to be cheap. If they are not a country with a strong eventing tradition, a *** course is going to either need tearing down, or be an ongoing white elephant.

Here is the FEI's 2002 submission to the IOC.
http://www.fei.org/Disciplines/Eventing/Committee/Documents/report-ioc-final.pdf

What makes it a myth?

I'm not quite so sure why so many people want to think that the space constraint issue is a myth. Maybe because they want to believe in conspiracies? Maybe because they don't want to believe that open space really is fading?

The fact is that many countries do not have room for a full long format venue - China did not even have room for the short format venue in Beijing!

[SevenDogs]

Sevendogs, I completely agree with you about rider's integrity. The situations I included in my post haven't necessarily happened to me, but to other ULRs close to me; most of the time, the "right" choice was made. Bottom-line, my "goals" are to have a sound, happy horse who enjoys her job; this is far more important than any competitive achievement. The professionals I have worked with always adhered to this philosophy.

AJ: So glad to hear. As I said in my post, I did not mean to pound on you. You made some very valid points about the way our NGB's have actually made it harder for our riders to do the right thing and I agree with others that we need to actively work to change that. I just always feel it is important to reinforce rider responsibility and CHOICE, as well. We never HAVE to do anything (well, mostly never) and I do think (or at least hope) that we may see more ULR being more vocal about doing the right thing and hopefully, being rewarded.

As JER mentioned, it is up to us owner, riders, lessons takers, clinc participants, parents, and sponsors to choose those that we do business with VERY carefully. We do have power to change things just with the dollars we spend.

The lure will always be there to look to placings, medals, and ribbons as the most important signs of those we want to work with, and while those can most definitely signal great qualifications, we all must ask ourselves to look deeper and ask more questions. It's going to be hard, because it is easy to grow impatient in a sport that requires the patience of a saint. Quick, fast, and frequent wins are not always everything they are cracked up to be.

For those of you who say you will not go to recognized events, I agree with Janet and others who believe that is not the way. I will not give up on the sport. For as vocal as I have been about the need for new leadership (and I will continue to say it), there are great people involved in the sport with vast amounts of knowledge that can be harnessed. Great strides have been made, particularly at the lower levels, and I will continue to support them.

[Wheel Whip]

What would be the "cost" to eventing if it was scratched from the Olympic roster? As I see it now, after the initial furor, there might be some clear benefits. We wouldn't have to be the round peg in the square hole to make the sport fit the organizers venues. It would quench the team frenzy, everyone competes on their own merits, no selection committees, team coaches, political BS. Have the "big" events stand by themselves, no need to choose teams. Have an international leaderboard and give the winners the cash you would have spent on this Olympic farce.
A question for the ULRs out there. Where is the majority of your income generated? Sales, clinics, rides? It appears that change is not coming quickly to the pros 'cause they have bills to pay, and while it ain't great, they are surviving financially as things are now. It is a shame they have to put their lives and the lives of their horses on the line for the lack of a better option. Honestly, would fewer people compete at the lower levels if the upper level courses were modified for safety? I don't think so. In fact from the people I've spoken to if the upper levels were safer, it would increase the ridership at lower levels. As a Pony Club DC I have lost members because their parents have seen the fatalities and equate them with ALL levels of eventing. Logical or not, that's the way it is.
It is a modern fact of life that people are not willing to accept the level of risk that they once did. We all should live to be 100 and die in our sleep. After all the studies are done, I'm sure there were just as many fatalities in the "good ol' days". Horses were more like livestock and there was no PETA. This is not just eventing. How many fox hunts go from dawn to dusk, five days a week anymore? What is wrong with admitting you don't want to add additional risks to an already risky sport? I, for one would be contented seeing an xc that didn't have trakaeners that gave me vertigo on the ground.

[Blugal]

These thoughts tend to irritate me. There is no research dictating that dressage hurts cross country in any way shape or form.

<snip>

So, 10% of people with good dressage scores have any jumping penalties in cross country.

<snip>

While this is a small study, it is likely indicative of what is common in eventing - dressage score does represent better cross country scores.

<snip>

It would be interesting to see how these numbers correlated with Rolex, Badminton, Jersey Fresh and other venues.



Yes, that IS a "small study". You just took one competition where no horses died and pulled out some numbers.

It doesn't matter how many horses had nice dressage scores and then went clean XC, when the horse that dies on XC also had a decent dressage score and a clear round up til that point (e.g Kingpin who was 17th after dressage).

You are right, there is no research on the correlation of dressage scores and XC performance/deaths. So there is no point in excluding hypotheses PRIOR to doing such research.

[belambi]

It may be worth noting that Beijing, London, and possibly Athens didnt necessarily have room to host long format

[vineyridge]

Here's something I vaguely remembered, so took the time to verify re: cardiovascular deaths.

You all know that Phalaris is the male line of almost all male lines in the modern TB--I've heard as much as 90%. He is so prevalent that there is actually a term "the Phalaris disease" that was coined, I believe, by Ellen Parker to describe the current status of TB pedigrees. In many horses there may be a huge number of crosses to him through multiple descendants.

Phalaris dropped dead at the age of sixteen while covering a mare. Dropped dead, not injured and put down. That is surely a cardiovascular event of some kind.

With so much Phalaris in all modern TBs--and I'm not sure that something similar didn't happen to Nasrullah--, if dropping dead has a genetic basis then almost all TBs and high percentage part TBs would carry that risk factor.

[LexInVA]

That is not good. :(

[vineyridge]

It may have been much less of a problem when the mare base was so much less Phalaris based. It is now, though, as the mares seem to have as many lines to him as the males. That's another reason why I like to see the other (Matchem/Herod/non Phalaris) lines in TBs.

DW, what do we know about genetic risk factors in human males? Is it at all sex linked? I seem to recall that females have less chance of dropping dead than males.

[JER]

Perhaps Phalaris really did die doing what he loved.

As for Beijing, the reason the equestrian events were moved to HK was NOT due to space constraints -- it was due to health concerns. Stuff like viruses and the lack of a first-class veterinary facility.

(Beijing has some lovely riding facilities, BTW.)

[TB or not TB?]

Perhaps Phalaris really did die doing what he loved.


Or "who" he loved.... :D

[LexInVA]

Or "who" he loved.... :D

We should all be so lucky.

[denny]

There are cross country courses that are exhilarating to ride over, and others that you come off feeling like you`ve just put your horse through a cheese grater.

In terms of the former, I remember some of the old Radnor courses from the 80s, and some of the Ledyard courses, and plenty of others which challenged but also educated your horse, and weren`t trappy or punishing.

Horses tend not to get killed on these kinds of courses, the exhilarating ones, and I`d love to know which xc designers know how to build these kinds of courses.

My vision of "Future Eventing" (since we won`t go back to the classic format), is of a reasonably difficult dressage test, somewhere between 3rd and 4th level, and a big, somewhat straightforward cross country course, which rewards brave, forward riding, isn`t too technical and "in your face", probably about 11 to 12 minutes long, starting out with some "get going " jumps, and with options for the less talented/less experienced, and then a really testing 3`11 to 4`6 stadium on Sunday, to show which horses still have gas in the tank from Saturday, and to show which riders know how to ride.

What`s so confusing about trying that option?

[denny]

See above. If we can provide some specific options, I think that`s a lot better than just objecting to what we already have.

So, smart people, what should, in an ideal world, the 2010 World Equestrian Games X-C course "be"?
(See last entry, previous page, for one idea)

[JER]

denny, I like your idea with one exception.

While I have nowhere near your knowledge or experience, I think your 3'11" - 4'6" SJ requirement is too much.

A testing course of 1.20-1.25m max would do it for me.

I think a lot of very good XC horses top out for proper SJ courses at that point, especially if it's technical, especially if they're tired, especially if they like to be careful. A horse who is safe and careful on XC can get discouraged by being overfaced in the SJ, and we need to keep our focus on keeping the good XC horses in our sport.

[denny]

Well, make it 4`3, with maybe a 4`6 or two coming out of an in and out.

I want the show jumping to be a real bastard so the mach 2 crazies will know they`ll still need plenty of horse tomorrow.

Plus, hey, learn to ride over jumps! I jumped a couple of my eventers 6 feet back in the 70s just so I could say I did. Ralph Hill jumped close to 7 feet, I think. It`s doable.

[Gnep]

I throw this one in, why are the majority of the deadly accidents horse/rider concentrated in the UK and US ?

[Lincoln]

Listening to former Advanced riders from the "old days" it sounds like the difference is the trappy/technical quality of the current XC. It is a test of showjumping solid obstacles in between gallops rather than a test of scope and guts.

What if there was a segment of the triathalon that tested stamina, speed, and scope? Dressage tests obedience and suppleness. Stadium tests power, accuracy and rideability.

Making XC a test of accuracy seems pretty risky.

So, what about make the questions very different for the three phases, questions that different types of horses can answer successfully, but fewer are going to die trying.

[BarbB]

See above. If we can provide some specific options, I think that`s a lot better than just objecting to what we already have.

So, smart people, what should, in an ideal world, the 2010 World Equestrian Games X-C course "be"?
(See last entry, previous page, for one idea)

Cross country should be a big galloping course. Forget technical, test scope and endurance. Fences that will encourage a run out if things are wrong instead of a cartwheel. Like the old Mitsubishi symbol at Badminton...jump mutiple corners perfectly or jump groups of bounces or glance off and take a tour of the field. You were either good or very very slow.

I don't give a s**t at this point how the scoring is weighted....I am so over that. Give us back a cross country that makes horses prick their ears and gallop down to a fence instead of sucking back and being driven into it.

[2ndyrgal]

So why CAN'T we make the 2010 games like that? The KHP has plenty of room to do just that, gallop and jump, throw a lap around the steeplechase course in there to get them warmed up. Who's in charge of the decision??? It's our party, we can let our team know what they need to prepare for.

And back to my original question, why don't the upper level riders return to conditioning their horses the "old way" based on the accidents that appear to have a lack of fitness on some level as a cause?

[Ajierene]

Yes, that IS a "small study". You just took one competition where no horses died and pulled out some numbers.

It doesn't matter how many horses had nice dressage scores and then went clean XC, when the horse that dies on XC also had a decent dressage score and a clear round up til that point (e.g Kingpin who was 17th after dressage).

You are right, there is no research on the correlation of dressage scores and XC performance/deaths. So there is no point in excluding hypotheses PRIOR to doing such research.

You are correct. I did take a quick look at Rolex and the lowest dressage score for any cross country penalties is 46.7 - there are three in the 50's and two in the 60's. All dressage scores are at least in the 50's for eliminations.

I do not know the dressage score for Bailey Wick as he does not show up in the results. I am willing to look at more, but right now, I need to do homework. Tomorrow morning, I will look at more results of shows, in more detail.

If you can find any correlation between high dressage scores, or higher level of dressage and less than stellar cross country rounds, please share.

[Carol Ames]

I couldn't agree more, in particular with the bottom line that making eventing less lethal should be THE goal. And there was much commentary by Mike Tucker, Ian Stark, and Tina Cook (nee Gifford) to that exact fact -- they all commented that Badminton was noticeably easier than in previous years, and they were all willing to put up with that




it seems to me that, we do not even know, have not identified what "issues need to be addressed , other than Phillips' "miss:sadsmile:", by all accounts the jump in question caused the problem not because it was a test of accuracy, scope or...? but, rider fallibility:no:; I see no way to change the sport to do away with that, we , humans do wish to remain active participants:confused:, don't we?







if that meant no deaths. (On the other hand, they also said Badminton was still harder than Kentucky, which Tucker described as a 3-1/2 star, which suggests to me that many of our riders are just not up to the challenge right now, are preparing their horses incorrectly, or both.)

But, I do have a question for you about one of your comments, i.e., about letting dressage and show jumping be more influential. That has been happening over a period of time, it seems, and may be a contributing factor in the carnage we're now seeing. As people focus more on D and SJ, they spend less time on XC. I think Jimmy Wofford made this point, or a similar one, last year, when he commented that people are going more for the warmbloods or the crosses because that's what wins dressage. Do you think it's possible that making D and SJ more influential in the scoring could be making eventing less rather than more safe?

[NeverTime]

First, what do people mean here when they say "technical" XC? Accuracy questions like corners and skinnies? Tricky lines/distances? Both?

I don't understand how a big, challenging fence is less dangerous than an accuracy question like a skinny or corner.
If a horse can't answer the accuracy question, he'll typically run out - and still be alive but have 20 points on his record, a meaningless penalty in the larger scheme of life.
If he can't answer a big oxer - ie, he doesn't have the scope - what happens? :no:

My perfect XC courses has several elements:
1. Great footing on a flowing track (vs. a twisty-turny track crammed onto a too-small piece of land)
2. A combination of fly fences and accuracy questions to show the horse is both a scopey jumper and a well-trained partner.
3. HONEST questions that reward a horse rather than punish him for making an honest effort - not questions that surprise him unfairly or require ripping his teeth out to accomplish.
4. Combinations built on fair distances, so that while the horse's shape may need to change some, it's not a choice between a really short two or a really long one.
5. Design that is progressive, so a horse will see (for example) an angled fence and a combination before he sees a combination of angled fences.
6. And, since it's "my" list, my two least favorite questions - right-handed corners and bounces of equally-sized elements - outlawed forever. :D

[SevenDogs]

But, I do have a question for you about one of your comments, i.e., about letting dressage and show jumping be more influential. That has been happening over a period of time, it seems, and may be a contributing factor in the carnage we're now seeing. As people focus more on D and SJ, they spend less time on XC. I think Jimmy Wofford made this point, or a similar one, last year, when he commented that people are going more for the warmbloods or the crosses because that's what wins dressage. Do you think it's possible that making D and SJ more influential in the scoring could be making eventing less rather than more safe?

I think this is an interesting question, Carol. Almost like a water rising to it's lowest level (if that is the correct phrase). If we believe that the typical "Event Horse" (if there is such a thing) has shifted away from being a great XC horse in order to win dressage and/or Stadium because they have increased in signficance in scoring, will it shift even further in the wrong directions if we ease up XC even more?

I think Gnep would say that we should look at the winners of Rolex this year to discredit this theory, and he would be correct for those examples. But it is possible that there is another group of folks, in a rush to succeed, that missed a step or part of the program that made these horses successful. Not saying it is so, but it is an interesting theory to investigate and prove or disprove.

A couple of points, Maybe we aren't talking about making XC easier as much as we are talking about shifting back towards its roots of big galloping fences. Is that easier or is it less "trappy" and doesn't require the "Go and Slow" approach that so much of XC has become. Maybe getting rid of much of the "Go and Slow" does, in effect, make it easier or maybe it just makes it better, particularly if we take strides that have been made in good course design and materials with us. It's not just going back in time, but rather bringing together the best of all worlds. It sounds a little Disneyesque and I kinda want to break into song right now.... but I digress.

NeverTime asks a very valid question about the term "technical". I think when people use the term "technical" in a negative fashion about XC, they mainly mean a disproportionate concentration of fences that require a significant decrease in speed (some call it show jumping XC fences), which results in the "Go and Slow" process. As Reed's speed study showed, many Riders are not going to give up on making the time, just because they have slow down to jump the fences. Many riders (not all) are reaching what most believe is excess speed wherever they can so that they average out to make the time. I can't see how this is beneficial to the horse, rider, or sport. Someone on another thread asked about how the "Slow and Go" process could be possibly affecting stress on the horse, and I think it is an interesting question. In any event, I fail to see any positives associated with it.

Skinnys, corners, combinations, and the like are nothing new. The Head of the Lake at Rolex, to my knowledge, has never been a simple jump into and out of the water. Used judiciously and correctly, they absolutely have a place on XC courses. However, the sheer concentration of skinnys, combinations, corner use in combinations, bounces, off distances in combinations, etc., as well as how they are being used, IS new and the source of consternation for a lot of people. It's like someone having a piece of cake and thinking it tastes great, so they eat the whole cake. It's not so good then. I think that you would find that when people use the term "too technical", what they mean are things that violate your list and create courses that are out of balance with what XC is meant to be.