rotational fall at Bramham CCI***

[JER]

A scary photo from a scary paper (the Daily Mail)

"For my next trick, a perfect head over hooves: Picture of terrifying fall of rider and horse at international show"
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193186/Pictured-Horse-rider-terrifying-fall-international-show.html)

The horse is ok; the rider has neck and back injuries and the article says it's too early to say if she'll make a full recovery.

Let's hope she does.

The comments attached to this article are predominantly negative. And while we might object to making these sensational photos the public face of our sport, the sad truth is that these falls are horrifying and highly lethal.

[RAyers]

Uh, I may be off but it looks to me like she had one of those "Aerowear" vests (or whatever the air vests brands are) on. At least from the ones I saw at COHP the other week, it looks like she was wearing one.

Reed

[GotSpots]

Sweet Unprintable. Why doesn't the pole on the top of that fence have a frangible pin? The lower flower box might have caused the horse to fall, but not to flip like that, had the hanging rail been pinned (at least in my untrained view of this photo).

[joharavhf]

Ouch. Here's a full picture reel (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624921770/in/set-72157619636137281/)


The caption under this last photo says:

Faith lands and momentum rolls her away. As you can see from the picture, Sammi has landed on the right side of his head, and as he falls he lands to Faith's right hand side.

Faith's air jacket has inflated and protected her from futher injury. The air jacket works when the cord that is atttached to a gas canister at the bottom of her jacket and clips to the saddle, becomes detached when a rider falls, triggering the cannister and inflating the jacket.

Faith suffered 2 broken bones in her neck and back, but no spinal damage. Sammi was a bit sore, but both should have a full recovery.

[JER]

Ah yes, the Point Two Air Jacket. Yours for £400 ($650).

It can't do squat to protect your neck and spine from an axial-loading injury.

Or from the impact of the horse falling on you. But Ms. Cook was very fortunate that didn't happen to her.

[eventinglvr]

My thoughts exactly....just how EXACTLY do these fancy air vest protect you better than a normal xc vest?

[Jealoushe]

I feel sick....that girl was probably inches away from being dead.

ughhhhhhhhhhh I hate that.

[rabicon]

Looks like he got to deep. Thank God everyone is okay and not dead after that!! The vest is interesting, never seen one of those.

[Gnep]

take a real close look at that slide show, when she hits the ground with her head the vest is not jet completly filled with air, the vest is still inflating.
But this rotational could have been prevented by the pin, a perfect demonstration.

[Lori B]

Ditto GotSpots. RAYers, Gnep, other fence engineering types -- could that top rail have been pinned? Should it have been? Or is there a reason that it couldn't have been?

Ai yi yi.

[kookicat]

God, that's just chilling.

My thoughts exactly....just how EXACTLY do these fancy air vest protect you better than a normal xc vest?

My understanding is that they work like an airbag in a car- cushion the impact when you hit the deck. I could be wrong though. I think they have to be worn over a normal foam body protector in the UK.

[mvp]

"Rotation Fall"-- sounds almost good. The horse flipped the F over.

Not here to really start an "Eventing is inherently unsafe and therefore evil" type trainwreck, but I am cynical about wrapping plain ol' concepts in fancy terms.

On a biomechanical point. I think its amazing that a face-planted human-- short body and neck and I'm guessing the body comparatively light, fared better than the face-planting horse with that longer neck and proportionately heavier body. Perhaps the magic likes in the horse's longer neck?

[hamsterpoop]

Ah yes, the Point Two Air Jacket. Yours for £400 ($650).

It can't do squat to protect your neck and spine from an axial-loading injury.

Or from the impact of the horse falling on you. But Ms. Cook was very fortunate that didn't happen to her.Good point, the soft ground (looks soft) probably helped also. I thought the airbag WOULD help if the horse fell on you. No?

[flyingchange]

where the *&^% is the frangible pen on that rail????!!!!

[purplnurpl]

Uh, I may be off but it looks to me like she had one of those "Aerowear" vests (or whatever the air vests brands are) on. At least from the ones I saw at COHP the other week, it looks like she was wearing one.

Reed

Negative. Aerowear is different from that air jacket vest (I have no idea what it is called).

Aerowear is a regular beta 3. I bought the Outlyne this year and I really like it.

[CookiePony]

So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions.

[RAyers]

take a real close look at that slide show, when she hits the ground with her head the vest is not jet completly filled with air, the vest is still inflating.
But this rotational could have been prevented by the pin, a perfect demonstration.


I agree! Look at the photo in the first article. The vest is definitely NOT fully inflated during impact. There are still crinkles in it where her body is "folding."

In that type of hit, NO body protector was going to help. Most gear will protect against hyperextension but it looks like she was in full compression.

Yes, I am mistaken, it is a Point Two Air Jacket. I even misspelled Airowear which makes a "standard" flak jacket.

[Gnep]

LoriB, no problem to pin that fence, piece of cubcacke.

[Jealoushe]

where the *&^% is the frangible pen on that rail????!!!!

What difference does it make, not being snotty just actually curious. How would the horse have fallen if there was one. I'm still inclined to think the fall would be pretty nasty.

[JER]

I thought the airbag WOULD help if the horse fell on you. No?

No.

Horsey big, airbag little. That's the scientific explanation.

Also, the airbag starts to deflate after 18 seconds, so if you're trapped under your horse, it's toughen-up-cupcake time.

If the fence had been pinned, the rail would have given way and the horse's trajectory would have been changed. The horse would fall down rather than rotate over.

[flyingchange]

What difference does it make, not being snotty just actually curious. How would the horse have fallen if there was one. I'm still inclined to think the fall would be pretty nasty.

The risk of the horse rotating would have been decreased significantly if not completely. yes, the horse would still have likely fallen, but not ass over teakettle. that's the POINT of frangible pins - to reduce risk, significantly, of the RF, which is the most deadly fall that can occur.

[JER]

The risk of the horse rotating would have been decreased significantly if not completely. yes, the horse would still have likely fallen, but not ass over teakettle. that's the POINT of frangible pins - to reduce risk, significantly, of the RF, which is the most deadly fall that can occur.

The frangible pin was designed specifically to change the trajectory of the horse in a rotational fall.

In a rotational fall, the horse and rider are rotating on the same trajectory. The horse is very likely to fall on, and therefore crush, the rider.

The frangible pin is designed to allow the fence to collapse at a particular point in the rotation that will change the trajectory of the HORSE, causing it to fall straight down, rather than continue rotating over. The rider will continue on the same trajectory as before but without the threat of being crushed by the horse.

And Point Two airbag fans, please understand that your flotation device will not inflate unless you are separated from your horse. In a rotational fall, the rider may stay with the horse and therefore, not activate the inflation mechanism. The good news in that case is you won't have to buy a new canister for your air jacket but then there's a 30% chance that your heirs will be the ones receiving this good news.

[monstrpony]

A *very* small point, but it looks to me like there is a possibility that the inflatable vest changes the rider's shape sufficiently, to something more like a ball, that is might be easier for the rider to roll away from the point of impact, rather than just crumpling there. Perhaps some small increase in the chance that the horse doesn't land on the rider.

Agree that I'd much rather see that picture with the fence having broken away. Perhaps wouldn't see the pic at all as it wouldn't be dramatic enough to warrant front-pages in the news.

Very lucky outcome, given the givens. Whew.

[cyberbay]

Yes, where the h*** was that frangible?

To me, it is just heartbreaking to see that horse have to go through that type of fall. No horse ever wants to find itself in that moment, and I sincerely, truly doubt that general horse antics ever get the horse into a rotation fall. It's almost always b/c of what we ask it to do for us...

That bothers me a lot.

[Jealoushe]

Thanks for the pin info guys. I knew what they were for, I just tend to think the horse would be injured worse if the pole does collapse.

I guess we have to choose the riders life is more important than the horses. I hate making a choice like that.

[JER]

Thanks for the pin info guys. I knew what they were for, I just tend to think the horse would be injured worse if the pole does collapse.

I guess we have to choose the riders life is more important than the horses. I hate making a choice like that.

You are right. The pin was designed to try to save the RIDER, not the horse, following the spate of high-level rider deaths in the UK in 1999.

[Janeway]

No horse ever wants to find itself in that moment

As much as I appreciate the sentiment behind your post, this sentence made me smile as I sincerely doubt that any horse is capable of thinking that far ahead or that literal ;)

I don't doubt though that a horse that has had a bad fall may be worried about falling again in a similar situation. Or at least be wary on some level of a certain jump where a previous fall occurred.

Re: the picture, that is a horrid shot, and you do have to wonder why (aside from the usual cost reasons) a frangible pin wasn't put in. From what I've read about the Bramham course designer (Sue Benson) over the years, I don't think she creates the most horse friendly courses out there either; I've read complaints about her in Horse and Hound a lot over the years.

Perhaps it is time as someone above said to start keeping stats on falls per course designer!

[rabicon]

Not to hijack but ran across this today, very sad

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Family-s-vigil-teenage-pony-rider-fall/article-1055988-detail/article.html

[hb]

Thanks for the pin info guys. I knew what they were for, I just tend to think the horse would be injured worse if the pole does collapse.

I guess we have to choose the riders life is more important than the horses. I hate making a choice like that.

If you look at the frame-by-frame photos, the horse rotates around the pole. If the frangible pin broke and the pole fell when the horse chested it, maybe the horse would fall forward with the pole rather than rotate around it. More like what happens with a stadium fence. No solid point to rotate around.

In this particular fall the horse might have been more banged up with the pole breaking. But in some falls the horse breaks their neck when they land. The pin breaking might make that less likely?

[JER]

From what I've read about the Bramham course designer (Sue Benson) over the years, I don't think she creates the most horse friendly courses out there either; I've read complaints about her in Horse and Hound a lot over the years.

Perhaps it is time as someone above said to start keeping stats on falls per course designer!

Sue Benson was the CD at Belton Horse Trials. the event at which rider Ian Olding was killed in April of this year. His death came at an absolutely batsh*t complex in which riders/horses had to negotiate around two life-size human figurines.

2009 was Benson's last year designing at Bramham. Ian Stark is taking over for 2010.

Sue Benson is the Olympic designer for 2012 and yes, there has been much concern about her selection and controversy over her courses.

[Gunnar]

Yes, where the h*** was that frangible?

To me, it is just heartbreaking to see that horse have to go through that type of fall. No horse ever wants to find itself in that moment, and I sincerely, truly doubt that general horse antics ever get the horse into a rotation fall. It's almost always b/c of what we ask it to do for us...

That bothers me a lot.

Just the look in the poor horses eyes! A real WTF moment indeed! :sadsmile:

[Gnep]

The pin will help to prevent serious injury to the horse to. A lot of horses that land on their head during rotation break their necks. When the pins break the pole drops down and takes the point of rotation away, the horse falls down onto its chest and mostly rolls over its shoulder, which is a far less severe crash with less serious injuries.

But what the pictures show, the airvest did not deploy fast enough, the rider is already crashing head on into the ground while the airvest is still inflating. Second, the pinney is restricting inflation, the pinney ties prevent proper inflation, How does the vest work with the slip on pinney they used in Luhmuehlen. Third, if one takes a look at the jump into the water, the teather is close to max stretch.

Because the vest deployed to slow, it was not able to prevent injuries, the reason in this case is the teather, it has to be long ( see water in jump ), but for that reason, the deployment happened to late. And the vest would have not prevented the rider from beeing crushed by the horse.

[kookicat]

Sue Benson was the CD at Belton Horse Trials. the event at which rider Ian Olding was killed in April of this year. His death came at an absolutely batsh*t complex in which riders/horses had to negotiate around two life-size human figurines.

2009 was Benson's last year designing at Bramham. Ian Stark is taking over for 2010.

Sue Benson is the Olympic designer for 2012 and yes, there has been much concern about her selection and controversy over her courses.

I am not a fan of her courses, and won't ride any that she's designed. I think they're too hard on the horses.

[vineyridge]

Is Sue Benson a CMP acolyte? Does she worship at his feet, live by his precepts, and design by his rules? Is she a tough Cupcake? Should British eventers don Smurf suits at HER courses?

;)

[subk]

I am not a fan of her courses, and won't ride any that she's designed. I think they're too hard on the horses.
What courses has Sue Benson designed?

[CookiePony]

She designed the Rio Pan Am course, no?

[Carol Ames]

I'm surprised nothing was said about the horse!:confused:

[Fence2Fence]

What more can be said? The pic says it all. What some of the courses subject the horses to is a betrayal of our responsibility to look after their welfare.

Sure the rider's have that responsibility, but so do the CDs. They should be accountable for the price that is being exacted from the horses.

[JER]

I'm surprised nothing was said about the horse!

The article said the horse 'escaped with bruising.'

[Carol Ames]

So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions.However at Badminton, there were NONE, why?

__________________
*T3DE 2010 Pact*

[Coppers mom]

When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

Sad.

[SevenDogs]

When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

Sad.

So if we agree with your assumption that MOST riders under 25 years old don't have the skill set (which by they way, I don't agree with), we should ban ALL riders under 25? Sorry, this falls under the same heading as the USEF/USEA knee jerk reaction rules for the sake of making rules "so it looks like we are promoting safety". What magical knowledge is imparted on your 25th Birthday? Why not 24 years old or 26 years old? .... By the way, if there was magical knowledge imparted on your 25th birthday... I didn't get the message!

There is absolutely no evidence that riders under 25 are any less safe than anyone else. .... and if you are wondering I am waaaaay over 25 years old and have no chance of achieving that level and am not associated with anyone under 25 at that level. I just hate arbitrary rules that do nothing but make rules.

Our qualification system should be able to produce qualified riders. Period. It shouldn't matter what age they are, what color they are, what gender they are, what type of horse they ride, etc. If they are qualified, they are qualified. If we need to make changes to the qualifying system, than so be it but making arbitrary rules is not helpful.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by Carol Ames:

So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions.However at Badminton, there were NONE, why?

It must have been a freak non-accident.

[SevenDogs]

Sad when we are asking why we DIDN'T have an accident at an event rather than why we DID? :no:

[Coppers mom]

I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.

The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level.

[Gnep]

Copersmom, 25 and under more pron to realy bad accidents?

So why had Phillip Dutton 2 rotanionals in 6 month and one of those killed a horse.

[SevenDogs]

I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.

Um... by this statement:

When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

Sorry if I misunderstood your post but who were you referring to as "we" when you stated "when are we going to realize that most people that age.....". It sounded to me like you were advocating minimum ages above 25.


The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level
You are either qualified or you aren't. If you happen to be 20 and unqualified, then you are unqualified. If you happen to be 20 and you are qualified, then you are qualified. I use the term "qualified" in the true sense of the word, not necessarily in relationship to our current qualification system.

I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.

[Coppers mom]

Um... by this statement:
I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.
No, if I thought no one under 25 (btw, that's from the article, not me) should ride at X level, I would have said so. I know I'm not always the clearest, but I'm not exactly good at insinuations either :lol:

The problem with our current qualification system is that it's really not a very good judge of skill or overall experience. I know a ton of people that can tear around, at Pre-lim even, that are only there because of a good dressage test and saintly pony. Dressage will be gorgeous, but they clearly lack the skills to be at that level going over fences. But, because it's not outright "dangerous", just incompetence, no one says anything.

No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.

As a side note, I don't think it's fair to compare Darren's fall and this girls. Both were horrible, but when you compare the numbers, he's statistically doing way better than say, Laine Ashker. If an older rider rides 40 horses before having a fall, and a younger one rides 10, it's not the same. You can't say that age has nothing to do with it if you compare the horses ridden vs. falls. If you go that way, age does have something to do with it. Falls like this ARE happening to younger riders more often in recent years, you can't deny it.

[SevenDogs]

Coppersmom:

I guess I am not clear on what exactly you are saying. In one sentence you say that you are not advocating age restrictions and then in the next you say you are.

No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.

What you are proposing is NOT a solution. It is grasping at straws, rather than dealing with the real problem. Regulating age because it is "easier to regulate than anything else" is not good reasoning and does not solve anything. We have way too many rules that have no real chance at improving safety because "at least we are doing something" and those areas are "easier to regulate" rather than solving real problems like Course Design, Team Leadership, and Qualifying procedures.

For the record, I do not believe in any age restrictions and particularly not after age 18. It is a lousy way to qualify a rider at any level. I also don't believe you have any real statistics to back up your claim that falls are happening more to younger riders and yes, I CAN deny it. I think your arguments do not hold water.

Unless you think that sheer number of years you are on earth imparts eventing knowledge, age restrictions make no sense. If you take a 20 year old rider and a 40 year old rider on the same mount with the exact same experience, I do not believe that the 40 year old is safer by virtue of his or her chronological age. He/She COULD be safer or HE/SHE could be a 40 year old idiot. Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!

Sorry, but I think you are headed down a very dangerous road with your line of thinking. The only way real problems are going to be solved is by systematically and critically looking at the problem and taking the necessary steps to solve it in it's entirety. Age restrictions don't even come close to achieving this. It seems more like a knee jerk reaction to the very sad story discussed in this thread rather than a logical solution to the problem.

I am not trying to sound harsh but I think it is important that we step up and say enough is enough with ridiculous rules. We want real results by looking at the real problems!

[Coppers mom]

You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

And did I ever say anything about age being the only qualification, or that the qualification system is just dandy as it is now? No. I know it's easy to get worked up over this kind of thing, but please, take a second look :)

And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.

As far as falls happening to younger riders, of course they are! It's simple statistics. How many horses did Karen, Bruce, or Mike flip over before they were 30? How many did they kill? Not nearly as many as young riders today are. This isn't a knee jerk reaction to the article. If an adult rides 30 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, and a junior rides 2 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, statistically, the older person has a greater success rate of getting around. That's not grasping at straws, that's simple math. Young riders are moving up more and more quickly, and it's showing when they get to the really big stuff and they get hurt. When someone moves a young horse up too quickly, they make mistakes no matter how talented, and sometimes it catches up to them. Same with people. I don't see how that could possibly be denied.

[SevenDogs]

You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.

I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.

Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?

At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.

[eventrider]

Copper's Mom,

You need to re-look at your facts. Do some homework before you spout out that Karen didn't kill any horses before thirty, and look at horse falls with Mike and Bruce. It happened back then too, we just didn't have internet to talk about it. That is a totally invalid agruement.
I was running at the 3 star level when I was 18 years old, and I am sorry to say that I don't think I was under-qualified in any way. Many of the people you are spouting off as examples of riders who didn't ride any horses that died before they were 30 ALSO were riding at that level at 18-25. Go check some facts please. Age has nothing to do with it, experience and rider ability does, and that is NOT totally age coorelative.

[vineyridge]

Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.

[archieflies]

Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!

I dunno, Sevendogs, I competed in my first horse trial at age 24, and my second a few months later, after my 25th birthday. I did better my second time out. Clearly, being 25 and having the blessing of the Fairy made all the difference. :yes:

ETA: Coppersmom: Are you, by any chance, a politician? You're doing a beautiful job of talking in circles, dancing around your point, and generally making sure that nobody really knows what you mean while always tying it up at the end with a neat, "I don't see how anybody could disagree with me." Since you clearly think everyone is misunderstanding you, rather than repeating the same things that were apparently misunderstood the first time, let's try a clear statement of what you think. Stop making us guess. The suspense is killing me. Exactly what rule change would you suggest?

[Carol Ames]

Let's invent a cup/ log or pole holder that could be easily attached to a xc jump , telephone poles/ logs, which could be used to hold a frangible pin; They would need to be inexpensive so, organizers could afford:lol: them; engineers, anty ideas? or

[Coppers mom]

I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.
I didn't say that everyone has the same talent, riding experience, etc. But, how likely is it that a 16 year old is going to have the experience of an 18 year old, or an 18 year old of a 20 year old? I've already said that an adult will make the same mistakes that a junior will if they've been riding the same amount of time, I'm not saying that age means everything. However, I think it's pretty safe to say that you can't cram 20 years of riding experience into a 14 year old.

And it's well known that teens are more likely to push the limit. You can't argue against that. Yes, you get some that are ultra-responsible, but most have an incredible drive, and sometimes only think about getting to the finish line. Sure, there are plenty of examples against it, but I haven't found it to be the norm, no matter if it's with driving, sports, horses, anything.

So, again I ask, if a car insurance company knows that young drivers are at a greater risk of getting hurt, how can you think that it would be any different if you put a young person on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own and send them galloping at a solid fence?

Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?
Because I've talked to several of them. So, rather than stopping and thinking about all the reasons why you didn't have those older riders having rotational falls (course design, long format, etc), you just dismiss it as completely impossible that they didn't have the kind of catastrophic falls we have today? In the days of the long format, there was a lot more prep, a lot different courses, and riders learned a lot more after running 2 horse trials than they learn today at 2 horse trials. Todays young riders are growing up without that experience, and that's part of the reason they're having trouble. They aren't getting as much experience galloping over solid objects at one speed before moving up. Combine that with more technical courses, and it's obvious why everyone's having more trouble with the short format. This is why, even if their scores qualify, many riders aren't ready to take that next step. If we could make it so that everyone (not just adults, not just kids, not just people at one level) would spend a little more time at one level before moving up to the next, it'd be a lot better, IMO, than the current system of qualifying on scores alone.

At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.
Please stop looking for ways to dismiss me, and read. Sorry to be blunt, but it's obvious that I favor an age limit, just not the one you jumped to conclusions about (banning everyone under the age of 25).

[Coppers mom]

Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.

I too, know several young eventers who are far better educated than most. But, the majority of people haven't been fox hunting since 8, or had weekly lessons with excellent trainers since they were 10. These are the exceptions, not the norm. For most people, age has a lot to do with competence. I was going training, and thought I was doing great, until I went to an equitation instructor. Man, was I not ready. But, I was placing well and having fun, so I didn't even think about how awful I looked, and how much I was relying on my saint of a horse. Most kids will be like me, riding a saint, having ok-good instruction once a week (heck, even with outstanding instruction, no one ever told me how bad I was), and parents that think that just getting around is the greatest thing in the world. I realize that there are exceptional young people who would be effected by age limits, but most would not, and they might actually build a better foundation in the long run.

[SevenDogs]

I'm not dismissing you. I'm DISAGREEING with you because I think your theories are flawed, your statistics are not well researched, and your conclusions are wrong.

I will always fight against rules for rules sake and sweeping generalizations. I don't believe in making rules that (by your own admission) would keep qualified people from competing because it is "easier" than getting to the root of the real problem.

[Bobthehorse]

What difference does it make, not being snotty just actually curious. How would the horse have fallen if there was one. I'm still inclined to think the fall would be pretty nasty.

Maybe he wouldnt have flipped, but since he was alright anyway, that could have been better or worse for him.

However, the rider is far ahead in the pictures, even with frangible pins she would have gone flying and ended up in bad shape anyway.

[advmom]

Coppers Mom
On what basis do you make the statement most have "not been in weekly training" with excellent instruction since age of ten! I would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.
To say that the 21 year old riding three stars is less qualified than the 26 yr old or 40 year old simply won't stand up as a valid way to qualify riders.
If a rider is minimally qualified to ride at the level they are riding at, they are minimally qualified no matter their age.
There are alot of under 25's who have taken the long road to get there, they just started their journey very young. Age is not the tool to measure qualifications, it is level of competence.

[flyingchange]

Two points:

Lucinda Greeen won her first Badminton at the age of 19.

Modern equitation trainers - who train eq riders for the eq show ring - are probably a waste of money and time for an eventer that wants to improve her safety and efficacy on XC.

It's nice to look pretty on course - in an A-show eq way. But that ribbon-winning eq form can also put you on the ground in a quick way.

[flyingchange]

Maybe he wouldnt have flipped, but since he was alright anyway, that could have been better or worse for him.

However, the rider is far ahead in the pictures, even with frangible pins she would have gone flying and ended up in bad shape anyway.

With frangible pins the likelihood that her horse would flip and land on her, therefore killing or severely injuring her, would decrease signifcantly. No, he didn't land on her in this fall ... which is the result of quite a lot of luck on her part. The fact that the horse did not get killed by rotating is also the result of luck.

Frangible pins would have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced if not eliminated the probability of this rotational fall. I think most of us agree that falling over or through a jump is more pallatable than rotating over it as this horse did.

[LLDM]

Of course there should be age limits. Guess what? There ARE age limits. No one in their right mind would allow an 8 year old to ride around a **** course.

The argument now is if the current age limits are correct/working. 18 is just as arbitrary as any other age even though it what is currently legal for the rest of the the USA. Some are ready to be reasonably responsible by then and some are not.

I would love to see the age limits go up significantly for most of the upper levels. Just because some younger riders are capable of doing so safely doesn't mean that *all* of them should be allowed to *try*. Isn't that the very definition of reckless? Why not encourage/force younger riders to build competence at Training and Prelim for a (long) while before scrambling to qualify on paper for I and A? Why not reward them for doing LFs and doing fewer competitions better rather than doing as many as they can in the shortest amount of time?

Would it not make more sense in today's climate to have our *exceptional* young riders apply for an exception to more strict age limits rather than the other way around? Especially since it is almost impossible to keep even proven dangerous riders out of upper level competitions?

Just something to consider.

Oh, and how many 19yo Lucinda Green's are out there right now? How much harder/technical are the courses now than then? And even Linda will say how lucky she was and how *much* she has learned since then!

SCFarm

[SevenDogs]

Of course there should be age limits. Guess what? There ARE age limits. No one in their right mind would allow an 8 year old to ride around a **** course.

The argument now is if the current age limits are correct/working. 18 is just as arbitrary as any other age even though it what is currently legal for the rest of the the USA. Some are ready to be reasonably responsible by then and some are not.

I would love to see the age limits go up significantly for most of the upper levels. Just because some younger riders are capable of doing so safely doesn't mean that *all* of them should be allowed to *try*. Isn't that the very definition of reckless? Why not encourage/force younger riders to build competence at Training and Prelim for a (long) while before scrambling to qualify on paper for I and A? Why not reward them for doing LFs and doing fewer competitions better rather than doing as many as they can in the shortest amount of time?

Would it not make more sense in today's climate to have our *exceptional* young riders apply for an exception to more strict age limits rather than the other way around? Especially since it is almost impossible to keep even proven dangerous riders out of upper level competitions?

Just something to consider.

Oh, and how many 19yo Lucinda Green's are out there right now? How much harder/technical are the courses now than then? And even Linda will say how lucky she was and how *much* she has learned since then!

SCFarm

Um... why don't we just figure out a way to fix "today's climate". Once again, let's fix the problem not just put road blocks down.

[Coppers mom]

Um... why don't we just figure out a way to fix "today's climate". Once again, let's fix the problem not just put road blocks down.
Because that would just be too easy :rolleyes:

Until we decide to tell the FEI that the short format's not working, and we care more about rider safety than the Olympics, road blocks are going to be about all we can do. :no: Frangible pins, age limits, and qualifications aren't a fix all, just attempts at making an unsafe situation a little better.

[archieflies]

Please stop looking for ways to dismiss me, and read. Sorry to be blunt, but it's obvious that I favor an age limit, just not the one you jumped to conclusions about (banning everyone under the age of 25).

My LORD, woman, would you STOP telling us what you're NOT saying and just tell us what you ARE saying???????????? "Blunt" is not exactly the word I would use here. Like I would tell a 4 year old kid- "Use your words, honey, use your words."

If you want people to stop looking for ways to dismiss you, write out in clear and understandable terms exactly what restrictions you ARE proposing. State numbers, statistics and sources if you will... and stop with the "you can't disagree with this" and "you can't deny that" crap, because not only is it ridiculously meaningless and failed rhetoric, but there's nothing you or anyone else can say that isn't going to get a few naysayers 'round these parts. If you don't know what you want well enough to write it out, then stop arguing about it for God's sake and let this thread return to the much more productive topics of course design and why a frangible pin was so conspicuoulsy absent!

[archieflies]

So, again I ask, if a car insurance company knows that young drivers are at a greater risk of getting hurt, how can you think that it would be any different if you put a young person on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own and send them galloping at a solid fence?

Flawed logic.

How can I think it's different? Well, I can't tell you exactly HOW I think, that's for scientists and psychologists to argue about, but I can say WHAT I think... ;) I think it's different because you can't legally get your driver's license until a certain age. With the exception of a small percentage fo hardship cases at 14 and a tiny group of young children who's crazy parents let them drive little mini racecars at age 8, everybody starts driving at pretty much the same age. You don't find many 25 year olds with 20 years' experince behind the wheel. Unless you come up with laws saying you can't ride horses at all until you're 16 (in which case I really am moving to Mars), riding is a different ballgame. You've got some 25 year olds who've been riding for 24 years, because they didn't ahve to wait untilt hey were tall enough to reach the pedal and see over the steerign wheel.

[Coppers mom]

My LORD, woman, would you STOP telling us what you're NOT saying and just tell us what you ARE saying???????????? "Blunt" is not exactly the word I would use here. Like I would tell a 4 year old kid- "Use your words, honey, use your words."

If you want people to stop looking for ways to dismiss you, write out in clear and understandable terms exactly what restrictions you ARE proposing. State numbers, statistics and sources if you will... and stop with the "you can't disagree with this" and "you can't deny that" crap, because not only is it ridiculously meaningless and failed rhetoric, but there's nothing you or anyone else can say that isn't going to get a few naysayers 'round these parts. If you don't know what you want well enough to write it out, then stop arguing about it for God's sake and let this thread return to the much more productive topics of course design and why a frangible pin was so conspicuoulsy absent!
Wow, take a chill pill, will ya? I realize no one's ever going to agree about everything, but this is just ridiculous.

What is so hard to understand? While I am for age restrictions, I did not mean that everyone under 25 should be banned from competition like someone jumped to conclusions about. It is possible for someone to think something's a good idea (making it a little bit harder to move up so quickly) without going all out (everyone under 25 should be banned from international competition).

[Coppers mom]

Flawed logic.

How can I think it's different? Well, I can't tell you exactly HOW I think, that's for scientists and psychologists to argue about, but I can say WHAT I think... ;) I think it's different because you can't legally get your driver's license until a certain age. With the exception of a small percentage fo hardship cases at 14 and a tiny group of young children who's crazy parents let them drive little mini racecars at age 8, everybody starts driving at pretty much the same age. You don't find many 25 year olds with 20 years' experince behind the wheel. Unless you come up with laws saying you can't ride horses at all until you're 16 (in which case I really am moving to Mars), riding is a different ballgame. You've got some 25 year olds who've been riding for 24 years, because they didn't ahve to wait untilt hey were tall enough to reach the pedal and see over the steerign wheel.
*sigh*

Time driving isn't the only reason that car insurance is more expensive for younger drivers. It's also because they're more likely to push the limit, and less likely to know how to handle dangerous situations. There are plenty of kids who've driven ATV's, go carts, and golf carts, but they don't get any special exceptions to the rules.

To me, it's no different for a young rider. Sure, they may have been riding since they were little, but their experience is still limited. Because of the (general) "I'm invincible" attitude, they are still more likely to push harder to move up, and they don't always have good judgment while out on course. It's not taking anything away from their skill, it's just that no matter how early one starts riding, there's only so much that can be learned and experienced in such a short time. Yes, it'll suck for the ones who really are ready to move up, but they're not the ones who are most likely to get hurt. It's the ones like me, who thought just because they were doing alright and no one said any different, they were ready. It's for the ones who don't have the knowledge or personal responsibility to hold back, even if they do qualify due to scores.

[SevenDogs]

Because that would just be too easy :rolleyes:

Until we decide to tell the FEI that the short format's not working, and we care more about rider safety than the Olympics, road blocks are going to be about all we can do. :no: Frangible pins, age limits, and qualifications aren't a fix all, just attempts at making an unsafe situation a little better.

Coppersmom: I think your heart is in the right place. I really do, but I'm not willing to settle for road blocks because it is going to be hard to solve the problem(s). I'd rather dig deep and put all of my energy toward the real issues.

[Coppers mom]

I'm not willing to settle for road blocks because it is going to be hard to solve the problem(s). I'd rather dig deep and put all of my energy toward the real issues.
I completely agree. But, this is how things are right NOW. I don't think it's ok to let people and horses get hurt while we're trying to work out the real issue. If we make it safer now, with the current system, it's not the best, but at least it's something.

[archieflies]

Wow, take a chill pill, will ya? I realize no one's ever going to agree about everything, but this is just ridiculous.

What is so hard to understand? While I am for age restrictions, I did not mean that everyone under 25 should be banned from competition like someone jumped to conclusions about. It is possible for someone to think something's a good idea (making it a little bit harder to move up so quickly) without going all out (everyone under 25 should be banned from international competition).


The things that's bothering me is you keep saying this, but you're still not saying exactly what age restrictions you ARE for. You're being vague. If not 25, then what? It's very hard for anyone to say whether they agree or disagree with you on something as general as "I'm for age restrictions." That can mean a lot of things, but when someone interprets the comment, you say they're putting words in your mouth. If YOU interpret it, nobody will have to guess what you mean. Would I agree with banning anyone under 25? No. Would I agree with putting a minimum number of years of experience on certain levels. Probably, so long as it's not arbitrary and backed with research. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what YOU'RE proposing, since YOU brought it up. It's entirely possible that we don't disagree at all.

[annikak]

Being the parent of an soon-to-be-driving 15 yo, scares the crapola outta me. He has NO clue how dangerous things are out there- and won't until he...well, gets in an accident (god forbid) or wises up...(which is my prayer...) He is a good driver, and better then 2 of our other kids, but he is still not as aware that it's dangerous out there. To the point, however...

Scares me too, seeing some of those kids out there zooming around XC courses.

But they (for the most part) are not the ones flipping horses and getting themselves killed. I can think of 3 off hand that were under 25- and I don't think it mattered if they were 18 or 28- they were/are those sorts of people. It was their personality.

As far as coming up with ages? That would be way tough- the variables are too great-lessons, good horses, great trainers, hours in the saddle (without stirrups, of course!)

Using the driving analogy and insurance? The insurance company is looking at the pool of teen drivers; clearly they are more "at risk" then older drivers.

Much like the fall rule for XC, I am not sure any of what we have seen would have been changed by an age restriction that is any more restrictive then the one we have now.

[Carol Ames]

A photo has this caption Cook and Naigor de la Roche leave the water at Bramham Horse Trials, watched by a few of the thousands of spectators that had lined the coursehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624104593/in/set-72157619636137281/



Did she remount and jump into , then out of the water?:confused:

[LLDM]

Um... why don't we just figure out a way to fix "today's climate". Once again, let's fix the problem not just put road blocks down.

I don't think it's ever been "safe" to have younger riders at the upper levels. Young people simply do not have the same respect for their own mortality that adults do. Isn't that the very difference between adults and minors? The only difference between now and then (in this one sense) was that then someone would make sure you didn't ride above your level - or if you did, that it didn't happen again.

Now there are programs pushing these kids up the levels as fast as they can and so many people think it's the best idea since sliced bread. That isn't a rules issue. It's a common sense issue. And since we can't make people have common sense - or use what little of it they do have, then we are stuck with rules. Of course I would be happy with a huge change in leadership that wasn't completely subsumed into the current groupthink.

I don't like a ton of rules either, but what better idea do you have? Again, age limits already exist - so technically, it wouldn't be more rules, just modifications to existing ones. Why do you think of them as roadblocks? I think they would be more like speed-bumps! :lol:

SCFarm

[Carol Ames]

The insurance agent asked if I did hang gliding, mountain climbing and some other "sport " stock car racing perhaps? but, did not consider eventing a "risk sport"again I ask, if a car insurance company knows that young drivers are at a greater risk of getting hurt, how can you think that it would be any different if you put a young person on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own and send them galloping at a solid fence?

[Carol Ames]

I can't figure out what the problem is; there are age restrictions for horse and rider; looking at the slides I see no:no: indication that she made a mistake in riding this jump; so why all the :confused:talk about restrictions, judgment, and sense of mortality??

[Carol Ames]

What age is required to enlist in the military?

[SevenDogs]

Age 18 to enlist in the military and risk your life (I believe earlier if you have parental permission, but not sure).

We do have age restrictions in place already (not sure that I agree with those either, but am willing to set that aside). I do not agree that changing those to make it more restrictive is helpful.

You know, there is a great way to make the sport absolutely safe -- Don't let anyone out there at all! Sure, you prohibit some from that would be absolutely fine but better safe than sorry!

This is the same logic used by LLDM and Coppersmom above. It's ok to keep perfectly qualified people out of the top levels of the sport to try to keep one from getting hurt. With that logic, there is no sport.

[Carol Ames]

Young people simply do not have the same respect for their own mortality that adults do. Isn't that the very difference between adults and

[Carol Ames]

Agreed;:yes: it is a risk sport whether insurance companies thik so, or not; you know, there is a great way to make the sport absolutely safe -- Don't let anyone out there at all! Sure, you prohibit some from that would be absolutely fine but better safe than sorry!

[jumpsnake]

What about, instead of number of completed trials in order to move up, it was number of years at that level for horse/rider combination, along with a set number of clear xc?
Or something along those lines... The passage of time, rather than actual events, can help to temper recklessness and 'process' thoughts and learning.

On the age thing-- I think there is too much individual variation to set an age limit as (I think) is being put forward here. And I'm 32.

[Carol Ames]

So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions. Unfortunately it is an occupational hazard; horses make mistakes:sadsmile: riders also make :sadsmile:mistakes; should we do away with them both?:lol: How do you make a rule preventing mistakes:winkgrin:?
__________________

[SevenDogs]

Exactly, Carol. We need to focus on what the consensus feels need to happen:

BETTER COURSE DESIGN. A return to courses that make sense and give horses a chance to evaluate what they are about to jump independently of the rider.

Safer materials -- frangible pins, etc.

If we want to revisit qualifying procedures along the way, so be it but let's not do it in an age vacuum.

[LLDM]

Age 18 to enlist in the military and risk your life (I believe earlier if you have parental permission, but not sure).

We do have age restrictions in place already (not sure that I agree with those either, but am willing to set that aside). I do not agree that changing those to make it more restrictive is helpful.

You know, there is a great way to make the sport absolutely safe -- Don't let anyone out there at all! Sure, you prohibit some from that would be absolutely fine but better safe than sorry!

This is the same logic used by LLDM and Coppersmom above. It's ok to keep perfectly qualified people out of the top levels of the sport to try to keep one from getting hurt. With that logic, there is no sport.

Easy there big fella! Take a breath. That is so not what I said. Not even close. Don't make stuff up. Oh, and "Perfectly Qualified"? Who would that be?

Plus, for me anyway, it isn't about *protecting* the riders as much as it is about protecting the horses. So, again, IMO - NOT pushing young riders up the levels as fast as possible is right up there with DOC's point of keeping horses upright. They are both perfectly reasonable and logical things to do to have some hope of keeping the sport alive and a modicum of sanity in competitions.

And if a young person *IS* qualified to ride at a level, by all means we should let them. I do not think it should be a default. I do think that there should be a different set of criteria than older adults. In that sense I believe the car insurance analogy works quite well. The more time and experience you have the less risk you pose - not just to yourself, but to your horse and to the sport.

Exceptional young riders should have a mechanism in place to have them compete at an appropriate level. But why you guys think that any kid with the minimum (current) requirements should automatically expect to move up is beyond me. But that is what the current system does. It was NOT that way a couple of decades ago.

There is a very big gap between keeping this sport "absolutely safe" and reasonably safe. Reasonably safe does not involve incentivizing people to take on *more* risk in a shorter amount of time at a younger age just so they can qualify for some program before they age out. It's not like they are done at 16 or 18 or 20 years old for crying out loud. This is a sport that sends 50+ year olds to the Olympics! What's the bloody hurry?

SCFarm

[Gnep]

I go with just Save. I rode my first Advanced Long with the tender age of 17, 1973. I had the worst of all crashes with 25. some minor in between. I had 6 years of eventing experiance before I rode a advanced. 8 HT a year and at least 15 jumper shows and dressage shows.
The guy who won Luhmuehlen on his dressage score is 26, first 4 star and he does exactly the same, if he does not event he is at dressage or jumper show

In the so called Good ol" Times we did not have qualifications as today. You rode what you were invited to, or what you thought you were readdy for.

A rotational is a matter of physics, not a matter of skills, it is inches not skills. Same for any other crash.
The thing we can do today, pin fences, use collapsebal designs, use proper equipment, good training and hope for the best.

[SevenDogs]

Exceptional young riders should have a mechanism in place to have them compete at an appropriate level. But why you guys think that any kid with the minimum (current) requirements should automatically expect to move up is beyond me. But that is what the current system does. It was NOT that way a couple of decades ago.

SCFarm

Um... really... how was it so different a couple of decades ago? .... because I was there and I didn't see rules/qualifying procedures that made it tougher to move up as a younger rider. I think what you may have meant was that people moved up slower as a whole (not just younger folks), perhaps due to the long format and perhaps due to other reasons, but NOT due to differences in the rules or qualifying procedures.

Also, how do you define "kid"? Since you are currently not permitted to compete at the highest level until you are eighteen years old and that is considered a legal adult, you must be defining kid differently. What age does "kid" end and "adult" begin? I also didn't see where anyone was standing next to these "kids" and encouraging them to "automatically" move up when the meet the qualification standards. I have never personally stood at the finish line at any show so that I could say to a rider coming in "You just met the qualification standards -- you need to move up!" and I don't think anyone else who is not supporting your age restriction is doing so either.

I do think we have more incidences of riders moving up too quickly. I DON"T think riders should automatically move up just because they have met the qualification. I believe there is a much cited Jimmy Wofford article on this very subject that I fully agree with -- meeting qualifications standards do not automatically mean you SHOULD move up. However, what I don't see is ANY CORRELATION with age. I see riders of all ages making good decisions and I see riders of all ages making bad ones.

I also don't think anyone is advocating PUSHING young riders or advocating riders of any age to move up if they are not ready. I wouldn't mind seeing riders of all ages take a bit more time and really assess if they are ready. What we ARE talking about is ALLOWING riders who are ready to move up and not assessing arbitrary restrictions.

I do think that there should be a different set of criteria than older adults

Hmmm... Really?!? You believe there should be a different set of criteria for a 20 year old rider versus a 40 year old rider just because of their age? .... Because that seems like lawsuit material to me. You are advocating age discrimination (two different sets of criteria based solely on age). As previously noted, there are already additional restrictions for those under 18 years old, but once you are an adult, you are an adult and the same rules (and qualification standards) should apply.

It's not like they are done at 16 or 18 or 20 years old for crying out loud. This is a sport that sends 50+ year olds to the Olympics! What's the bloody hurry?

But what if success happens to come early in life? What if their "Once in a Lifetime Horse" comes to them early in their career and they are qualified, safe and ready to go? Should they pass the opportunity by because YOU think they aren't old enough? Maybe they won't have the ability to own horses at age 40, perhaps the rider may not be healthy enough to have a life long riding career, or maybe that "Once in a Lifetime Horse" won't come around again for them? There are no guarantees in this sport and putting arbitrary road blocks down is wrong. If you have the skill and experience, it shouldn't matter whether you are 18, 22, 25, 30, 50, or 75 (that one is in honor of Walt Gervais!), you have the skill and experience.

Speaking of Walt, I'm sure there were a hell of a lot of people that thought it was dangerous for someone of his age to be out doing a One Star.... but he showed that age didn't matter from the opposite end of the spectrum. If this board existed and the idea of a 70+ year old man doing a One Star came up, I am sure there would be somebody out there advocating for upper age limits ("reaction time may not be the same"; "eye sight may be starting to go"; or "they might have Alzheimers and get lost when they come out of the box" -- tongue in cheek on that one!). ...And, I would be here fighting against it because age does not necessarily correlate to ability (and no, I wouldn't support the idea that Walt could ask for special permission because he was an "exceptional senior").

Plus, for me anyway, it isn't about *protecting* the riders as much as it is about protecting the horses.

I appreciate your concern for the horses - you are not alone. I think just about everyone respects the fact that it is not just the rider at risk. However, I still don't see rider age being THE factor that is going to save more horses. I have yet to see any true evidence on rider age/accident rates, and no, car insurance examples don't cut it. As a previous poster pointed out, the vast majority of drivers start at the same approximate chronological age. The same can not be said for riding (trust me... I started as an adult) and talent and preparation can vary widely among riders. If you can produce valid statistics that show a correlation between age and serious accidents, perhaps I would reconsider but I don't think they exist.

By the way, I see that you are a breeder. I happen to have strong feelings about overbreeding and its impact on horse welfare. Perhaps you would be willing to restrict breeding unless you can show that you are an "exceptional breeder". Be careful when you are asking someone else to give up their freedom, lest you be asked to do the same.

[blackwly]

I find it strange that there is so much vehement opposition to age restrictions on this thread. Certainly, when debating safety issues in the past, the idea that people are riding at top levels at too young an age has come up with out so much dissent! I'll admit to not being sure where I stand on the issue of age restrictions but just wanted to make a few points.

First, it is a well known fact that risk-taking behavior is far more likely in adolescents and young adults than in adults over 25. This is partly due to ongoing brain development, and probably partly to do with the fact that young adults haven't had the life experiences yet to interpret risk correctly. They also don't have the same responsibilities (a family, a career, etc) that older adults have, and I think that contributes to the feeling of invincibility.

Second, anyone who thinks there is not pressure to move up - in some cases too fast - amongst younger riders is delusional! The pressure to make it to the NAYRC before "aging out" alone is a huge factor. Add that to the pressure on young pros to be out there in the mix at advanced to be able to attract clients, sponsors, etc...it is absolutely there.

Finally, I know of no stats on this issue, but anecdotally I think that we probably do see more bad crashes PER RIDE amongst younger riders at the upper levels. I know, anecdote is worthless, really. But think back to Rolex 2008 and most of the rides we watched by riders under-21. There were a few great ones (Waylon Roberts, for example) but a lot which were clearly subpar. Think of the tragic crashes by Laine Ashker and Mia Erikson, where poor judgement/risk assessment clearly played a role. And think of the crashes involving some of our best UL riders (KOC comes to mind) when they were young and moving up the ranks. As my coach always says, "It's a sport of years."

So, again, I don't know where I stand on the idea of further age restrictions. I do think the sport AS A WHOLE needs a big fix at the upper levels. But to say that young people are not different in terms of judgement is simply false.

And in full disclosure, I was riding at intermediate at 16 and even applied for special permission to go advanced at 17. I got denied. With the wisdom of 30 years under my belt now, I see that this was clearly the right decision!

[vineyridge]

Talk and textbooks are just that and no more--talk and textbooks. Until we experience something in real life, we haven't really learned it. JMHO

Agree completely about the pressure from the NAYRCs. Ages might not be as important in ring disciplines, but XC is a whole nother story.

[RAyers]

U
"they might have Alzheimers and get lost when they come out of the box"..

Uh, I don't think that is a function of age either. ;) I don't need Alzheimers to get lost out of the start box, or even finding the start box at some venues (Coconino).

[SaturdayNightLive]

Agree completely about the pressure from the NAYRCs. Ages might not be as important in ring disciplines, but XC is a whole nother story.

The pressure to have a solid junior career is just as prevalent in the hunter/jumper disciplines. The pressure to do the Big Eq and junior jumpers is tremendous on those hoping for a pro career.

[RAyers]

The pressure to have a solid junior career is just as prevalent in the hunter/jumper disciplines. The pressure to do the Big Eq and junior jumpers is tremendous on those hoping for a pro career.

Nobody is saying that is any different. What is different is that a bad decision in your world does not necessarily mean you or the horse will be killed.

I doubt there are may juniors who really are concerned that their the round they do in the hunter or Eq ring will be their last.

Reed

[Carol Ames]

Does there need to be an airbag on the helmet?:confused:





agree! Look at the photo in the first article. The vest is definitely NOT fully inflated during impact. There are still crinkles in it where her body is "folding."

In that type of hit, NO body protector was going to help. Most gear will protect against hyperextension but it looks like she was in full compression.

Yes, I am mistaken, it is a Point Two Air Jacket. I even misspelled Airowear which makes a "standard" flak jacket. __________________
\"I can calculate interplanetary orbit trajectories but I will never figure out w

[SaturdayNightLive]

Nobody is saying that is any different. What is different is that a bad decision in your world does not necessarily mean you or the horse will be killed.

I doubt there are may juniors who really are concerned that their the round they do in the hunter or Eq ring will be their last.

Reed

You have a good point, our jumps fall down. You couldn't pay me to do cross country - I'm nowhere near brave enough! I was just pointing out that the pressure to reach the upper levels before the magical age of 18 (or 21 in case of the NAYRC) is pretty much universal in equestrian sport.

[Carol Ames]

What "bad decision " caused this fall, and was it a result of her age?I think you would have difficulty proving that; in fact, I'll wager that most rotational falls have been from experienced /:winkgrin: older riders:yes:
Nobody is saying that is any different. What is different is that a bad decision in your world does not necessarily mean you or the horse will be killed.

[Carol Ames]

A rotational is a matter of physics, not a matter of skills, it is inches not skills. Same for any other crash.
The thing we can do today, pin fences, use collapsebal designs, use proper equipment, good training and hope for the best. __

[Carol Ames]

IF age and experience are the significant factors, and I am NOT convinced the:no:y are; Who/ what will determine if and when they are qualified to compete safely?? WE have qualification requirements now, yet the two riders involved in equine fatalities at Rolex last year were told by their coaches to "go for it" and this years' horse fatality was of an "Olympic horse ridden by an Olympic rider, it is not possible to cover all fatalities with one "blanket age and experience

[RAyers]

What "bad decision " caused this fall, and was it a result of her age?I think you would have difficulty proving that; in fact, I'll wager that most rotational falls have been from experienced /:winkgrin: older riders:yes:

Carol, I was not commenting the specific fall but the general idea that a bad decision in the ring will net you a rail or refusal, unlike on XC where even a bobble can have nasty consequences. Thus, equating XC at the levels where this is happening to the jumpers, hunters or Eq is misleading to the point of fallacy and so can not be used as a justification.

And I do agree that there is always an upward pressure as a junior. I remember when I did the Jr. Jumpers (before there was a Jr/AO division) and we were always pushing/ed to go bigger and better.

Reed

[LLDM]

Blackwly - Well said!

Sevendogs - I have no idea how you are getting your responses from my posts. You are way further down this road on all that than I am. And while I disagree with you, it ain't a federal case. It's just something I think folks ought to consider and worthy of discussion - not getting all worked up over.

I will ask that you refrain from bringing my personal business into an argument that has *nothing* to do with it. If you want to debate breeding issues do it on a breeding thread. But, as you say, be careful what you start. I have some strong views on breeding myself.

SCFarm

[SevenDogs]

Blackwly - Well said!

Sevendogs - I have no idea how you are getting your responses from my posts. You are way further down this road on all that than I am. And while I disagree with you, it ain't a federal case. It's just something I think folks ought to consider and worthy of discussion - not getting all worked up over.

I will ask that you refrain from bringing my personal business into an argument that has *nothing* to do with it. If you want to debate breeding issues do it on a breeding thread. But, as you say, be careful what you start. I have some strong views on breeding myself.

SCFarm

I hit the EXACT nerve I was aiming for with the breeding remarks. It IS your personal business just EXACTLY like it is an individual riders personal decision when to move up after meeting the qualifications, not yours. That's the point I am trying to make.... it's alway's "personal" when someone else is trying to restrict your freedom based upon their views of safety or horse welfare, particularly when there is no hard evidence to support it.

In any event, I respect your desire to agree to disagree and call a truce. Truce called. Let's get back to the real changes we need to make to actually improve safety and improve the sport for both horse and rider.

[LLDM]

I hit the EXACT nerve I was aiming for with the breeding remarks. It IS your personal business just EXACTLY like it is an individual riders personal decision when to move up after meeting the qualifications, not yours. That's the point I am trying to make.... it's alway's "personal" when someone else is trying to restrict your freedom based upon their views of safety or horse welfare, particularly when there is no hard evidence to support it.

In any event, I respect your desire to agree to disagree and call a truce. Truce called. Let's get back to the real changes we need to make to actually improve safety and improve the sport for both horse and rider.

Hitting a nerve is NOT the same thing as making a good argument. You are simply trying to evade THIS issue. MY point about making this personal is that it is against the rules of this BB. You might want to read them. It has nothing to do with the arguement at hand, regardless of your desire to prove a point with an example that, in this case and in my world view, would actually support my side.

No, it is NOT *just* a personal decision to move up. And for crying out loud, I never said it was MY decision either. How you get this out of *anything* I wrote is beyond me.

It is up to the people who are slated to make the rules of this sport. And, if they fail to do a proper job, it will be up to National Governing Bodies of a higher order. Occasionally, as members of sport organizations, people like to bring up issues we think need to be addressed. I believe the the NAYRC is having some some unintended consequences. You are welcome to disagree. You are not welcome to blow everything I mention completely out of proportion and claim I think no young rider should ever compete or move up. :rolleyes:

This is also something I am fairly ambivalent about. As long as YRs keep their ponies safe and don't give the sport more black eyes, I honestly don't care what they do.

The breeding issue - in the context you are trying to use it - is the functional equivolent of saying that because I am purple, I am biased against orange people. It is a non sequitor.

I did not call a truce either.

SCFarm

[SevenDogs]

I did not call a truce either.

SCFarm

I am calling it. We have already wasted too much time on an idea that has no basis, would not improve safety, and would not be legally enforceable.

Have a great day.

[ACMEeventing]

Can someone please pass the popcorn.

[SevenDogs]

Can someone please pass the popcorn.

:lol:

Go for the Junior Mints! :yes:

[ACMEeventing]

Half-chewed junior mints stick to the screen.

[SevenDogs]

Half-chewed junior mints stick to the screen.

Good to know! :lol:

[LLDM]

I am calling it. We have already wasted too much time on an idea that has no basis, would not improve safety, and would not be legally enforceable.

Have a great day.

Well Bless your heart for deciding that for all the rest of us. No need for any pesky personal decisions now is there!

SCFarm

[ACMEeventing]

Make that a large. Extra butter.

[SevenDogs]

Make that a large. Extra butter.

:lol:

[Coppers mom]

I am calling it. We have already wasted too much time on an idea that has no basis, would not improve safety, and would not be legally enforceable.


Actually, we already have legally enforceable age limits...

[SevenDogs]

Actually, we already have legally enforceable age limits...

True, but current restrictions end at adulthood (Age 18).

What would not be enforceable (and what was being discussed here) is different criteria for younger adults vs older adults. You can't have separate rules for adults based solely upon their age (i.e. you can't tell a 22 year old that he or she cannot compete at a certain level, even though he/she has fulfilled all of the requirements, simply because they are 22 and not 30 years old). That is age discrimination.

[TB or not TB?]

True, but current restrictions end at adulthood (Age 18).

What would not be enforceable (and what was being discussed here) is different criteria for younger adults vs older adults. You can't have separate rules for adults based solely upon their age (i.e. you can't tell a 22 year old that he or she cannot compete at a certain level, even though he/she has fulfilled all of the requirements, simply because they are 22 and not 30 years old). That is age discrimination.

Um I think it's a bit different for sporting events. Otherwise there would be a ton of lawsuits for gender bias (pretty much all sports except equestrian)...:)

[Ajierene]

True, but current restrictions end at adulthood (Age 18).

What would not be enforceable (and what was being discussed here) is different criteria for younger adults vs older adults. You can't have separate rules for adults based solely upon their age (i.e. you can't tell a 22 year old that he or she cannot compete at a certain level, even though he/she has fulfilled all of the requirements, simply because they are 22 and not 30 years old). That is age discrimination.

Since you used the age restrictions for entering the military, how about other age restrictions?

21 to drink
25 to opt to not buy the insurance to rent a car (private industry and very in line with eventing, which is not a government run industry).
21 to opt to not wear an approved helmet while horseback riding, in Delaware
Must be a college graduate before being eligible to play in the NFL.

18 is no magical age where someone is an adult and can do what they want, enforcing age related restrictions are not uncommon. Today is not yesterday. In earlier decades people who competed rode more horses and more often.

Personally, I think age related requirements would be more ideal. For example, to compete at Advanced, must be 17, have X qualifications (whatever they are now) and have ridden at Intermediate for at least two years, if under the age of 25. You can also take away the 'under 25 part' and have the time limit be part of the qualification.

The statistics that I see are that the older professionals and the young adult (amateur and professional) are the ones getting into accidents. I have yet to see, and maybe I missed it, an older adult amateur have a bad accident.

The older professionals have been riding for years. Young adults tend to be less aware of their own mortality. Older amateurs generally understand that they do not bounce every time they fall. I am sure there are some exceptions, but older adults tend to be more careful with the wisdom that those years brought.

[RAyers]

....

The statistics that I see are that the older professionals and the young adult (amateur and professional) are the ones getting into accidents. I have yet to see, and maybe I missed it, an older adult amateur have a bad accident....

Speaking as an amateur, I will disagree with this statement. I do agree with that with age comes wisdom.

You fail to account for the numbers of people involved. The older adult amateur is a rarity at the upper levels. Perhaps maybe only 10% of the upper level riders who cold go to a 3 or 4 star are amateurs. You also make the assumption that they are more careful which is assuming you know what these riders are thinking. I have seen a few of upper level amateurs who take big risks and have the same sense of self-preservation as dynamite.

It could be that these amateurs have horses so well trained by professionals that they are well taken care of? It could be simply that there are so few numbers that the odds of detecting an amateur incident is low. It may be they have no time to compete as much so they tend much more selective in their competitions and go for ones they are most comfortable and capable.

Also, it all depends on the definition of "amateur." Remember, Amy Tryon was an amateur for an extended period as well as Corrine Ashton. And if we go way back, Bruce Davidson Sr., Jimmy Wofford, Denny, etc. were all amateurs.

[Ajierene]

Speaking as an amateur, I will disagree with this statement. I do agree with that with age comes wisdom.

You fail to account for the numbers of people involved. The older adult amateur is a rarity at the upper levels. Perhaps maybe only 10% of the upper level riders who cold go to a 3 or 4 star are amateurs. You also make the assumption that they are more careful which is assuming you know what these riders are thinking. I have seen a few of upper level amateurs who take big risks and have the same sense of self-preservation as dynamite.

It could be that these amateurs have horses so well trained by professionals that they are well taken care of? It could be simply that there are so few numbers that the odds of detecting an amateur incident is low. It may be they have no time to compete as much so they tend much more selective in their competitions and go for ones they are most comfortable and capable.

Also, it all depends on the definition of "amateur." Remember, Amy Tryon was an amateur for an extended period as well as Corrine Ashton. And if we go way back, Bruce Davidson Sr., Jimmy Wofford, Denny, etc. were all amateurs.

You are correct in that I am using the term 'professional' more loosely and could be further explained. By 'professional', I was referring to people who clearly ride as their 'job', or are working on riding for their job. Amy Tryon would be in this description when she still had another job, but was working on building her horse business. Jimmy Wofford and Bruce Davidson would have been in this category in earlier decades because as far as I know they did not have a primary job that paid for horses, they rode horses all day.

You are incorrect in that I was saying all adult amateurs are more careful than their younger counterparts. I bolded a section of my previous post to clarify.



The older professionals have been riding for years. Young adults tend to be less aware of their own mortality. Older amateurs generally understand that they do not bounce every time they fall. I am sure there are some exceptions, but older adults tend to be more careful with the wisdom that those years brought.

[tuppysmom]

I do not think that age has much to do with wisdom. Wisdom comes more from exposure than it comes from age.

A rider who is exposed to the sport 24/7, hears the stories and experiences of the "old timers", puts in many hours in the saddle, sees hears and lives horses, is much more experienced than a rider, (of any age), who rides one horse 6 times a week.

We once had a lady come for a dressage lesson. She had been riding for 25 years and wanted to learn dressage. She fell off her horse the first time she asked it to trot. Her explanation was, " I HAVE ridden for 25 years, but I NEVER trotted him before."

Another expereinced rider who came for a jumping lesson said that she had been jumping for years and wanted to start eventing. She had been jumping a pole set on coffee cans for height.

[LLDM]

But we are not talking about age restrictions alone. We are talking about them in conjunction with all the other existing qualifications - of which there are quite a few.

I agree that age does not equal wisdom. But the older one gets the less likely one is to be shielded from the consequences of their actions. People tend to become more deliberate and less hurried.

As hesitant as I have been to say so, my problem is with the YR program. I think a program designed to identify and foster talented young riders has turned into a race for the upper levels before one ages out. The message (albeit unintended) is that if you aren't riding Int. before you age out, you have no future in the business. And yes, I believe that mindset is dangerous, patently untrue and counter to common sense. This is an industry where wisdom IS/can be compounded year over year until they are throwing dirt on your grave.

Creating real horseman takes time. And while some young people have such wisdom beyond their years - even they will only get better with time spent in the barn. This is not tennis. The best 25 year old will get their hat handed to them by the best 50 year old. There is NO BLOODY HURRY.

And, quite frankly, IMO it is hurrying that leads to accidents and injuries.

SCFarm

[Carol Ames]

since people buy very:yes: experienced horses in order to move up:yes:, especially in pre Olympic// WEG ;)years, we are likely to see this againbedore/ after aWEG in KY, ; one of thehorses lost at Rolex had had top placings at Advanced level that very:yes: spring; what further qualifications are needed?3rd at Badminton should mean qualified to do a "lower level event in Fla; how on earth could that have been prevented?frangible pins on a table? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pickett)

the horse lost at Rolex this year had done, with his rider the Olympics, tell me please what further qualification:lol: should have been required. It is not possible legislate out the element of chance:no:

[Carol Ames]

Go for the Junior Mints! :yes: , are they less dangerous:eek: than sr. :lol: mints? http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4174333)

[tuppysmom]

I understand that it is not a perfect system. I doubt that there is a perfect solution or answer to the situation.

I just don't like the idea of adding age to the qualifications. Past legal adulthood, that is. Next thing you know, they will be putting upper age limits on riders because they injure/break more easily.

We did not participate in the YR program much, so I couldn't speak to the question of whether or not the kids are pressured to "get there" quickly.

[Carol Ames]

Is the goal to revent injuries or prevent falls?:confused:

[fooler]

First I hope both horse and rider make a full recovery.

This is an observation of the rider's fall - the rider flew thru the air & hit the ground head first. I guess I have had too many falls so now know to try to move away from the horse and do a tuck & roll if possible. We know falls will happen so we must be schooled in how to handle them. I am reading a book by Pat Symthe about jumping during the 1900's - these horrible falls happened then. A 'possible' reason for more deaths today is how the rider handles the fall. Is the average rider aware of their own body in relation to the horse & the ground?

[IFG]

First I hope both horse and rider make a full recovery.

This is an observation of the rider's fall - the rider flew thru the air & hit the ground head first. I guess I have had too many falls so now know to try to move away from the horse and do a tuck & roll if possible. We know falls will happen so we must be schooled in how to handle them. I am reading a book by Pat Symthe about jumping during the 1900's - these horrible falls happened then. A 'possible' reason for more deaths today is how the rider handles the fall. Is the average rider aware of their own body in relation to the horse & the ground?

Funny you mention that. That was my thought too. I was just too chicken to say it being a LL rider. I am older, but I know how to tuck and roll. Learned it in gym, and perfected it through many falls.

[JER]

You can do a perfect tuck-and-roll and still get seriously hurt. Sometimes the forces are just in excess of what you can deal with and escape unscathed. Or the fall happens faster than you can react.

I suspect that's what we're seeing in the photos.

[KSevnter]

First I hope both horse and rider make a full recovery.

This is an observation of the rider's fall - the rider flew thru the air & hit the ground head first. I guess I have had too many falls so now know to try to move away from the horse and do a tuck & roll if possible. We know falls will happen so we must be schooled in how to handle them. I am reading a book by Pat Symthe about jumping during the 1900's - these horrible falls happened then. A 'possible' reason for more deaths today is how the rider handles the fall. Is the average rider aware of their own body in relation to the horse & the ground?

My bet is the falls happen too fast for people to react. The physics involved in the horse hitting a solid obstacle and rotating are total different then when one is bucking or sliding into a show jump type fence.

[wildlifer]

You can't have separate rules for adults based solely upon their age (i.e. you can't tell a 22 year old that he or she cannot compete at a certain level, even though he/she has fulfilled all of the requirements, simply because they are 22 and not 30 years old). That is age discrimination.

Just a little FYI, in a legal sense, age discrimination does not exist if you are under 40. It is perfectly legal to tell someone they are too young to do something, you just can't tell them they are too OLD to do something.:cool:

[SevenDogs]

Just a little FYI, in a legal sense, age discrimination does not exist if you are under 40. It is perfectly legal to tell someone they are too young to do something, you just can't tell them they are too OLD to do something.:cool:

Thanks for the clarification :).

I could be wrong (not a legal eagle), but I think if we imposed different qualification standards for younger adult riders (say age 25 or younger) based solely upon age, I believe it would be immediately challenged in court and struck down, particularly if there are no stats to back up such a policy. It just takes one pissed off rider on an Olympic track being denied access and presto....lawsuit.

Here is how I see the case: a young adult rider (say age 22) with multiple years of experience and a good safety record is denied access to the upper levels because of this rule. He/she is able to show that older riders are able to compete with less experience and a lesser safety record, simply because they are older. I don't see a court upholding such a rule, and I am guessing USEF, FEI, USOC attorneys would agree.

But hey, that's my opinion.

I guess you could get around such a legal challenge by restricting Eventing to only riders 18 years or older so that no one can even start at Novice before then, but again, we are on a tangent that has no evidence that it would improve safety.

LLDM: Thank you for your last post on your beliefs on the NAYR program. That actually clarified in my mind where you were coming from. Again IMO, I don't see age restrictions as the answer -- I see disposing of U.S. team leadership that creates the pressure to excel by a certain age or lose consideration for international team selection (CMP and crew) as the answer.

You are absolutely correct that most Olympic event riders peak in their... ahem.... more senior year. :) The pressure to move up before aging out is a symptom of bad team leadership and bad parenting, not necessarily the program itself. Mr. Phillips and crew has made all kinds or spoken and unspoken rules about those that will be considered for team selection that don't exactly promote good decision making. Many riders (and parents) are desperate for team consideration and will do anything to get it.

[Gnep]

I used to do Judo, had a black belt, now I got a gut belt, but anyhow, X-C accidents happen so incrdible fast and are so often rather violent, that tucking and rolling never happens. I bet the young lady never new what happened till she hit the ground. Consider this 0.3 second for the vest to inflate and when she hits head on the vest is not jet fully inflated.

The age limit, why is it that search and rescue in the Rockies deals mostly with thirtyish people. I do not think that the younger riders are a larger risk factor and as Tuppy pointed out if you grow up with horses and horses are a way of living than you are in that direction well seasoned with 18, probably more seasoned than a amatoer with 30 years of experiance.

Last year when I was at the Young Riders, I did not see a single ride were I felt that this is kinde bad. Those kids rode exceptionaly well and were not taking any risks.
Opposit, I think the adult Pros under business pressure are taking the greatest risks.

[EventMore]

I'm an excellent faller, having perfected the tuck and role in more than a few high risk sports. The one rotational horse fall I had was too fast for me to know it was happening, let alone to react. I was show jumping and the horse saw a liverpool beneath him and failed to put down his landing gear - just kept rotating through his bascule and landed on his head then his back. thankfully beside me.

[Carol Ames]

Is the cause of the fall known? Has it been proven that she rode him "too deep?" Is this the result of her being under 25?Did not a two-time Olympic gold medalist do the same thing at Jersey Fresh? Did he need more experience:lol:?

[Carol Ames]

Has Anyone calculated an age range , plus median age for Olympic gold medalists? I would guess somewhere between 21:yes: and :eek:45; any one want to guess?