PDA

View Full Version : USEF Meeting in Cincy



vineyridge
Jan. 8, 2012, 05:19 PM
Who is going to that? Will we get reports?

It just occurred to this stupid person that running the USEF meeting for a whole week means that no one will attend but horse professionals, the retired, and the non-working, whether by having funds or not having a job. The large mass of adult amateurs are excluded--by design?

Geneva
Jan. 8, 2012, 06:49 PM
Seems like so much of the rule changing is now done at the mid-year meeting or by the ExComm. Not to mention the good stuff is usually in closed session. Maybe EN will have Samantha there since she is close by?

msghook
Jan. 8, 2012, 11:54 PM
Nobody is excluded by design. Many of the meetings are open, some are necessarily (Hearings, LOC) closed. Adult amateurs (Eventing variety) have, by this time been given the opportunity to express their opinions, concerns through the USEA. Those opinions and concerns (or the lack thereof) have been duly noted and will be considered by the USEA representatives on the Eventing Committee and the Board of Directors. The Equestrian Press will be present and will report on the proceedings.

Those of of us who are there are not necessarily rich, professionals or unempoyed. We are deeply passionate about our different disciplines, and spend a lot of time and money, on a volunteer basis, to shape the future of the sport.

Malcolm

poltroon
Jan. 9, 2012, 12:30 AM
What's the purpose of having it in Cincinnati instead of at 'home' in Lexington?

IronwoodFarm
Jan. 9, 2012, 04:59 AM
Cincinnati has a large airport that is a hub for a number of airlines. Lexington has a tiny airport. To get to Lexington, it is cheaper and easier to fly to Cincinnati or Louisville and drive the remaining distance to Lexington. So, they are saving everyone money and hassle by holding it in Cincinnati. There is a great deal to be said for making the meeting location easy to reach, particularly in the winter time.

Janet
Jan. 9, 2012, 07:44 AM
It just occurred to this stupid person that running the USEF meeting for a whole week means that no one will attend but horse professionals, the retired, and the non-working, whether by having funds or not having a job. The large mass of adult amateurs are excluded--by design?

If you care enough to be involved, you take vacation. Probably easier for amateurs than for pros who are just getting by.

I take vacation for the USEA meeting, which also starts midweek. If I thought it important to attend the USEF meeting, Id take vacation for that too. But the USEA meeting has a lot more seminars and sessions of interest, and more formal mechanisms for "grass roots" eventing input.

There is only one eventing-specific meeting at the USEF meeitng. While part of it is "open", I get the impression it is "open" in the sense that "you get to listen to the committee meeting" rather than an open discussion session.

The people on the Eventing Committee already know what my opinions are on the things I care about. I don't need to be there to tell them.

secretariat
Jan. 9, 2012, 08:53 AM
My thanks and complements to Malcolm for his years of service to the eventing community as rules guru, the compensation for which is getting to be dissed by anyone who finds the least bit of rules minutiae to argue about. While we may or may not agree with what occurs (including me, I still say we have too damned many rules), we could not have a better person representing our interests.

Ironwood farm - NOT!!
"Cincinnati has a large airport that is a hub for a number of airlines. Lexington has a tiny airport. To get to Lexington, it is cheaper and easier to fly to Cincinnati or Louisville and drive the remaining distance to Lexington." I fly in/out of both LEX and CVG weekly, and Lexington is invariably cheaper.

retreadeventer
Jan. 9, 2012, 09:12 AM
I understand your frustration, Viney. I also know that peeps like Malcolm and Janet invest huge amounts of volunteer time in running these organizations and without them life in competition would be sad indeed.

Also, can we use technology? In this day and age video conferencing, live-time video streaming, etc. should be employed so that those of us who can jump online, watch and listen, can contribute from afar.

Auburn
Jan. 9, 2012, 09:26 AM
Janet is correct about the Cincy airport being one of the most expensive out of which to fly.

My Uncle from Alabama just passed away. My DH was able to drive me to Louisville, fly SW and rent a car for three days, for one third of what it would have cost just to fly out of Cincy. :eek:

I would like to have gone to the USEF meetings. Shingles are still rampant, so I will only be able to manage MSEDA, next weekend.

Does anyone know if the USEA presents a report to the USEF on the state of the AEC's? (especially the numerous glitches/mistakes that occurred for many riders this year?)

Commander Cody
Jan. 9, 2012, 04:24 PM
Really, it's not that easy for those of us who are professionals to get away either. Not only do I lose income, but I have to pay for extra help to keep things going while I am gone, never mind travel costs etc.. Would have been easier for me when I had a "normal" job and could take vacation.

But I firmly believe in being involved in the organizations that run the sport I have chosen as my career.

I don't take normal vacations - horse shows and the USEF and USDF conventions are about it.

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 10, 2012, 06:57 AM
Nobody is excluded by design. Many of the meetings are open, some are necessarily (Hearings, LOC) closed. Adult amateurs (Eventing variety) have, by this time been given the opportunity to express their opinions, concerns through the USEA. Those opinions and concerns (or the lack thereof) have been duly noted and will be considered by the USEA representatives on the Eventing Committee and the Board of Directors. The Equestrian Press will be present and will report on the proceedings.Does this mean the Eventing Committee will actually listen to the majority of the membership who wants the one fall and out rule repelled?

retreadeventer
Jan. 11, 2012, 09:33 AM
Certainly it is thought of as "repellant" by many ... but I think you mean "repealed" .... darn those spell checkers anyway...:) :) :)

And...of course they won't repeal this rule. Come on. If wishes were horses, beggars might ride. Unless us smurfs "occupy" eventing, nothing will be changed to make eventing easier, fairer, more accessible and fun for US. It is about some other class of rider....not us. I know this and accept it, and work within the structure to pick my fun events and not expect every event to be smurfy-friendly (like the AEC's). It is a difficult sport in more ways than one conventionally thinks.

Ca dreamin
Jan. 12, 2012, 01:39 PM
Looking for news of today's vote on the "one fall" rule! nothing on Eventing Nation yet. Perhaps the meeting was closed.

flutie1
Jan. 12, 2012, 06:07 PM
I wish I were there to cheer for Jimmy when he gets his award at the Pegasus tomorrow!

EventingJ
Jan. 12, 2012, 06:16 PM
Looking for news of today's vote on the "one fall" rule! nothing on Eventing Nation yet. Perhaps the meeting was closed.

per facebook :) it looks like it was voted to abolish! :D

pegasusmom
Jan. 12, 2012, 07:06 PM
I wish I were there to cheer for Jimmy when he gets his award at the Pegasus tomorrow!

And if anyone is around, please give Jacob Arnold, the junior of the year, a big cheer. He is a friend of mine and lovely young man, dedicated to his sport (combined driving of course!). He was somewhat nervous about having to stand up and give his speech!

Ca dreamin
Jan. 12, 2012, 11:31 PM
"The Equestrian Press will be present and will report on the proceedings"


I am looking for evidence of the above, but have found no reports on the status of this important issue! Eventing Nation, where are you???

FlightCheck
Jan. 13, 2012, 08:04 AM
any news??

Ca dreamin
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:21 AM
For those not on Facebook, anyone know where we can go to find news of the vote on the infamous "one fall rule?" Would also like some references for a legitimate evening news site, as it is increasingly difficult to plow through the cutesy photos, "fan mail," contests and other c**p that has become the former journalistic pretender known as Eventing News. Yes, it is sometimes entertaining, but who has the time to plow through it all to find the news? Just call me old-fashioned I guess. I am certain there is real "news" out there somewhere.

Sara Lieser
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:27 AM
Hi guys,

This is Sara Lieser from The Chronicle of the Horse. We have two reporters here, and we'll post a report on www.chronofhorse.com after the meeting is finished on Sunday.

I was in the Eventing Committee meeting, and they did vote to repeal the "one fall" rule for ALL levels.

However, this has to get voted on by the entire Board of Directors, and Safety Committee is against it. So it's premature to report on it. In fact, a member of the Veterinary Committee just said he hopes the whole issue gets tabled so each side can present more data.

If there's anything else you want specific information on at the USEF meeting, let me know on this thread or via email: slieser@chronofhorse.com.

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 13, 2012, 11:44 AM
The Events Committee voted to repeal the one fall and out rule for all levels. If the USEF Executive Committee ratifies this decision, it will go into effect on December 1, 2012.

I have to admit I am shocked and very pleased that the Committee came to this decision. It appears the members were heard and heeded. Well done.

Ca dreamin
Jan. 13, 2012, 11:47 AM
Thanks to a real journalist!!!!!

pixietrix
Jan. 13, 2012, 01:42 PM
It appears there are still a few hoops to be gone through before the peasants can celebrate the demise of the One Fall Rule. In a contentious and probably polarizing meeting of the Eventing Technical Committee, the riders prevailed and the vote to throw the rule out was, indeed 9-7.

However, word has it, as Sara reported, that "this is not the last of it".

Members of the USEF Eventing Technical Committee who were unhappy ( and probably a bit surprised) at the final vote have vowed to fight this "on appeal" so to speak. The USEF Safety Committee just "happens" to have a few key members on it that were unhappy with the vote.


I guarantee you all that the Safety Committee will recommend the rule be kept in place and the real nail-biter will be the vote by the Executive Committee, which has, until now, usually rubber-stamped the recommended rule changes sent forth by the various discipline committees.

The only 2 people on the Executive Committee that know anything about our sport and Karen and David O'Connor and I can tell you all that THEY don't agree which way this should go. I'm not thrilled that this important issue is coming down to the machinations of a few people in strong positions to steer this where they think it should go, not where the membership has clearly shown they want it to go.

It's been very frustrating and disappointing that some of the people involved have been inappropriately heavy-handed in their efforts to influence this. Politics do not belong in our sport.

Janet
Jan. 13, 2012, 01:59 PM
...the Executive Committee, which has, until now, usually rubber-stamped the recommended rule changes sent forth by the various discipline committees
With the noticable exception of "helmets for hunters" which the discipline committee had turned down, but the executive committee approved.

LAZ
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:07 PM
It appears there are still a few hoops to be gone through before the peasants can celebrate the demise of the One Fall Rule. In a contentious and probably polarizing meeting of the Eventing Technical Committee, the riders prevailed and the vote to throw the rule out was, indeed 9-7.

However, word has it, as Sara reported, that "this is not the last of it".

Members of the USEF Eventing Technical Committee who were unhappy ( and probably a bit surprised) at the final vote have vowed to fight this "on appeal" so to speak. The USEF Safety Committee just "happens" to have a few key members on it that were unhappy with the vote.


I guarantee you all that the Safety Committee will recommend the rule be kept in place and the real nail-biter will be the vote by the Executive Committee, which has, until now, usually rubber-stamped the recommended rule changes sent forth by the various discipline committees.

The only 2 people on the Executive Committee that know anything about our sport and Karen and David O'Connor and I can tell you all that THEY don't agree which way this should go. I'm not thrilled that this important issue is coming down to the machinations of a few people in strong positions to steer this where they think it should go, not where the membership has clearly shown they want it to go.

It's been very frustrating and disappointing that some of the people involved have been inappropriately heavy-handed in their efforts to influence this. Politics do not belong in our sport.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can help support it going through? I'm willing to throw some support behind it & stir up some folks to do the same.

pixietrix
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:17 PM
Short of a mob scene at the meeting, I'm afraid we're going to have to hope for the best.... I think David & Malcomb are the two big players here & they seem pretty rooted to their beliefs.
It's a shame that it is coming to this after the membership clearly spoke and it APPEARED we were being listened to. This is not the USEA, the Board responded. It's the USEF. :(

pixietrix
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:33 PM
Nobody is excluded by design. Many of the meetings are open, some are necessarily (Hearings, LOC) closed. Adult amateurs (Eventing variety) have, by this time been given the opportunity to express their opinions, concerns through the USEA. Those opinions and concerns (or the lack thereof) have been duly noted and will be considered by the USEA representatives on the Eventing Committee and the Board of Directors. The Equestrian Press will be present and will report on the proceedings.

Those of of us who are there are not necessarily rich, professionals or unempoyed. We are deeply passionate about our different disciplines, and spend a lot of time and money, on a volunteer basis, to shape the future of the sport.

Malcolm
The part about the opinions and concerns being duly noted and will be considered is the sticking point here. Anyone close enough to Malcomb needs to give him a friendly reminder that the popular consensus was the rule needs to go. I respectfully submitted that to the Board and the issue followed its course...now, Malcomb has made it his personal Holy Grail to keep the rule in place. If anyone can sway him, have at it.

flutie1
Jan. 13, 2012, 02:46 PM
When did Malcolm add the "b" to his name?

pixietrix
Jan. 13, 2012, 04:15 PM
My mistake, trying to get too much done at once. My apologies.

Janet
Jan. 13, 2012, 04:54 PM
Anyone close enough to Malcomb needs to give him a friendly reminder that the popular consensus was the rule needs to go.
I was at the USEA rules forum in Nashville (I was the one handing the microphone around) and _I_ didn't see any "popular concensus". I saw differences of opinon at all levels of the sport.

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 13, 2012, 05:04 PM
It's been very frustrating and disappointing that some of the people involved have been inappropriately heavy-handed in their efforts to influence this. Politics do not belong in our sport.Okay, now I'm starting to figure things out. I thought it was just me at the USEA meeting when I got the impression that Malcolm was incredibly and inapproprately biased during the Rules Forum when discussing the one fall rule. I used to have a fairly high opinion of him, but hearing that he is using and abusing his position of chair/vice chair on the USEF Events/Safety Committees is impacting my stance. Shame on him for letting his personal opinion run rough shod over the wishes of the USEA governing body and its members.

Janet
Jan. 13, 2012, 05:10 PM
. Shame on him for letting his personal opinion run rough shod over the wishes of the USEA governing body and its members.
Um..

Don't you just have evidence that Malcolm was UNABLE to impose his opinion on the USEF Technical Eventing Committee?

He MAY have tried, but he clearly did not succeed.

LAZ
Jan. 13, 2012, 05:51 PM
Okay, now I'm starting to figure things out. I thought it was just me at the USEA meeting when I got the impression that Malcolm was incredibly and inapproprately biased during the Rules Forum when discussing the one fall rule. I used to have a fairly high opinion of him, but hearing that he is using and abusing his position of chair/vice chair on the USEF Events/Safety Committees is impacting my stance. Shame on him for letting his personal opinion run rough shod over the wishes of the USEA governing body and its members.

I am with you on this. I thought he showed an inappropriate bias as well (which surprised me because I've had a high opinion of his impartiality). I realize it is hard to keep ones opinions to oneself, I have a hard time doing it as well; however there are times when you either recuse yourself or keep your mouth shut. I serve on a couple of boards and there are plenty of times I don't agree with the way something goes, but once the popular vote has been made known, especially when data supports the opposite view, I keep my opinions to myself.

I really hope this rule is rescinded. I thought that the arguments for rescinding were very strong and well supported, the arguments for keeping it were based on emotions and basically unsupported fears.

flutie1
Jan. 13, 2012, 05:51 PM
Okay, now I'm starting to figure things out. I thought it was just me at the USEA meeting when I got the impression that Malcolm was incredibly and inapproprately biased during the Rules Forum when discussing the one fall rule. I used to have a fairly high opinion of him, but hearing that he is using and abusing his position of chair/vice chair on the USEF Events/Safety Committees is impacting my stance. Shame on him for letting his personal opinion run rough shod over the wishes of the USEA governing body and its members.

"Using and abusing" only because he doesn't agree with you? This is a patently unfair evaluation of someone who devotes a hell of a lot of unpaid time and energy to the sport of eventing.

As Janet pointed out, the anti-fall and out rule people may be te noisiest and the most emotional, but it is not as "overwhelming" a consensus as we are being led to believe. The recommendation by the USEA Board to remove the rule at the lower levels just squeaked by with some very eloquent and influential people on the side of maintaining the rule as it is. It will be interesting to see what the USEF Board does with it.

blackwly
Jan. 13, 2012, 06:11 PM
I thought that the arguments for rescinding were very strong and well supported, the arguments for keeping it were based on emotions and basically unsupported fears.

There are reasonable opinions on both sides of this issue, but to say that the arguments for keeping it are emotional and unsupported are false. The fundamental concepts behind the one-fall rule are based in well-defined principles defining the standards of care of athletes with head injuries.

LAZ
Jan. 13, 2012, 06:28 PM
There are reasonable opinions on both sides of this issue, but to say that the arguments for keeping it are emotional and unsupported are false. The fundamental concepts behind the one-fall rule are based in well-defined principles defining the standards of care of athletes with head injuries.

Be that as it may, the data does not support that any incidence of head injury is exacerbated by allowing someone whom has popped off their horse to remount and continue.

retreadeventer
Jan. 13, 2012, 09:26 PM
And ... the board will listen to .... Jane Doe Ammy Novice Eventer, who has a finite amount of recreational funding and time, whose individual contributions to the sport, multiplied by thousands, creates the very playing field the sport survives on.... or .... 15 or 20 unelected self-styled experts, so-called "influential" people who sit on boards? Is there any hope at all?

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 14, 2012, 08:20 AM
As Janet pointed out, the anti-fall and out rule people may be te noisiest and the most emotional, but it is not as "overwhelming" a consensus as we are being led to believe. The recommendation by the USEA Board to remove the rule at the lower levels just squeaked by with some very eloquent and influential people on the side of maintaining the rule as it is. It will be interesting to see what the USEF Board does with it.I have to respectfully disagree with both you and Janet. The majority of the members of the PHC support repealing the rule as did the Adult Riders when they were polled shortly before the USEA Annual Meeting. In addition, a large majority of the riders who completed the USEA Safety Committee's "Fall Form" supported repealing the rule as well. And, I would hazard a guess that, if polled, a majority of our young riders would support a repeal as well.

With regards to saying Malcolm is using and abusing his position merely because he doesn't agree with me, this is what I have either seen with my own eyes or been told by members of the Events Committee:

He showed extreme bias against repealing the rule during the Rules Forum at the USEA Annual Meeting.

During the Thursday Meeting of the Events Committee in Nashville, he deferred the committee's vote on the rule to the Committee's Saturday meeting when it became apparent that a majority of the members supported repealing the rule using the excuse that he wanted all of the members to attend the Safety and Concussion Educational sessions before voting.

At the Saturday Events Committee Meeting, without asking the committee, he made the decision to defer voting on the rule until the USEF Meeting in Cincinnati using the excuse that not enough of the Committee members had attended the above mentioned educational activities.

Shortly before the USEF meeting, he mailed out DVDs of the Concussion Seminar that took place at the USEA meeting to all of the committee members.

The day before the Committee's meeting in Cincinnati, he sent out an email with two attachments to all of the Committee members. The first attachment was his personal rebuttal to the major points brought up during the USEA Meeting in favor of repealing the rule. The second attachment was a copy of a blog written by a rider who supported keeping the rule intact, responses in support of that blog, and several emails he had received from others who also supported keeping the rule. He opted not to forward any emails he received which supported repealing the rule although I know he received at least one, mine.

During the Committee's meeting in Cincinnati, he stopped a member of the committee from making a motion to approve the rule change stating he wanted to set ground rules under which any discussion of the rule change would take place. He did not do this for any of the other rule change proposals and, according to several of the committee members, he has never done this in the past.

Now call me crazy, but to me this looks like using and abusing the power of his position. As Chairman of the Events Committee, he has the right to voice his own opinions. However, he also has the duty to fairly present all of the information he has regarding business undertaken by the committee and not impose special ground rules on only those items with which he disagrees.

In addition, the fact that the recommendation to repeal the rule "just squeaked by" the USEA Board is a non-starter and somewhat irrelevant. Nowhere does it state in the USEA or USEF bylaws that a majority vote is only meaningful if that majority is overwhelming. Once conducted, a majority vote should be honored regardless of how narrow or wide the difference was between the yeas and the nays.

It will be very sad indeed if the USEF opts to ignore the wishes of the leadership and majority members of the affiliate it has recognized as the overseer of the sport of Eventing.

flutie1
Jan. 14, 2012, 10:36 AM
Good backup as far as it goes, IB. However, remember that eventing in its present form exists because of all facets of the sport - volunteers, officials, organzers, sponsors, owners, parents, working amateurs etc. etc.
Was everyone polled, or just those who attended a meeting in Nashville, or those who bothered to return a form?

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think Malcolm was well within his rights to delay a vote until everyone involved had seen/heard/read the results of the Safety and Concussion meetings, and also within his rights to send on the "other side of the argument" that he had received. the terms "using and abusing" are, As stated before, way out of line!

Janet
Jan. 14, 2012, 11:33 AM
It will be very sad indeed if the USEF opts to ignore the wishes of the leadership and majority members of the affiliate it has recognized as the overseer of the sport of Eventing.

The last time the USEF "opted to ignore the wishes of the leadership and majority members of the affiliate it has recognized as the overseer of the sport ",
-the sport was Hunters/Jumpers, the affilaite was USHJA,
-the rule was that adults had to wear approved helmets when jumping

Do you also think that was "very sad indeed"?

JER
Jan. 14, 2012, 12:10 PM
The last time the USEF "opted to ignore the wishes of the leadership and majority members of the affiliate it has recognized as the overseer of the sport ",
-the sport was Hunters/Jumpers, the affilaite was USHJA,
-the rule was that adults had to wear approved helmets when jumping

Do you also think that was "very sad indeed"?

Janet, it's not a fair comparison.

The evidence demonstrating the safety of helmets is overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of helmets.

However, this is not true in the case of the one-fall rule. There is credible evidence on both sides.

That said, the current one-fall rule is an absolute sham, and it will be so long as a rider can compete on another horse that day. But this is a subject that the committees and insiders won't touch, because the pros would be up in arms.

Does anyone know where Malcolm Hook stands on this issue, or is his concern for evidence-based safety limited to keeping the one-horse riders out of action for the day?

Janet
Jan. 14, 2012, 01:25 PM
Janet, it's not a fair comparison.

The evidence demonstrating the safety of helmets is overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of helmets.

However, this is not true in the case of the one-fall rule. There is credible evidence on both sides.

I was not comparing the disirability of the rule itself (I agree there is credible evidence on both sides).

I was comparing the procedureal issue of the USEF "over ruling" the relevant affiliate.

IB seemed to be saying that it was "very sad indeed" for the USEF to over rule the affiliate, REGARDLESS of the merits of the case.

THAT is what I was commenting on.

On the proposed rule change itself, as I have said many times, I can see both sides of this, and would be content with either ruling. (To me, it is no more- and no less- a safety issue than "3 refusals at one fence = E" or "4 refusals anywhere on course=E".)

Personally, at the grassroots level, I see far more "pressure " on the "keep the rule" proponents BY the "change the rule" proponents than the other way around.

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 14, 2012, 02:14 PM
Not trying to be argumentative, but I think Malcolm was well within his rights to delay a vote until everyone involved had seen/heard/read the results of the Safety and Concussion meetings, and also within his rights to send on the "other side of the argument" that he had received. the terms "using and abusing" are, As stated before, way out of line!I think on this point, we will have to respectfully disagree. As Chairman of the Events Committee, when members of the USEF send him information they wish to be taken into consideration by the Committee when important decisions affecting the entire sport are to be made, he should share all of that information, not only that with which he agrees or which supports his own personal preferences.

Sara Lieser
Jan. 14, 2012, 04:33 PM
After a passionate discussion at the USEF Board of Directors, the rule to allow riders to continue on cross-country after a fall did not pass.

Brian Sabo spoke passionately in favor of the rule. Bobby Costello and Karen O'Connor supported him.

Andrew Ellis spoke for the Safety Committee against the change. Many other board members felt unprepared to pass the rule without more consensus from the Eventing Committee (it passed 9-7 in the meeting here) or more data or more time to study the data.

I have more extensive notes, but we're still in the BOD, so it will probably have to wait until I put an official report on www.chronofhorse.com. But I will keep checking this thread and try to answer questions.

retreadeventer
Jan. 14, 2012, 04:39 PM
This is truly an interesting discussion.

I would really like the people in power positions to think VERY carefully about what they are doing, and what they will be up against should they roadblock this....the elephant in the room about riding multiple horses in one day and how a fall doesn't affect further performances, making all that safety talk a bit moot...how much we just continually keep coming back around to customer service and caring about EVERY SINGLE RIDER who competes and enters recognized events -- not just a select few. It's an old saying: ignore us at your peril.

SevenDogs
Jan. 14, 2012, 05:05 PM
Many other board members felt unprepared to pass the rule without more consensus from the Eventing Committee (it passed 9-7 in the meeting here) or more data or more time to study the data.



REALLY?! Because:

1) The data that we have (British Eventing) shows the one fall rule is NOT effective in promoting safety. So, is the USEF going to commission (and pay for) some sort of additional study to try to prove the BE data is wrong? .... or just wait around and hope someone else does?... or perhaps just stall because no one wants to admit they were wrong in enacting a rule with no data or statistical evidence to support it?

2) Do the bylaws create any provision for considering a 9-7 vote less than a consensus for recommendation? Exactly what does the BOG think "makes a consensus" and where is that written? Was there a unanimous recommendation from the Eventing Committee when the rule was originally enacted (or whatever they now are deeming a "consensus")? What about every other recommendation?

3) How do the BOG get away with claiming they are "unprepared"? If they are attending meetings without fully preparing for them, perhaps they need to be replaced. How much time do they want? How will that time further "prepare" them? They certainly didn't waste any time passing the rule in the first place, without any solid rationale, studies or data. Had they required actual proof that it would actually increase safety prior to passing the rule, they would never have passed it.

I am pretty angry that our sport is being governed by a Board of Govenors that has very, very few actual representative from our sport on it, who decided to vote against the recommendation of the Eventing Committee, USEA, and the general consensus of the eventing membership.

I am also curious if the issue that JER continues to bring up was even addressed. How in the world is this a safety rule, if you can just get on your next horse and ride (I would like to hear directly from Malcolm, and the other members of the Safety Committee, who to my knowledge, have NEVER responded to this issue being continually raised)? The answer... this rule has NOTHING to do with safety and was poorly conceived, written, and enacted with no solid data or research behind it.... but because it is in the name of "safety", it will be very hard to get rid of.

Good going USEF....

canterlope
Jan. 14, 2012, 05:19 PM
I am breaking my self-imposed code of silence on this issue to say...

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!

Shame on the the USEF Board of Directors.

retreadeventer
Jan. 14, 2012, 05:42 PM
Thanks, Sara.
Well, just crap.

retreadeventer
Jan. 14, 2012, 05:44 PM
I think this deserves to be repeated.


REALLY?! Because:

1) The data that we have (British Eventing) shows the one fall rule is NOT effective in promoting safety. So, is the USEF going to commission (and pay for) some sort of additional study to try to prove the BE data is wrong? .... or just wait around and hope someone else does?... or perhaps just stall because no one wants to admit they were wrong in enacting a rule with no data or statistical evidence to support it?

2) Do the bylaws create any provision for considering a 9-7 vote less than a consensus for recommendation? Exactly what does the BOG think "makes a consensus" and where is that written? Was there a unanimous recommendation from the Eventing Committee when the rule was originally enacted (or whatever they now are deeming a "consensus")? What about every other recommendation?

3) How do the BOG get away with claiming they are "unprepared"? If they are attending meetings without fully preparing for them, perhaps they need to be replaced. How much time do they want? How will that time further "prepare" them? They certainly didn't waste any time passing the rule in the first place, without any solid rationale, studies or data. Had they required actual proof that it would actually increase safety prior to passing the rule, they would never have passed it.

I am pretty angry that our sport is being governed by a Board of Govenors that has very, very few actual representative from our sport on it, who decided to vote against the recommendation of the Eventing Committee, USEA, and the general consensus of the eventing membership.

I am also curious if the issue that JER continues to bring up was even addressed. How in the world is this a safety rule, if you can just get on your next horse and ride (I would like to hear directly from Malcolm, and the other members of the Safety Committee, who to my knowledge, have NEVER responded to this issue being continually raised)? The answer... this rule has NOTHING to do with safety and was poorly conceived, written, and enacted with no solid data or research behind it.... but because it is in the name of "safety", it will be very hard to get rid of.

Good going USEF....

JER
Jan. 14, 2012, 06:14 PM
The current one-fall rule, which prevailed today, cannot possibly be supported by anyone who honestly believes that, for safety reasons, a rider should not be allowed to continue riding after any fall from a horse.

Anyone who claims that that current one-fall rule is a 'safety' rule is either deluding themselves or is simply not very intelligent. You can fall in warm-up and remount. You can fall in stabling and remount. You can fall on XC on one horse and be back out on course in the blink of an eye. As we saw this summer, you can fall off two horses on course in the span of half an hour and still ride several more horses.

No one on these various committees wants to address this issue. Instead, they want to tell the one-horse riders that, if they only had more horses entered, they could keep riding that day.

Safety, my a**.

Thank you to Bobby C, Karen O'C and Brian Sabo for standing up for logic and evidence.

To the rest of the decision-makers, either get it together and prepare yourself for these meetings or stop chair-warming on committees that affect our participation in and enjoyment of the sport.

retreadeventer
Jan. 14, 2012, 06:45 PM
While JER and I often do not see eye to eye, you cannot possibly refute the logic of this statement.

HEAR, HEAR.


The current one-fall rule, which prevailed today, cannot possibly be supported by anyone who honestly believes that, for safety reasons, a rider should not be allowed to continue riding after any fall from a horse.

Anyone who claims that that current one-fall rule is a 'safety' rule is either deluding themselves or is simply not very intelligent. You can fall in warm-up and remount. You can fall in stabling and remount. You can fall on XC on one horse and be back out on course in the blink of an eye. As we saw this summer, you can fall off two horses on course in the span of half an hour and still ride several more horses.

No one on these various committees wants to address this issue. Instead, they want to tell the one-horse riders that, if they only had more horses entered, they could keep riding that day.

Safety, my a**.

Thank you to Bobby C, Karen O'C and Brian Sabo for standing up for logic and evidence.

To the rest of the decision-makers, either get it together and prepare yourself for these meetings or stop chair-warming on committees that affect our participation in and enjoyment of the sport.

EventingJ
Jan. 14, 2012, 07:09 PM
The current one-fall rule, which prevailed today, cannot possibly be supported by anyone who honestly believes that, for safety reasons, a rider should not be allowed to continue riding after any fall from a horse.

Anyone who claims that that current one-fall rule is a 'safety' rule is either deluding themselves or is simply not very intelligent. You can fall in warm-up and remount. You can fall in stabling and remount. You can fall on XC on one horse and be back out on course in the blink of an eye. As we saw this summer, you can fall off two horses on course in the span of half an hour and still ride several more horses.

No one on these various committees wants to address this issue. Instead, they want to tell the one-horse riders that, if they only had more horses entered, they could keep riding that day.

Safety, my a**.

Thank you to Bobby C, Karen O'C and Brian Sabo for standing up for logic and evidence.

To the rest of the decision-makers, either get it together and prepare yourself for these meetings or stop chair-warming on committees that affect our participation in and enjoyment of the sport.

/like! :yes:

blackwly
Jan. 14, 2012, 07:30 PM
How in the world is this a safety rule, if you can just get on your next horse and ride (I would like to hear directly from Malcolm, and the other members of the Safety Committee, who to my knowledge, have NEVER responded to this issue being continually raised)? The answer... this rule has NOTHING to do with safety and was poorly conceived, written, and enacted with no solid data or research behind it.... but because it is in the name of "safety", it will be very hard to get rid of.


Many of you know me, but for those who don't, I am an eventer and a neurosurgeon with a serious interest in the safety concerns in our sport. I am a graduate USPC "A", former winner of the USEF National Amateur 3-Day Event Championship ('02) and I was long-listed for the WEG ('98). I'm also a neurosurgeon with a special interest in sports-related head injuries who works as a consultant to a variety of equestrian organizations and serves as a member of the USEF safety committee.

I'm happy to respond to SevenDogs comments with what is simply my opinion about this controversial topic. This is by no means meant to represent any consensus of the safety committee. While I spoke at the USEF BoG meeting in 2011 on the issue of head injuries and mandatory helmet use, I was not in Cincinnati this year as I have been working this weekend and thus I was not privy to any aspects of this weekend's committee meetings.

I support the existing one-fall-and-out rule, though I do not ultimately believe it is as complete as it could/should be. I think there are 2 main issues I can address to explain my stance on this:

First, the data. It is my opinion that it would be inaccurate and potentially dangerous to assume that the British data can be extrapolated to the US eventing population directly. While the data is useful in understanding the issue and should be considered, ultimately we would need similar data from our own population before I would be convinced that there is no additional risk to a rider or horse who continue on course after a fall. The British eventing community and the US community are very different in terms of rider experience, jump judge experience, opportunities to compete, etc. In the US, I believe we have a substantial population of riders who are relatively inexperienced and lack frequent opportunities to compete - 2 elements which I think can promote riders choosing to return to the saddle in potentially inappropriate circumstances. We also have a different pool of volunteers, who are often less experienced and less knowledgable about the sport. I think this can potentially contribute to situations where volunteers (for example your 12 yr old jump judge) are not willing or capable of assessing whether a borderline rider is ok to continue on course after a fall. For these reasons amongst others, I think that interpreting the British data to mean that there is no increased risk to returning on course after a fall for USEA riders is misguided. Saying that these 2 groups are identical in risk is like saying it's fine to give your 5 year old daughter a medication that has been shown to be safe in middle-aged men. Not a reasonable evidence-based conclusion.

Second, the issue of riders with multiple rides. This is a significant problem. Based on the standard of practice in virtually all major sports in the US, I believe that any athlete who has potentially suffered a head injury (which I would state is any rider who has fallen from a horse) should have a brief "time-out" from the saddle and ideally a brief assessment by an objective person trained in the diagnosis of concussion. In high school and college sports, this role is commonly performed by an athletic trainer. This does not have to be an EMT, MD, Neurosurgeon, etc in my opinion. In my ideal eventing world, anyone who fell from their horse on grounds would have to have this brief clearance (takes 5-10 minutes) before remounting or riding another horse. However, putting a system like this into practice is a major organizational undertaking. This is something I hope to work on moving forward.

So, ultimately I agree that the one-fall rule is incomplete particularly as it creates an unfair exception for riders with multiple rides. "Best practice" in my opinion would require that every fall be treated in the same way, as outlined above. I would actually have no problem with a rider continuing on course after a fall if they had a 10-minute time-out and brief assessment, but as all of us who event know, that process can't be easily folded in to our current competition structure.

In my experience with head injuries both severe and mild, I am most concerned with what happens in the first 10-30 minutes after an injury is sustained. While the adrenaline is pumping in the moments after a fall, I have seen concussed riders appear virtually normal and very eager to return to their ride. Make that person sit out for a half-hour, and their symptoms are usually much more apparent to them and to those around them. While I would like to see a system of formal evaluation for these folks, in my anecdotal experience at events, most riders who develop symptoms in this time window elect to withdraw their later rides (and are encouraged to by those around them.)

So, while I would like to see the one-fall rule expanded to incorporate a reasonable policy for falls which occur during other rides, warmup, etc, I don't personally advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water. We don't have good data relating to our riders in our sport. Instead, we have to extrapolate what we know from the British eventing data as well as vast amounts of data from other sports. Understanding this data, I think the rule should remain in place at present.

And yes: I have fallen on course and remounted to continue. Sometimes with good results, and sometimes with bad, just like most everyone who is passionate about this topic. To those who assume all the members of these various committees are out of touch, please remember that many of us have been involved in this sport for a long time. In many cases, we also bring unique professional experiences to the table. I can't speak for everyone, but my goal is to make eventing as fun and safe a sport as it can be - I'm expecting my first child in 2 months and I hope to spend many years introducing her to the sport and hauling to horse trials together. My husband is not going to let her on her first pony unless I can show him that we are making this sport as safe as possible!

Lola Blackwell Chambless

AlterEgoME
Jan. 14, 2012, 07:49 PM
I am breaking my self-imposed code of silence on this issue to say...

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!

Shame on the the USEF Board of Directors.

^^This. Thanks for being honest Canterlope.

Lola, I rode with you and against you in those days. Reality check on the riding part, I am sure you are a great doctor, wife and mother.

flutie1
Jan. 14, 2012, 07:59 PM
Lola, thank you. A cooler head prevails.

JER
Jan. 14, 2012, 08:05 PM
So, ultimately I agree that the one-fall rule is incomplete particularly as it creates an unfair exception for riders with multiple rides.

'Unfair'? Given your support for the rule outlined in your post, shouldn't you be saying 'unsafe'?

We don't worry about fairness when discussing other safety rules, like wearing helmets.

(And thanks for your input, as always, blackwly. :))

pixietrix
Jan. 14, 2012, 08:10 PM
Come on Flutie, talk about agreeing to disagree, that would make the rest of us- hotheads? The issue here & now is the process and tactics used to deflect this. Whether you support it or not, it is worrisome that our sport has lost its voice and that a select few, you & I both know who ( are you there too Flutie?) have decided that they know what is best for us ( I believe that is socialism, from a political standpoint). These decisions were not made by riders, they were made by people who determined that they must protect us from ourselves.

That is not the representation we expect as an affiliate of the USEF. There are many, many people devoting their volunteer time, not just the chair of the Eventing Technical Committee, yet that time and effort is deemed unimportant and insignificant in one fell swoop.

I predict bailout from committees and a tension in relations between USEA & USEF over this. Just my opinion, knowing the players.

blackwly
Jan. 14, 2012, 08:18 PM
'Unfair'? Given your support for the rule outlined in your post, shouldn't you be saying 'unsafe'?

We don't worry about fairness when discussing other safety rules, like wearing helmets.

)

You're right - I do think it is a safety issue, thanks for clarifying.

fooler
Jan. 14, 2012, 08:36 PM
blackwly - I am a Eventing TD and have been involved with this sport since 1976-77.

To date, I am unaware of any studies confirming an increase of injuries to rider and/or horse after the rider remounts after a fall.
To date I am unaware of any studies tracking riders' health after a fall in though we officials send this information to the USEF.

Agreed there is a difference between Eventing in the US and the UK. One major difference, IMO, is that in the UK the initial recognized competition is "Novice" the same as our Preliminary (3'7").
Back in the dark ages when I started competing, the lowest USEF recognized level in the US was Training (3'3"). In an effort to increase our competitor base we now recognize BN (2'7").

So we can not compare, one-to-one, the average US competitor to the average UK competitor riding in a recognized competition.
In my experience most US competitors are at the Training level or lower whereas the UK competitors are at US Preliminary level or above. So yes the average UK rider has more hours in the saddle than the average US rider.
Zipping up flame-suit: maybe the US should return to the days of Training as the recognized entry level with Novice as the lowest USEA recognized level.

Given our present environment - the current rule stymies the average LL US competitor because if they have a 'simple pop-off' on their only ride they are done.
The rule is not incomplete - it is a fraud. The rider with multiple rides is allowed to continue competing - provided they are not injured with the initial fall.
So 2 riders each have a simple fall resulting in no injury:
*The rider with 1 horse is totally and completely eliminated.
*The riders with multiple horses is eliminated with that horse BUT is allowed to ride their other horses.
1) How is that making our sport safe?
2) How is that providing a path for our LL riders to learn to persevere and grow?
3) How does this do anything but increase the divide between the LL rider with one horse and Pro/UL/$Amateur rider with multiple horses?

Finally the current rule does not address a fall in warm-up or stabling or on Friday prior to the event. Or as discussed in an earlier thread - the fall 'at home' prior to the event. Our choices are to 'complete this rule' and have all horses and riders submit to a complete physical, complete with x-rays CAT scans, etc - before they are allowed to compete. Otherwise how can we be sure they are OK to compete? After all baseball, football, basketball and soccer players must submit to physicals before being allowed to play.
Or we expect competitors or their parents/coaches to take personal responsibility. Through the years some haven't and in the future some won't. Better we institute rules to punish those who don't - such as being set down for x number of months.

Just my thoughts at the end of a rather long week.

cindywilson
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:02 AM
Agree with the prior post 100%.

Innocent Bystander
Jan. 15, 2012, 05:59 AM
These decisions were not made by riders, they were made by people who determined that they must protect us from ourselves.I was able to get the breakdown of the vote to repeal the one fall rule made by the Eventing Technical Committee during its Thursday Meeting. I noted if a member is actively competing (according to rider records on the USEA website), if a member formerly competed (according to my memory which is spotty at best so please don't blast me if I missed someone), and if a member holds some other position (organizer, licensed official, etc) within the USEA/USEF.

For:
Kevin Baumgardner (WA) - Active Rider
Bobby Costello (NC) - Active Rider
Phillip Dutton (PA) - Active Rider
Sarah Kelly (MT) - Active Rider, Organizer
Diane McBroom (VA) - Active Rider, Licensed Official
Gina Miles (CA) - Active Rider
Kerry Millikin (MA) - Active Rider
Karen O'Connor (VA) - Active Rider, ICP Faculty
Brian Sabo (CA) - Inactive Rider, ICP Faculty, USEA President

Against:
Tom Angle (NM) - Active Rider, Licensed Official
Gretchen Butts (MD) - Active Rider, Organizer, Licensed Official
Roger Haller (GA) - Inactive Rider, Licensed Official
Mike Huber (TX) - Active Rider
Robert Kellerhouse (CA) - Active Rider, Organizer
Marjorie Molloy (CA) - Organizer
Wayne Quarles (KY) - Active Rider, Licensed Official

Abstain:
Malcolm Hook (OR) - Licensed Official (As Chairman of the committee, Malcolm may only cast a vote in the event of a tie, however he has made no secret of the fact that he is against)

Not present:
Derek Di Grazia (CA) - Active Rider, Licensed Official
Jonathan Holling (FL) - Active Rider

I find it very interesting that, with two exceptions being Sarah Kelly and Diane McBroom, every licensed official or organizer member of the committee present at the meeting voted against repeal. Did they vote this way because they are truly concerned about rider safety or are they just protecting their own ass(ets) and they want the rule to remain on the books because it makes their lives easier?

I also find it very interesting that the two ICP Faculty members of the committee voted for repeal. Safety is a main focus of the ICP, so wouldn't you think Karen and Brian would have voted against repeal if this rule really was about safety?

Sara Lieser
Jan. 15, 2012, 09:34 AM
I just posted our story about the decision on the "one fall rule." I'm pretty sure we still have not heard the last of this! http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/eventing-one-fall-rule-does-not-pass

colliemom
Jan. 15, 2012, 10:06 AM
The current one-fall rule, which prevailed today, cannot possibly be supported by anyone who honestly believes that, for safety reasons, a rider should not be allowed to continue riding after any fall from a horse.

Anyone who claims that that current one-fall rule is a 'safety' rule is either deluding themselves or is simply not very intelligent. You can fall in warm-up and remount. You can fall in stabling and remount. You can fall on XC on one horse and be back out on course in the blink of an eye. As we saw this summer, you can fall off two horses on course in the span of half an hour and still ride several more horses.

No one on these various committees wants to address this issue. Instead, they want to tell the one-horse riders that, if they only had more horses entered, they could keep riding that day.

Safety, my a**.

Thank you to Bobby C, Karen O'C and Brian Sabo for standing up for logic and evidence.

To the rest of the decision-makers, either get it together and prepare yourself for these meetings or stop chair-warming on committees that affect our participation in and enjoyment of the sport.


Agree. And Thank you Carol K for your reasoned approach and support of fact-based decision making (what a concept!) and to your passionate support of the membership. You are an inspiration!

It is (and has always been) amazing to me that we spend hundreds of dollars to enter a horse trail, and if we have a moment of unbalance or naughty pony and pop-off and land on our feet (or decide, while hanging on, that the best option is to just let go and restore vertical order on our feet) we are not allowed to continue. We lose (in both experience and money), the horse loses (in training.) Oh, unless of course we have a trailer full of horses and then it's okay. The hypocrisy and inconsistency of this rule is mind-boggling.

To another poster's comments, the only ones who seem to win are the organizers and licensed officials who's lives are made simpler.

I helped compile the data from the fall survey this year. I read each and every comment and response. The VAST majority of respondents were in favor of repeal. The VAST majority were extremely self-insightful about the circumstances of the fall, knew what they did wrong and would do to correct it, wanted the opportunity to correct it immediately for both training and psychological reasons (instead of going home and stewing on it, and getting more nervous instead of building confidence by doing -- and in effect making them more of a liability in the future.) The VAST majority were coached on-site. The VAST majority were having a great ride -- so not an "accident waiting to happen" and seriously in danger of a second fall (my favorite comment was "I had a stellar round up until 1/2 second before I didn't." )

I am disgusted with the politics of this. :no:

JFS
Jan. 15, 2012, 11:35 AM
I am an organizer an official and not so active competitor but the mother of two active riders. I am in favor of repealing the one fall and your out rule, but as far as the officials and the organizers are concerned I am in the minority.

I believe the way the new proposed rule change as posted on EN would have prevented any seriously injured or concussed rider from getting back and finishing the course. "The rule change would have allowed riders at all levels of US national events to remount and continue after a rider fall provided that they maintained control of their horse and did not require medical attention." How many times have you fallen off and been able to maintain control of your horse if you hit your head or got hurt? I know I never have ;)

Jackie

JFS
Jan. 15, 2012, 11:39 AM
One thing I forgot to mention. Riders are becoming more educated and are more likely to pull up when they're having a bad day and I would like to think that more riders would choose to not continue if it was not in the best interest of themselves or their horse.

Jackie

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:15 PM
I have the highest respect for most Organizers and Officials. They put in long hours in low paying, high stress positions and our sport would cease to exist without them. I am usually the first one to defend them on this board.

However, it is clear that the list of committee members, who voted against the repeal, are looking out for their own private interests, and NOT the riders, whom they should serve. Shame on them for doing so.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:29 PM
Blackwyly: You state that the BE data should not be used for U.S. Evening purposes, and yet, the only data you seem to cite is from other sports, such as football. I'm sorry but I find data from the British Eventing program significantly more transferable than football stats, every day of the week.

Unlike football and other sports, riding is not a contact sport. We are doing everything we can not to impact the ground. When we do fall, we generally haven't had multiple hits in the course of play, and the vast majority of our falls do not result in injury.

If the premise of the one fall rule in eventing were to be transferred to football, a lot of players would only be able to make one play per game. Under the "one fall" or "one impact" rule of eventing, a player would be benched for the rest of the game, once they impacted with each other (regardless of the seriousness).

I understand that you support the one fall rule. As a physician, I would expect you to be ultra conservative. However, I (and most other riders) do not want you making our decisions for us. We are very interested in educating ourselves on the issues and appreciate your knowledge and perspective, but at the end of the day, I want to make my own decisions and feel uniquely qualified to do so.

You may not think the BE data is perfect, but it is most certainly relevant. I think your criticisms are reaching pretty hard and aren't terribly convincing.

There should have been convincing evidence that the one fall rule would indeed increase safety before it was enacted. But, that did not happen and, now, we have a very restrictive rule on the books that needs to be repealed.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:31 PM
I want the rule repealed, but I have to say, the organizer's interest ARE the rider's interests. If they stop organizing, well...

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:48 PM
I want the rule repealed, but I have to say, the organizer's interest ARE the rider's interests. If they stop organizing, well...

Usually, I would agree with you but not this time.

If the Organizers and Officials want to make/support rules to make their lives easier, it needs to be done out in the open, with full disclosure, so that those may be voted on their true merit.

Supporting "safety rules" that they know do not increase safety, simply because it makes their lives easier, feels disingenuous and wrong. It is pretty clear when you look how the vote split.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:55 PM
Supporting "safety rules" that they know do not increase safety, simply because it makes their lives easier, feels dishonest.

I agree 100%. However, The Golden Rule is "He who holds the gold..."

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 01:06 PM
Divisiveness isn't never good for the sport. When one party (Rider, Organizer, Official) is only looking out for their own interests and not considering the others, damage is done.

DLee
Jan. 15, 2012, 01:35 PM
I wanted to say that I keep hearing what a disappointment it is to 'pop off' and be eliminated and your whole weekend is over, how far it is between events, etc.
True, but there are LOTS of ways to be eliminated and your whole weekend is over. That is the frustrating/beautiful thing about eventing. Just completing one sometimes is a big deal.

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 01:50 PM
Divisiveness isn't never good for the sport. When one party (Rider, Organizer, Official) is only looking out for their own interests and not considering the others, damage is done.

This is very true. Both sides are equally guilty of "looking out for their own interests." As an official/organizer, however, I'm getting damn sick of the implication that officials and organizers are only looking to make their lives easier by supporting the fall and out rule, and only riders are equipped to understand the ramifications of this rule.

Seriously, folks. This is over the top...

Back to the playoffs.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 01:59 PM
Sorry you feel that way Flutie, but the sport (and thereby the rules) should be about the riders. As riders, we owe a great deal of gratitude and appreciate to Organizers, Officials and volunteers that keep the sport going. But, in the end, it is about the riders.

The vast majority of the riders have made it clear that they want to make their own risk management decisions. Absent any clear data that shows those decisions are significantly adversely affecting the horses or other people, they should be able to do so.

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:08 PM
Actually, SD, in the end it should be about the horses.

blackwly
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Blackwyly: You state that the BE data should not be used for U.S. Evening purposes, and yet, the only data you seem to cite is from other sports, such as football. I'm sorry but I find data from the British Eventing program significantly more transferable than football stats, every day of the week.



I think you may have misunderstood what I said and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. To quote my previous post:

"...the data (BE data) is useful in understanding the issue and should be considered..."

"...we have to extrapolate what we know from the British eventing data as well as vast amounts of data from other sports."

In other words, I do think the BE data is important and I would not ignore it. However, it is one study performed in a population with some features which are different than the USEA population, and thus it can not be accepted as universally true for our riders.

I didn't actually cite any data in my previous post, but I understand the many key differences comparing football-related head injuries to equestrian head injuries (or head injuries sustained in car crashes, gunshot wounds etc etc.) Soccer is actually the major sport with a lot of published data that I would look to as a closer comparison to our type of injuries, though again the two populations are quite different so you should not draw conclusions about riding head injuries based on data obtain in soccer players. All I am saying is that understanding that data is useful in building a framework to help you evaluate the problems inherent in riding accidents.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:20 PM
In other words, I do think the BE data is important and I would not ignore it. However, it is one study performed in a population with some features which are different than the USEA population, and thus it can not be accepted as universally true for our riders.



I disagree with your evaluation of the the data, and you have cited football and other contact sports as rationale for the one fall rule in eventing, in other threads. I have issues with your willingness to substantially discount data from the BE studies as "not universally" applicable, yet promote data from non-equestrian sports, simply because it better supports your personal opinion.

Regardless of all of that, the one universal truth is that NO study, data, or evidence exists to show the one fall rule has or will increase safety in Eventing.

Prior to enacting the rule, there should have been credible evidence presented. There was no credible evidence then... and that hasn't changed.

blackwly
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:26 PM
Perhaps.... but one thing is universally true -- there is NO study, data, or evidence that supports the one fall rule increases safety in Eventing.

Prior to enacting the rule, there should have been credible evidence presented. There was no credible evidence then... and that hasn't changed.

You are absolutely right on this. I wasn't involved in the creation of this rule, so I can't comment on the thinking at the time. What we have here ultimately is a lack of definitive evidence on either side of the issue. In my mind, this is an opportunity for vigorous research and brainstorming for the best possible solution. I don't think we are there yet, myself.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:36 PM
Actually, SD, in the end it should be about the horses.

I actually wrote that several times in my post, but erased it. The rider has to deal with the human crap of Governing bodies, rules, and politics -- the horses are waaaaay too smart to get into that.

In that regard, I have always said -- show me evidence that horses are being hurt by re-mounted riders making bad decisions as a result of their fall, and I will be all over the one fall rule. To date, no evidence has been shown.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:38 PM
You are absolutely right on this. I wasn't involved in the creation of this rule, so I can't comment on the thinking at the time. What we have here ultimately is a lack of definitive evidence on either side of the issue. In my mind, this is an opportunity for vigorous research and brainstorming for the best possible solution. I don't think we are there yet, myself.

On this we completely agree. Here is where we seem to disagree -- I strongly believe that no rule should be enacted without clear evidence that it is needed. Therefore, the rule must be repealed until the evidence is clear.

blackwly
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:50 PM
I disagree with your evaluation of the the data, and you have cited football and other contact sports as rationale for the one fall rule in eventing, in other threads. I have issues with your willingness to substantially discount data from the BE studies as "not universally" applicable, yet promote data from non-equestrian sports, simply because it better supports your personal opinion.


I'm starting to feel like you are arguing with me just to have someone to argue with. As I've said in multiple prior posts in this thread, there are problems with extrapolating conclusions from any data not obtained in the USEA population. This includes data related to British eventing, soccer, football, and bungee jumping. That doesn't mean these studies shouldn't be considered, just that there are limitations to their applicability.

You are more than welcome to disagree with my evaluation of the data, and in fact I have not even presented a comprehensive evaluation on any of these threads; I have done this as a consultant but my work is subsequently owned by the organizations who employed me and I can not distribute it at will. Instead, as a equestrian interested in the future of the sport I have simply summarized my opinion. It is, however, not a personal opinion but an expert opinion.

Feel free to disregard what I have to say! I made my original post in response to your statement that members of the various committees involved in this decision have refused to speak out. I've tried to respond be describing my personal thought process, and I'm happy to continue to engage in a dialogue about it, but if you continue to misinterpret my statements, perspective, and motivation we should just agree to disagree.

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 02:51 PM
I actually wrote that several times in my post, but erased it. The rider has to deal with the human crap of Governing bodies, rules, and politics -- the horses are waaaaay too smart to get into that.

In that regard, I have always said -- show me evidence that horses are being hurt by re-mounted riders making bad decisions as a result of their fall, and I will be all over the one fall rule. To date, no evidence has been shown.

Then you haven't seen as many lower level riders careening around like bats out of Hell after having a fall and trying to make up time as I have through the years!

JER
Jan. 15, 2012, 03:03 PM
Then you haven't seen as many lower level riders careening around like bats out of Hell after having a fall and trying to make up time as I have through the years!

I don't know that we should be conflating dangerous riding with the one-fall rule.

We have a separate rule to deal with out-of-control riders:


EV112. Dangerous Riding
4. The Ground Jury and the Technical Delegate have the authority to stop a rider on the cross country course for dangerous riding, riding an exhausted horse, excessive pressing of a tired horse, riding an obviously lame horse, excessive use of the whip and/or spurs or riding
in an unsafe way.

A fall does not mean a rider is 'dangerous.' Dangerous riding, as defined by the rule, means a rider is dangerous.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 03:05 PM
Then you haven't seen as many lower level riders careening around like bats out of Hell after having a fall and trying to make up time as I have through the years!

Show me the stats of horse injuries caused by riders making bad decisions after a fall, not just the anecdotes, and you might sway me.

By the way, I have been actively competing at the lower levels for 22 years. I have fallen and remounted in the old days -- twice. Both times, I actually slowed my speed, made sure I corrected the mistakes that led to the fall (I am a card carrying member of the overly-active upper body club), and had a textbook ride (I even correctly handled being overtaken, after one of the falls). I was smart enough to ride correctly after the fall. Interestingly enough, I have never fallen in competition since, and have never been affected by the one fall rule.

A rider that rides dangerously fast should be dealt with via the "Dangerous Riding" rules. Trying to weed them out with a one fall rule is not going to be effective -- they will be dangerous with or without a fall.

If we want to talk dangerous speeds, I will take the upper level rider any day. But again, divisiveness isn't going to help us and neither is the one fall rule.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 03:20 PM
I made my original post in response to your statement that members of the various committees involved in this decision have refused to speak out.

My statement was that the members of the Safety Committee, who support the rule on the sole basis of "Safety" are not addressing the loopholes in the rule -- the fact that a rider can fall off of one horse and go on to ride others, in short order (not to mention falls in warm-up, schooling, etc.).

Your post did make briefly comment on the loophole issue, which I appreciated but went on to extoll the virtues of the rule based on safety, which you have also done on other threads.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I respect your opinions and knowledge, but certainly have every right to question your interpretation of data, as it relates to rule making. That shouldn't be threatening, especially for a science based professional. Good data (and good data interpretation) can withstand queries.

blackwly
Jan. 15, 2012, 03:30 PM
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I respect your opinions and knowledge, but certainly have every right to question your interpretation of data, as it relates to rule making. That shouldn't be threatening, especially for a science based professional. Good data (and good data interpretation) can withstand queries.

Not threatened, just tired of re-hashing similar points. Let's just agree that we have different opinions and move on! :)

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 03:33 PM
Not threatened, just tired of re-hashing similar points. Let's just agree that we have different opinions and move on! :)

Agreed! :)

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 04:59 PM
I don't know that we should be conflating dangerous riding with the one-fall rule.

We have a separate rule to deal with out-of-control riders:



A fall does not mean a rider is 'dangerous.' Dangerous riding, as defined by the rule, means a rider is dangerous.

Gee thanks JER for pointing out the rule to me (she said with some sarcasm!). Riding dangerously to make up time after a fall when they were allowed to continue - cause and effect.
Now on to the important things in life - Go Giants!

AlterEgoME
Jan. 15, 2012, 05:31 PM
Here is how we solve this issue. Rule change proposal - "One fall and you are eliminated on all horses from the event."

That should make scoring VERY easy for the organizers. If you fall off one horse on the XC BEFORE you have even ridden dressage on the other three (and YES this is possible) you are eliminated and LOSE ALL YOUR ENTRY FEES on all your other horses. We will then see the politics play out.

So, I will go to the USEA/USEF and propose this rule change and we will see whether the issue is really safety. And then we will have to follow the logic.

tulkas
Jan. 15, 2012, 05:52 PM
I saw Brian Sabo, who passionately advocated for the rule change in the bar after the meeting having a drink with Malcolm and they were both laughing. I think this looks like there was a conspiracy from the outset to fool us into thinking that someone was doing what we wanted, but not actually do anything.
tulkas

retreadeventer
Jan. 15, 2012, 05:53 PM
100 horses, ten riders - easy.

100 horses, 100 riders -- hard.

That's the reason the rule change failed. Simple.

Customer service? What customer service? I am beginning to believe Denny, et al, when they say we should forget this bunch and start our own group. Were it not for many incredibly caring and sport-loving folks I know who run the current group, I'd say why not -- go for it.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 15, 2012, 06:00 PM
I saw Brian Sabo, who passionately advocated for the rule change in the bar after the meeting having a drink with Malcolm and they were both laughing. I think this looks like there was a conspiracy from the outset to fool us into thinking that someone was doing what we wanted, but not actually do anything.
tulkas

Or just a wonderful statement about the fact that we can agree to disagree.

annikak
Jan. 15, 2012, 06:15 PM
Or that like many men, they can separate friendship and opinions. Agree to disagree indeed. I personally am far too emotional about these things, but really admire those that can feel strongly, represent 'us' and realize that this fight was decided in the ring and now, onto the rest of the day. I think time will change the rule, but to many, they may need more time.

Whomever said earlier that they needed proof to repeal makes sense. (it IS playoff season, and football has had its share of rules getting changed...hard to know when someone can protest a call these days!)

I think it was knee jerk to create the rule, but our sport was in a pile o crappooolllaa and we (yes, US) were saying "do something!" since personal responsibility wasn't a good enough control measure. :-( Mommy and Daddy felt something had to be done- and so this rule was created. Ok- now, we are certainly in a fine pickle, but I really believe we have to shoulder a bit more of the blame for the creation, and realize that eventually, this rule might give way to a sensible solution. Pop offs are different than full blown falls but we already are complaining about costs- imagine how expensive having that many safety
Officers would cost? And truthfully- can we really police things that far? Seems like chewing gum is a terrible idea when on course...but do we really want a rule for that??

Thanks to everyone for their insights.

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 06:19 PM
I saw Brian Sabo, who passionately advocated for the rule change in the bar after the meeting having a drink with Malcolm and they were both laughing. I think this looks like there was a conspiracy from the outset to fool us into thinking that someone was doing what we wanted, but not actually do anything.
tulkas

Oh cool. What is more fun than a conspiracy nut?

pixietrix
Jan. 15, 2012, 06:39 PM
I saw Brian Sabo, who passionately advocated for the rule change in the bar after the meeting having a drink with Malcolm and they were both laughing. I think this looks like there was a conspiracy from the outset to fool us into thinking that someone was doing what we wanted, but not actually do anything.
tulkas

Now that's the funniest thing I've heard about this yet. I can't wait to ask Brian about it.:lol:

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl
Jan. 15, 2012, 07:05 PM
Thanks for the laugh tulkas! Were they on a grassy knoll?? Could you see the puppeteers hands through the dim light??

Catie79
Jan. 15, 2012, 07:29 PM
You are absolutely right on this. I wasn't involved in the creation of this rule, so I can't comment on the thinking at the time. What we have here ultimately is a lack of definitive evidence on either side of the issue. In my mind, this is an opportunity for vigorous research and brainstorming for the best possible solution. I don't think we are there yet, myself.

This is probably the best comment I've heard about the whole mess. The ruling was because the board thought even the eventers weren't completely sure. There's a lack of evidence on both sides. If everyone feels so darn passionate about the topic, let's get some solid evidence! One way or the other, so be it, so long as it's backed by real data.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 07:37 PM
This is probably the best comment I've heard about the whole mess. The ruling was because the board thought even the eventers weren't completely sure. There's a lack of evidence on both sides. If everyone feels so darn passionate about the topic, let's get some solid evidence! One way or the other, so be it, so long as it's backed by real data.

100% agree with this EXCEPT we currently have an unsubstantiated rule on the books and the only real data available does not support it.

I am all for taking the time to find out more, as long as we go back to a neutral position, meaning the rule is repealed, while we do more research.

Catie79
Jan. 15, 2012, 07:58 PM
100% agree with this EXCEPT we currently have an unsubstantiated rule on the books and the only real data available does not support it.

I am all for taking the time to find out more, as long as we go back to a neutral position, meaning the rule is repealed, while we do more research.

You have a good point, but with politics being what they are, we can't do that. So rather than having people turning this into something divisive or boycotting events, let's use the fact that we can't make a change for awhile to build up a better argument than 'we want it' for next time.

JER
Jan. 15, 2012, 08:08 PM
Gee thanks JER for pointing out the rule to me (she said with some sarcasm!).

Do you really need to resort to sarcasm?

flutie1, we're in the same sport but we seem to come from two very different places.

In the eventing that I know and enjoy, riders work very hard trying to improve and they care immensely about their horses. We're not all perfect, not by a long shot, but the most glaring offenders are usually guilty of a lack of education rather than of wilfull ignorance or a desire to run amok on XC. This isn't a sport for the Sunday driver -- people spend lots of time and money and make considerable sacrifices in their lives to go to clinics, take lessons, go to competitions, and care for their horses.

So I have a hard time understanding your 'bunch of yahoos and idiots' mentality (which comes through on here as well as in your posts at Eventing Nation) toward the participants in the sport. It's just not my experience of our fellow eventers, and I can say over the past 15-20 years, I've experienced the sport in a number of locales and levels as well as in various capacities of personal involvement.

In my experience, most riders are more cautious after a fall. I don't know why a rider would be trying to make up time when they're that far down on the scoreboard and have no hope of a qualifying score. After a fall, with 60 pens and a bunch of time on your score, you are riding a schooling round -- for your confidence, for your horse's confidence.

There's currently no proof that remounting after a fall leads to dangerous riding and I doubt there ever will be. And it really doesn't matter, because we have a rule to deal with dangerous riding wherever it occurs -- before a fall, after a fall, during a fall. If an official is doing his/her job, they will stop the dangerous rider when they are riding dangerously.

SevenDogs
Jan. 15, 2012, 08:16 PM
You have a good point, but with politics being what they are, we can't do that. So rather than having people turning this into something divisive or boycotting events, let's use the fact that we can't make a change for awhile to build up a better argument than 'we want it' for next time.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I am not willing to say we can't change things, just because it's hard...

flutie1
Jan. 15, 2012, 08:25 PM
JER - 65 penalties, but who's counting?

While we're in slamming mode, i'm flattered that I have earned the right to be "pounced" on and corrected by you. I was feeling left out!

Sorry my attitude offends you. It is what it is!

TuxWink
Jan. 15, 2012, 09:35 PM
Here is how we solve this issue. Rule change proposal - "One fall and you are eliminated on all horses from the event."

That should make scoring VERY easy for the organizers. If you fall off one horse on the XC BEFORE you have even ridden dressage on the other three (and YES this is possible) you are eliminated and LOSE ALL YOUR ENTRY FEES on all your other horses. We will then see the politics play out.

So, I will go to the USEA/USEF and propose this rule change and we will see whether the issue is really safety. And then we will have to follow the logic.

This would be the SAFEST option, right?

OverandOnward
Jan. 15, 2012, 10:21 PM
Without the names, this is what the USEA yes/no vote looks like ...



For: ( = for allowing rider to continue after 1 fall)
- Active Rider, USEA Past Pres.
- Active Rider
- Active Rider
- Active Rider, Organizer
- Active Rider, Licensed Official
- Active Rider
- Active Rider
- Active Rider, ICP Faculty
- Inactive Rider, ICP Faculty, USEA President

Against:
- Active Rider, Licensed Official
- Active Rider, Organizer, Licensed Official
- Inactive Rider, Licensed Official
- Active Rider
- Active Rider, Organizer
- Organizer
- Active Rider, Licensed Official


Any questions? :winkgrin:

"For" votes - people most likely to be individually affected as they are the ones hitting the ground

"Against" votes - mostly people most likely to be affected through liability - they will be the targets of lawsuits; and also most likely to end up figuring out how to implement whatever other rules would eventually come if the rule passed - that is, confirming riders are ok to continue

This is a reality that is not going away. Not with better statistics, more medical data, more feedback from the constituents, or even a new eventing organization. Starting a new organization to get around this rule is like trying to change one's entire life by getting a new hairstyle. The core issues are still there - and they are legal. Whatever the medical is or is not.

What US eventing has that British eventing does not (to the same extent) are lawsuits. IMO that is what this is really about for the powers that obviously control the sport, regardless of the opinions of the participants.

I would like to be allowed to remount and continue. I know it won't happen.

It isn't who will be hurt, it is who will be sued.

OverandOnward
Jan. 15, 2012, 10:45 PM
....the elephant in the room about riding multiple horses in one day and how a fall doesn't affect further performances, making all that safety talk a bit moot...


The current one-fall rule, which prevailed today, cannot possibly be supported by anyone who honestly believes that, for safety reasons, a rider should not be allowed to continue riding after any fall from a horse.

Anyone who claims that that current one-fall rule is a 'safety' rule is either deluding themselves or is simply not very intelligent. You can fall in warm-up and remount. You can fall in stabling and remount. You can fall on XC on one horse and be back out on course in the blink of an eye. As we saw this summer, you can fall off two horses on course in the span of half an hour and still ride several more horses.

No one on these various committees wants to address this issue. Instead, they want to tell the one-horse riders that, if they only had more horses entered, they could keep riding that day.

Safety, my a**.


100% agree with both quotes above. In this case, the inmates are running the asylum, aren't they. :winkgrin: The list of USEA voters wasn't exactly a roll call of amateur champions. The vast majority of the organization, those who fund it, are not representative of those that run it.





Given our present environment - the current rule stymies the average LL US competitor because if they have a 'simple pop-off' on their only ride they are done.
The rule is not incomplete - it is a fraud. The rider with multiple rides is allowed to continue competing - provided they are not injured with the initial fall.
So 2 riders each have a simple fall resulting in no injury:
*The rider with 1 horse is totally and completely eliminated.
*The riders with multiple horses is eliminated with that horse BUT is allowed to ride their other horses.
1) How is that making our sport safe?
2) How is that providing a path for our LL riders to learn to persevere and grow?
3) How does this do anything but increase the divide between the LL rider with one horse and Pro/UL/$Amateur rider with multiple horses?

I would go further with this. Since this is a USEF ruling and final decision, how does this compare with other jumping horse sport under the USEF? If an eventer who comes off their horse in cross-country can't safely continue -- 4-6 min. & 18-20 jumps for most of the majority novice competitors -- how can a jumper/eq/hunter rider come off during a 60-90 second round and continue to ride safely in their other jumping classes that day?

If the USEF believes in the correctness of their position for eventers, shouldn't they logically extend the same principal to all jumping horse sport -- even breed shows with jumping classes?

But I don't think the medical principal is what is truly at issue with the USEA. I think they see a bigger problem with potential liability in eventing, just as schools find football is a broader open door for liability than other sports. Just imo.




There should have been convincing evidence that the one fall rule would indeed increase safety before it was enacted. But, that did not happen and, now, we have a very restrictive rule on the books that needs to be repealed.


There should have been convincing evidence that the one fall rule would indeed increase safety before it was enacted. But, that did not happen and, now, we have a very restrictive rule on the books that needs to be repealed.

I agree absolutely with SD above. However, for the reasons I've given, I do not believe this ideal will ever be the basis of a decision about this rule. It is not about riding, it is about potential liability, and who will be the most likely target of lawsuits. Once they are moving, lawsuits are not about rational, logical solutions, and they aren't about what's reasonable and fair. It is my own belief that this is what worries those at the top of the governance of eventing today. Just imo.

cindywilson
Jan. 15, 2012, 11:12 PM
It seems apparent to me (lawyer's wife that I am) that the original rule change was probably less 'safety-driven' than 'fear of litigation' driven. Possibly - but who knows? - driven by the seemingly eternal suit following the tragedy at Galway Downs. However, with the rule in its current form, it appears that we've set ourselves up bigtime. Now, when a UL rider remounts after a fall - since it's perfectly allowable for them to do so - and then has an incident resulting in injury/death/whatever, isn't their lawyer going to wonder why the PTB only care about the 'safety' of the LL competitors? Just sayin'.

canterlope
Jan. 16, 2012, 05:09 AM
Without the names, this is what the USEA yes/no vote looks like ... and
The list of USEA voters wasn't exactly a roll call of amateur champions. and
But I don't think the medical principal is what is truly at issue with the USEA. First of all, it is USEF, not USEA. The USEA Board and its members supported the repeal.

Second, I am not sure what you meant by "the list of voters wasn't exactly a roll call of amateur champions." Did you mean the amateur members on the USEF Eventing Technical Committee are substandard riders or were you trying to say that very few of the Committee as a whole consider and look out for the interests of the amateur rider?

canterlope
Jan. 16, 2012, 05:45 AM
FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

Because it is being put forth as an extraordinary rule change, it can be put in front of the USEF Executive Committee for approval pretty much immediately. And, the ExCom can approve it to go into effect on any date they wish.

retreadeventer
Jan. 16, 2012, 08:00 AM
Canterlope, question: this will require EMT's to be anywhere on the grounds that a rider is on horseback, then, won't it? And people stationed to see the falls and make sure the fallen report for clearance....and what if the EMT's don't clear a pop-off upper level rider who is scheduled on Prince in the Novice in the morning, and Star in the Advanced much later in the day and they get the thumbs down? Watch the excrement hit the air mover then.... and before all that, will the organizers be down with this, or put the kibosh on it? Which way is the political wind blowing on this?

AlterEgoME
Jan. 16, 2012, 11:11 AM
FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

Because it is being put forth as an extraordinary rule change, it can be put in front of the USEF Executive Committee for approval pretty much immediately. And, the ExCom can approve it to go into effect on any date they wish.


I have about six different ways I would like to take the Lord's name in vain, running through my head right now. At any given HT I have slammed my head into my trailer door, clunked my head against my horses/dog's head (he's a pit bull and had ONE HARD HEAD), etc. I've been bucked off schooling on Thursday afternoon before the show officially starts. When is someone going to drop the curtain on this farce.

Are we going to run and tattle on our friends when they hit the dirt in the trailer parking? What if the medics leave the grounds in an emergency? Do we all have to dismount, no matter where we are, and wait for them to return? What if the EMT's are dealing with something serious and I fall off in warmup and they can't review my situation until after my start time? Am I eliminated? Talk about a boatload of unintended consequences.

Are we going to apply this rule to all disciplines? Do the dressage riders and hunter jumper riders and the quarter horse people have to play by it as well? A fall is a FALL. The h/j people would go NUTS if this were imposed on them. Heck, the quarter horse people are allowed to ride without a helmet.

How about we just admit the rule isn't about safety and horses are dangerous?

vineyridge
Jan. 16, 2012, 12:39 PM
No offense, but this seems totally ridiculous to me also. Think of additional cost, additional time, additional medical personnel, opening up organizers for lawsuits unless the people okaying continuing are licensed and certified to make that kind of decison. . . I know the intent is good and to address safety concerns which are valid, but this needs more thought, discussion and refinement. Leave it up to the organizers to decide what they want to have done on their show grounds.

If I on the BOG and were to vote on this, I'd be a definite no vote, especially on an extraordinary rule change.

I should point out that historically its been a lot harder to prosecute a suit against a public (governmental) entity such as a public school than it is to keep one going against a private party like an organizer or venue.


FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

Because it is being put forth as an extraordinary rule change, it can be put in front of the USEF Executive Committee for approval pretty much immediately. And, the ExCom can approve it to go into effect on any date they wish.

SevenDogs
Jan. 16, 2012, 12:45 PM
This whole thing strikes me as someone that just can't admit they were wrong. Instead of just saying "Hey, we enacted a rule that makes no sense. We really meant well, but it came out wrong and we just need to start over.", they keep piling on nonsensical rules trying to plug the massive loopholes.

Kinda like when you tell a little white lie to avoid going to your mom's house for dinner. and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger until, suddenly, you find yourself telling her you had move to Tangiers to pursue special treatment for some rare disease.

Seriously, people.

JER
Jan. 16, 2012, 12:57 PM
'Clearance' by EMTs doesn't really square with the scope of practice and licensure of EMTs.

SevenDogs
Jan. 16, 2012, 01:01 PM
'Clearance' by EMTs doesn't really square with the scope of practice and licensure of EMTs.

Details, JER.... details... you're always about the details! :lol:

Has anyone actually seen what constitutes "clearance" at an event after a fall? I have, and, it is basically worthless. Again... something that sounds good on the rulebooks, but is basically empty in practice.

JER
Jan. 16, 2012, 01:14 PM
Details, JER.... details... you're always about the details! :lol:

Has anyone actually seen what constitutes "clearance" at an event after a fall? I have, and, it is basically worthless. Again... something that sounds good on the rulebooks, but is basically empty in practice.

Not so much details but grandstanding my own CYA mission as an EMT. :)

There is also a wide variation in the quality of 'medical personnel' at HTs. I was at one where the 'medical personnel' were barely-literate first responders (this was in a rather un-upscale part of CA) who told a kid that, although she slid off and landed on her feet, there was a good chance she'd be dead in the morning. They also didn't have any waivers/releases on their vehicle or know why they should have these documents. One of these gentlemen could not spell the words 'patient', 'injury' or 'hospital'.

I doubt he could have spelled 'clearance' either.

:)

Janet
Jan. 16, 2012, 01:19 PM
Now, when a UL rider remounts after a fall - since it's perfectly allowable for them to do so
Can you pleease clarify what you mean here. Under the current rules, there is no difference for UL vs LL.

An ULR and LLR are equally allowed to remount and continue after a fall NOT related to a jump.

An ULR and LLR are equally NOT allowed to remount and continue after a fall related to a jump.

annikak
Jan. 16, 2012, 01:42 PM
Agreed! As I said before- the costs!

Although not to be confused with safety....


'Clearance' by EMTs doesn't really square with the scope of practice and licensure of EMTs.

Beam Me Up
Jan. 16, 2012, 03:08 PM
I almost think it's dangerous (from a liability perspective) to call this a safety rule, then allow these possibly concussed people to ride other mounts, drive home, etc. That seems like it could almost invite more lawsuits (USEF acknowledges that all falls are potentially dangerous) rather than discourage them.

That said, I don't really feel that strongly about overturning the rule itself. Yes, it totally sucks to spend all that money in prep and entry fees and drive all that way only to fall. Just as much as it does when you have 4 stops on course, or forget a fence, or wear neckwear with no coat, or forget to pull off the brushing boots before dressage, or start your stadium before the bell.

There are so many disappointing ways to get eliminated, and I'm not sure I understand why a competitor would have more of a 'right' to continue after a fall than after stops or a TE.

So if it is really just about making the timing and flow of events simpler I can understand. But as a safety rule I really don't.

cindywilson
Jan. 16, 2012, 04:18 PM
Janet--Sorry. I misspoke (miswrote?). I meant 'remount' as in mount another horse.

retreadeventer
Jan. 16, 2012, 04:23 PM
Wondering if there has been any movement on Canterlope's extraordinary rule change notice today?

Anyone?

This whole thing is giving me a headache. How about you? I cannot imagine what organizers are doing. On or off. In or out. Here or there. Money or more money.

Janet
Jan. 16, 2012, 04:38 PM
Janet--Sorry. I misspoke (miswrote?). I meant 'remount' as in mount another horse.
OK, thanks for the clarification. But it is still the same for upper and lower level riders.

Catie79
Jan. 16, 2012, 04:42 PM
FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

Because it is being put forth as an extraordinary rule change, it can be put in front of the USEF Executive Committee for approval pretty much immediately. And, the ExCom can approve it to go into effect on any date they wish.

. . . so, how do I report my friend who slipped in the trailer area on the mounting block and fell down. One foot was in the stirrup, but not the other one. The horse wasn't moving, but I think the saddle had her weight for a moment? Does she need EMT clearance to continue?

Because this has actually happened next to the trailer, and I'd like to know if we should do anything more than laugh our butts off.

S A McKee
Jan. 16, 2012, 05:46 PM
I would go further with this. Since this is a USEF ruling and final decision, how does this compare with other jumping horse sport under the USEF? If an eventer who comes off their horse in cross-country can't safely continue -- 4-6 min. & 18-20 jumps for most of the majority novice competitors -- how can a jumper/eq/hunter rider come off during a 60-90 second round and continue to ride safely in their other jumping classes that day?

If the USEF believes in the correctness of their position for eventers, shouldn't they logically extend the same principal to all jumping horse sport -- even breed shows with jumping classes?

But I don't think the medical principal is what is truly at issue with the USEA. I think they see a bigger problem with potential liability in eventing, just as schools find football is a broader open door for liability than other sports. Just imo.

.

Probably right, eventing probably does have a greater liability.
And because of that there should be stricter return to play rules.
Comparing a fall at speed over solid jumps ( with a strong possibility of a rotational fall which rarely happens in H/J) with coming off because a horse stops at a 3' fence made of rails that fall is apples and oranges.

If you fall in a h/j class you can not remount in the ring.
GR1317 applies to all. If you seem to be concussed you can't compete till you have been evaluated and if you don't submit to evaluation you go on the medical list and can not compete till you are cleared. This applies to all disciplines.

So it's not exactly as you've described it. If there is a fall you may need to be evaluated and you may not be able to compete again at the same show or for that matter at any show till evaulated.

SevenDogs
Jan. 16, 2012, 06:02 PM
Comparing a fall at speed over solid jumps ( with a strong possibility of a rotational fall which rarely happens in H/J) with coming off because a horse stops at a 3' fence made of rails that fall is apples and oranges.




You might want to ask McLain Ward about that.

Also, you are the one comparing apples and oranges. You are describing an upper level type XC fence (e.g. jumping "at speed" with a strong possibility of rotational fall) and then comparing it to a 3' stadium fence. If you are going to try to compare to a 3' stadium fence, than you are talking about a Novice level XC jump, which is jumped at approximately 350 meters/min (hardly "at speed"), with a very low incidence of rotational falls -- I would venture to guess that the number is comparable to stadium.

Your statement of "strong possibility of rotational falls" is also incorrect. If you look at the statistics, rotational falls may be the most dangerous, but the certainly are not the most frequent. In fact, they are pretty rare.

The most serious falls that I have ever had were in the stadium arena -- not on cross country. It may be tempting (and often done) to try to single out eventing for it's "dangers", but the average fall is not that different between disciplines.

wildlifer
Jan. 16, 2012, 06:03 PM
Has anyone on the committees EVER addressed the multi-horse loophole? I have never heard this discussed by any of the "powers" -- it is my primary contention with this rule and makes it a sham. Either you're done after your fall or you're not, none of this loophole business.

ETA -- I agree w/ SD there, I broke my knee last year in stadium. So XC is not looking all that dangerous to me comparatively speaking now!

AlterEgoME
Jan. 16, 2012, 11:26 PM
Probably right, eventing probably does have a greater liability.
And because of that there should be stricter return to play rules.
Comparing a fall at speed over solid jumps ( with a strong possibility of a rotational fall which rarely happens in H/J) with coming off because a horse stops at a 3' fence made of rails that fall is apples and oranges.

If you fall in a h/j class you can not remount in the ring.
GR1317 applies to all. If you seem to be concussed you can't compete till you have been evaluated and if you don't submit to evaluation you go on the medical list and can not compete till you are cleared. This applies to all disciplines.

So it's not exactly as you've described it. If there is a fall you may need to be evaluated and you may not be able to compete again at the same show or for that matter at any show till evaulated.

PP address some of the errors in your statement, but, if you fall off in the hunter ring and are determined to be uninjured, you can exit the ring, remount and ride the SAME horse around the ring again (and as many other horses as you have available). Is that so different from completing your ride xc? You are only eliminated from one class. So, just like riders with multiple horses in eventing, you continue on. It is not about safety it is about scoring.

colliemom
Jan. 17, 2012, 01:44 PM
This whole thing strikes me as someone that just can't admit they were wrong. Instead of just saying "Hey, we enacted a rule that makes no sense. We really meant well, but it came out wrong and we just need to start over.", they keep piling on nonsensical rules trying to plug the massive loopholes.

Kinda like when you tell a little white lie to avoid going to your mom's house for dinner. and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger until, suddenly, you find yourself telling her you had move to Tangiers to pursue special treatment for some rare disease.

Seriously, people.

:yes::yes::yes:

colliemom
Jan. 17, 2012, 02:03 PM
To make the argument in the name of safety even stupider, you can fall in dressage and not get eliminated, and you can fall on cross country as long as it's not related to a jump and not be eliminated. How on earth can this make sense to anyone?


EV136 Dressage Scoring
1.c. In the case of a fall of a horse and/or competitor, the competitor will not be eliminated. He will be penalized by the effect of the fall on the execution of the movement


EV142 Cross-Country—Definitions of Faults (Drawings, Appendix 7).
1. GENERAL. Faults (refusals, run-outs, circles and falls) will be penalized unless in the opinion of the responsible judge, they are clearly not connected with the negotiation or attempted negotiation of a numbered obstacle or element for the relevant competition in progress. The negotiation or attempted negotiation of an obstacle commences with the presentation of the horse to the obstacle.

retreadeventer
Jan. 17, 2012, 03:22 PM
So was the extraordinary rule change presented yet, or passed?

canterlope
Jan. 17, 2012, 04:44 PM
So was the extraordinary rule change presented yet, or passed?I don't think it will go in front of ExCom until February. Shall we start taking bets on whether it will pass or not? ;)

fooler
Jan. 17, 2012, 07:51 PM
I don't think it will go in front of ExCom until February. Shall we start taking bets on whether it will pass or not? ;)

What are the Vegas odds? :lol::D:lol::D:lol::D

Judysmom
Jan. 17, 2012, 09:00 PM
Little late to this discussion, but I have to say I am very disappointed that the one fall rule was not reversed, for reasons aptly stated by previous posters.

Now this:


FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

is a really poor idea.

1) Who are these "medical personnel" and how are they qualified to asses head injuries? Are we talking about run of the mill EMTs here? (no offense intended to any EMTs) My point being that it might/ would likely take "medical personnel" with more medical training and more sophisticated equipment to sufficiently diagnose head injuries, in such a manner, as to meet the recognized standard of care in the unfortunate situation of a lawsuit. Am I wrong? Or is this situation common in other sports?

Lawsuit here is quite easy to imagine. Competitor falls off horse, hacking around the competition, gets checked out by medical personnel who miss signs of head injury due to the medical personnel not being a head injury specialist. Competitor is cleared to ride. Competitor is later injured seriously, and the cause of the serious later injury is determined to be the head trauma missed by the medical personnel. Lawsuit entails... Once horse trials get into the business of evaluating persons medical conditions and then clearing them (or not) for competition, the horse trial takes on responsibility for that evaluated competitor's condition.

2) having qualified medical professionals at every horse trial, presumably from the the time the grounds open, beyond what is required now, will be an additional financial burden upon organizers.

3) Sorry, but this rings "nanny state" with me. I sincerely hope it does not pass.

JP60
Jan. 18, 2012, 10:14 AM
My goodness, reading through this thread was like watching a equine version of "Days of our Lives" (my Mom liked that when I was young, I do not watch them today:lol:)

As a new rider, I initially supported the idea of a one fall rule. I "believed" in the official position that it was about "safety". I also felt that were I to fall off on course I would not be in a position to get back on anyway so what did it matter. Two things happened.

I finally did "pop-off" on course, landed on my feet in front of a BN jump. I was done, I was mad (at me), and I was very disappointed. My trainer stepped in, talked to the organizer and allowed me to school after the show. We reviewed that jump and I went on to finish the course. That felt good. Would I have made it by getting back on? Don't know, but now I see the point, the value in getting back on. I do realize that by getting back on it becomes a schooling round and not a competitive event.

The second was seeing officials clearly make light of this supposed safety rule. In my moment when I fell I was done, pack up and go home, but wait, another rider has two horses and can still compete? All of a sudden it is not about safety. We can try to bend the word around it, but a rule that is meant to protect riders allows riders to continue is a weak rule and has no bearing on safety. I do not care if that rider is amateur or professional. As another poster stated, let the rule be truly, one fall and you go home and see what happens. Had it been that from the start my guess would have been a non-starter.

I appreciate rules that reflect true safety (based on hard data) or rules that reflect the nature of the sport, but quick, knee-jerk reaction rules that segregate the competitors begins to diminish the sport. Safety is important, but I see now that this rule does not address a valid safety issue. Perhaps if enough public pressure is placed against the officials, reason will be implemented and this rule repealed.

fooler
Jan. 18, 2012, 10:26 AM
My goodness, reading through this thread was like watching a equine version of "Days of our Lives" (my Mom liked that when I was young, I do not watch them today:lol:)

As a new rider, I initially supported the idea of a one fall rule. I "believed" in the official position that it was about "safety". I also felt that were I to fall off on course I would not be in a position to get back on anyway so what did it matter. Two things happened.

I finally did "pop-off" on course, landed on my feet in front of a BN jump. I was done, I was mad (at me), and I was very disappointed. My trainer stepped in, talked to the organizer and allowed me to school after the show. We reviewed that jump and I went on to finish the course. That felt good. Would I have made it by getting back on? Don't know, but now I see the point, the value in getting back on. I do realize that by getting back on it becomes a schooling round and not a competitive event.

The second was seeing officials clearly make light of this supposed safety rule. In my moment when I fell I was done, pack up and go home, but wait, another rider has two horses and can still compete? All of a sudden it is not about safety. We can try to bend the word around it, but a rule that is meant to protect riders allows riders to continue is a weak rule and has no bearing on safety. I do not care if that rider is amateur or professional. As another poster stated, let the rule be truly, one fall and you go home and see what happens. Had it been that from the start my guess would have been a non-starter.

I appreciate rules that reflect true safety (based on hard data) or rules that reflect the nature of the sport, but quick, knee-jerk reaction rules that segregate the competitors begins to diminish the sport. Safety is important, but I see now that this rule does not address a valid safety issue. Perhaps if enough public pressure is placed against the officials, reason will be implemented and this rule repealed.

Out of the mouths of "babes" the issue is clearly stated. ;)

JP60, In this case babe indicates "new" to the sport.
Also my Mom still watches Days :lol:

FlightCheck
Jan. 18, 2012, 11:22 AM
Has there been an actual crafted "rule change proposal" that states/covers the "you fall off and you (and ALL of your horses) are Done for the Weekend?"

I would love to listen to THAT debate :)

retreadeventer
Jan. 18, 2012, 11:43 AM
I don't think it will go in front of ExCom until February. Shall we start taking bets on whether it will pass or not? ;)

:)
I'm booking now.
I give not pass: 2-5
Pass: 15-1

(I hope to finance a new custom-made dressage saddle with this one!)

Seriously JP60's opinion is very good, and I like the nagging little point she brought up, the one that is eating at all of us...the fact that the rule suddenly and surreptiously made the pro rider a favored class in eventing. That fact has just eaten away at the rank and file, I think. And the vehement support by the officials and some leaders of it, has just added fuel to the fire.

JP60
Jan. 18, 2012, 12:12 PM
:)
I'm booking now.
I give not pass: 2-5
Pass: 15-1

(I hope to finance a new custom-made dressage saddle with this one!)

Seriously JP60's opinion is very good, and I like the nagging little point she brought up

Eh hem...minor detail...she = he :eek:

From babe to Babe, a guy gets no respect in this sport :lol:

I'd take book on this, but (1) aint go no money, spent it all on horses and (2) never bet against a sure thing.

colliemom
Jan. 18, 2012, 01:15 PM
FWIW, and since this discussion took place during the open portion of the USEF Eventing Technical Meeting in Cincinnati so it isn't privileged information, the Committee voted to put an extraordinary rule change forward which will require all riders to be checked and cleared to continue in competition by medical personnel whenever they sustain a fall. It won't matter if the fall takes place on course, in the warm-up, or out back in the parking area. Hitting the dirt at any point while on grounds will earn you a visit with and a thumbs up by the medics in order to remain in the competition.

Because it is being put forth as an extraordinary rule change, it can be put in front of the USEF Executive Committee for approval pretty much immediately. And, the ExCom can approve it to go into effect on any date they wish.


Emphasis added.

Slippery-slope territory for sure.

What if I'm stabled off grounds, and I school my horse off grounds between phases of a multi-day competition and fall off? What if I go home during a multi-day competition, leaving my entered horse stabled on grounds, and school another horse not entered, and fall off? Do I need to get "checked out" and "cleared to ride"? Who is going to know? This is saying that falling off one horse is worse than another horse because one horse is entered in a competition.
Oh -- wait! It because the one horse is entered in the competition, and it's therefore a liability!

Absolutely nothing to do with safety.

And does this now mean that event organizers have to have medical personal available 24/7 to check out fallen riders?

:mad:

SevenDogs
Jan. 18, 2012, 01:41 PM
I may be incorrect about this, but wasn't the original "one fall" rule passed as an "Extraordinary Rule Change"? Perhaps, that is the problem... new rules implemented too quickly, with too little information, and way too little input from the membership.

I find it ironic (at best) that the repeal failed to clear the USEF, because they didn't feel like they didn't have enough time to consider the issue, etc., even though it has been part of the meeting agenda for a long time. Yet, they are willing to push through extremely restrictive rules, with huge practical consequences, under the guise of "safety" without any proof that it will increase safety.

Extraordinary rule changes should be few and far between. We are DAYS after the annual meeting. Why wasn't this proposed as part of the regular process?