[Sticky Situation]

This is another of those rules that, while the intentions are good, can result in the elimination of a horse that is not being abused in any way, while doing nothing to protect others that are. Of course, it is much easier said than done to write a rule that prevents all abuse while not leading to unfair eliminations.

For example, under the "blood rule" a horse that gets bit by a horsefly, or takes a funny step on some uneven footing and interferes, causing a superficial laceration, will be eliminated. Is either of these an example of abuse or bad horsemanship? I think not... But nonetheless it reflects badly on the rider to have their horse eliminated for "fresh blood."

I understand the need to try and prevent abuse and improve public appearances, but I think there should be some stipulations on the rule to prevent it from punishing riders because their horse got a bug bite. It is absolutely NOT ok to be drawing blood with your spurs in - or out of - the competition arena, but if the underlying skin was shown to be intact I don't know that elimination in this case is fair.

[GingerJumper]

I know that I put a really impressive gouge in my saddle with a spur once in the process of falling off - had that contact been on skin, I'm sure it would have torn up. That was with normal spurs. I'd imagine that on a thin-skinned horse with just the right stumble, it could happen.

True. I'd imagine that for dressage, spurs are a bit longer than what we normally use in hunters and jumpers, so that could make the effect a bit worse if she had to grip awkwardly to hang on.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Interesting quote from Tina, "The show organizers are being attacked by the international Riders and Trainers club because they did not follow the proper procedure on the blood rule."

And the IDRC says they are not attacking, but instead are working with the show to learn what happened.

Tina claims that "International Riders Club and International Trainers club are taking action against the show organizers."

And the IDRC says they are not taking any action against show management.

Tinya says that "no one ever looked at my horse, just one lady steward".
Another contradiction.

I'm not against Tina, and she certainly has a right to question the FEI's decision.

But those kinds of remarks don't help her, nor those who are trying to sort it out on her behalf.

Meh, having been misquoted myself in the press, all I can say is don't rush to judgment. Those may not have been her exact words, and they may have been put in her mouth or taken out of context. The press loves to inflame things to get readership.

[mbm]

"The Blood Rule" was brought about because of the elimination of Parcival, and Sjeff et al complaining that there was no rule so there was no reason why he should of been DQd. Hence the FEI making a rule.

The name of the rule is because of the rabid Anti RK folks and their smear campaign against the various proposed rules... they used the terminology "the Blood Rule" to evoke emotions from folks so that the rule Sjeff suggested would not be put in place.

So now we have a good welfare rule named terribly which may now backfire....

[Mardi]

Meh, having been misquoted myself in the press, all I can say is don't rush to judgment. Those may not have been her exact words, and they may have been put in her mouth or taken out of context. .

Tina has been outspoken in the past, and surely we haven't heard her final thoughts on this.

[Mardi]

With no skin breakage from blood to emanate from, I vote a DNA test be done on the blood. They'd probably find out it was a mosquito, horse/deer fly - which might have been the reason he 'unfocused' at the extended trot?

Carol

There was a spur mark where the blood was found.

[Gimbalist]

It was a pretty dramatic stumble such that a spur injury is plausable. Problem is, if officials don't follow the rules, what's the point to having them? A vet check should have been done and the decision made by the vet per rules.

[BaroquePony]

What kind of spurs are we talking about here?

[CFFarm]

Hey, if it's a rule, it's a rule and we all must abide by it as much as the poster who wanted to ride in bareback pad. But, it must be examined and the evidence documented.

I too have to wonder about what kind of spurs would cut enough to leave blood.

[Mardi]

Problem is, if officials don't follow the rules, what's the point to having them? A vet check should have been done and the decision made by the vet per rules.

The rule says ".....If the horse shows fresh blood, it will be eliminated. The elimination is final..... If the horse is eliminated pursuant to the above, or if the horse is injured during the test and starts bleeding after finishing the test, it should be examined by an FEI Veterinarian prior to the next Competition to determine if it is fit to continue in the Event the following day(s)."

Did they find fresh blood ? Yes. So Calecto was eliminated.

BUT the rule then says the horse "should be examined" instead of "must be examined" and it doesn't call for the vet to look at the horse immediately after the injury or test..only that the vet "should" look at the horse sometime before the next competition to determine if it's fit to continue. The vet has no say in the elimination itself.

[Donella]

I don't know Tina and haven't ridden with her but I've seen her ride and warm up several times. I have never seen her behave in a way that could be construed as abusive.

I was watching the warm up for this class and didn't see anything that would be considered abusive so I was really surprised to hear she was eliminated via the blood rule.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

Well it is hard (as anyone who has tried to formulate barn/arena use rules knows full well....) to write any rule/law while keeping in mind all possible scenarios. In general, the FEI is going to go with the 'spirit' of the rule when it comes to something like blood. BUT, wouldn't it be nice if they went by the same 'spirit' when it came to ridiculously tight nosebands and horses with ridiculously PERMANENT spur marks/scars.

I mean, even if you think that those crazy nosebands are okay (and I don't know how you can argue they are... but some folks seem to think so) how could one defend those crazy, ridiculous, ginormous spur scar areas on dressage horses. If you ask me, this blood rule is a round the bout (weeny, pansy, pussy assed....) way of getting after stuff that they can't really prevent because it is soooooo entrenched. Like the tight nosebands and crazy spur scars. People can, and do, argue that tight nosebands are necessary and crazy spur scars are unavoidable/necessary/okay. But it's harder to say that it's OK if your horse has pink foam or bloody sides.

That is also why the 'blood rule' is going to cause problems with enforcement. It's a rule that is trying to hit a target it is not aiming at.

[LarkspurCO]

What kind of spurs are we talking about here?

Large daisy rowel spurs like this:
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&s...11&tx=30&ty=90


My sister took quite a few photos of the test and we went through them and found several that when viewed in "raw" show the spur fairly well (and no apparent spur marks on either side).

I once put a big red spur mark on my horse with this spur:
http://www.doversaddlery.com/prince-...lds/p/X1-2519/

It was several years ago during an exercise with my trainer and happened very fast -- I didn't even realize I had rubbed his side with the spur but remember him swishing his tail and bucking. Later I found a 3/4 inch long red mark. I felt so bad that I was afraid to wear spurs again for months and never wore those spurs again.

Accidents happen, and so does abuse, but I did not see anything at this show that concerned me.

[ThreeFigs]

Larkspur, rowelled spurs are kinder than blunt spurs. At least the rowels can roll a bit. Blunt spurs just -- poke.

There is a reason that rowelled spurs are examined to be sure they DO spin and have no sharpened points.

[LarkspurCO]

Larkspur, rowelled spurs are kinder than blunt spurs. At least the rowels can roll a bit. Blunt spurs just -- poke.

I was just answering the question and did not mean to imply that rowelled spurs were harsher or milder than others. One can still poke with them for sure.

The Prince of Wales spur has a square edge that can catch and tear the skin. I now wear a spur with a rolling ball.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Well it is hard (as anyone who has tried to formulate barn/arena use rules knows full well....) to write any rule/law while keeping in mind all possible scenarios. In general, the FEI is going to go with the 'spirit' of the rule when it comes to something like blood. BUT, wouldn't it be nice if they went by the same 'spirit' when it came to ridiculously tight nosebands and horses with ridiculously PERMANENT spur marks/scars.
That is also why the 'blood rule' is going to cause problems with enforcement. It's a rule that is trying to hit a target it is not aiming at.

You are right, Isabeau. In the law, we call it a "strict liability offense" which means that a person will be found guilty of the offense even if they have no culpability (or criminal intent.) It is a lazy way to make rules because you have all sorts of unintended consequences and unjust results. For example, in my state, unlawful possession of a handgun is a strict liability offense for which a person gets a mandatory minimum of one year in jail. So ridiculously, if a little old lady doesn't have a license for her granddaddy's civil war pistol, she would get a year in jail.

But people don't want to have to exercise discretion or make judgments in these matters because it can be hard. So they rather throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it is counterproductive because it just creates disrespect for the rule when they are applied without any thought.

[Discobold]

Eclectic Horseman, that is a good explanation. I'm guessing you are a lawyer. I still remember the hypothetical for strict liability from first semester of law school. It was about going deer hunting one day before the season started. But I wouldn't describe it as a lazy way to make rules, rather a way to make rules in a messy world. Imagine if stewards were told to use discretion and judgment - there would be even more screaming about who did or did not get eliminated. It's pretty much a no-win for officials.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Eclectic Horseman, that is a good explanation. I'm guessing you are a lawyer. I still remember the hypothetical for strict liability from first semester of law school. It was about going deer hunting one day before the season started. But I wouldn't describe it as a lazy way to make rules, rather a way to make rules in a messy world. Imagine if stewards were told to use discretion and judgment - there would be even more screaming about who did or did not get eliminated. It's pretty much a no-win for officials.

Yes, you are right of course (about my being a lawyer and about there being an upside.) A strict liability rule on something like this that is perceived as an issue of humane practices keeps the animal rights activists at bay. It also eliminates any perception of favoritism. But, unfortunately, at a terrible price for the individual.

Seriously, I wonder what they will do about horse fly bites? It is a legitimate question.

[Bats79]

What I have never understood about this rule is...

If the Judge can only eliminate her in the ring, and the Vet never saw the horse,

WHO eliminated her? The gear steward?

[Isabeau Z Solace]

I think the check steward went to the judge, the judge then eliminated her.