Dangerous Riding

[gardenie]

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

Reference:

Attention USEA Members:

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

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

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

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

[JER]

I also got this email and was puzzled by it.

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

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

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

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

Anyone know?

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

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

Maybe Malcolm could fill us in here.

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

[Thames Pirate]

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

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

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

[TallyhoFarms]

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

[FlightCheck]

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

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

[JER]

Originally Posted by TallyhoFarms

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

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

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

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

[hamsterpoop]

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

[TallyhoFarms]

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

[enjoytheride]

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

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

[PhoenixFarm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TallyhoFarms]

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

[enjoytheride]

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

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

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

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

[canterlope]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFarm

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

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

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

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

[asterix]

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

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

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

[LisaB]

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

[crittertwitter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gardenie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[crittertwitter]

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

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

[Jealoushe]

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

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

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

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

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

[Janet]

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

It is a very rare event that has more than one TD, and thus a "head" TD.

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

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