Bill Moroney, president of the U.S. Hunter/Jumper Association, answers questions on the USEF rule requiring ASTM/SEI helmets in all hunter/jumper divisions, as of Dec. 1.

Moroney has been USHJA president since its formation in 2004. He’s  a respected trainer and a frequent contributor to the Chronicle’s Between Rounds column.

Coreene, Huntington Beach, Calif.
What is the point of a helmet if most of the people have the chinstrap dangling loose? How are you going to enforce that part of the helmet rule, the part that really makes it work?

Dear Coreene,
You are correct; the chinstrap must be adjusted correctly for the helmet to work at its best. The language in GR 318 clearly stipulates that the headgear be properly fastened with the harness secured. In addition to this language, the Show Committee must bar riders without protective headgear from entering the ring for classes in which protective headgear is required. Therefore, if a rider is wearing an approved helmet that isn’t properly fastened, they must be barred from entering the competition ring.

Just like any other rule, all equestrians must take responsibility for making sure that everyone is in compliance. If you see someone who’s not, report this to the steward and the Show Committee so that proper action can be taken. If a rider chooses not to correct the problem, they will be barred from competing. Once this occurs, the issue of non-compliance will be greatly reduced.

Nancy, St. Michaels, Md.
When this rule takes effect, will it be for all riders in all rings, including the schooling areas, or is it for the jumping area only? Will you be able to flat without one? And who is going to be responsible for policing this new rule? Will the steward, judges, and management have to be in charge of this?

Dear Nancy,
I believe the following document from USEF can answer all your questions.

We would like to provide you with some information regarding the requirements of GR 318.2 and .3, which, effective Dec. 1, 2005, will read as follows:

GR 318. Dress.
“2. It is compulsory for riders in all Hunter, Jumper and Hunt Seat Equitation classes, and Paso Fino classes, both open and breed restricted including Hunter Hack, where jumping is required and when jumping anywhere on the competition grounds to wear properly fastened protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. It must be properly fitted with harness secured. A Show Committee must bar riders without protective headgear from entering the ring for classes in which protective headgear is required and may bar any entry or person from entering the ring if not suitably presented to appear before an audience. 3. Except as may otherwise be mandated by local law, all juniors riding in Hunter, Jumper and Hunter Seat Equitation sections, and all sub-juniors riding in the Paso Fino division, while riding anywhere on the competition grounds, must wear properly fitting protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. Harness must be secured and properly fitted. Any rider violating this rule at any time must immediately be prohibited from further riding until such headgear is properly in place.”

In particular we would like to advise that the rule does state for senior riders that “a Show Committee must bar riders without protective headgear from entering the ring for classes in which protective headgear is required and may bar any entry or person from entering the ring if not suitably presented to appear before an audience.” In addition the rule states for junior riders that “any rider violating this rule at any time must immediately be prohibited from further riding until such headgear is in place.”

Pursuant to GR 1122.2.b it is the responsibility of a steward or technical delegate “to investigate and act upon any alleged rule violations without waiting for a protest.” Pursuant to GR 1212.2, it is the obligation of competition management to “enforce all rules of the federation from the time entries are admitted to the competition grounds until their departure.” 

Gail, Minneapolis, Minn.
I have followed the debate over the new helmet rule, and I wonder who is resisting this change and what can we do to encourage compliance? Nearly all of the amateurs and parents with whom I ride or compete with (Minnesota, Zone 6) strongly support the required use of approved helmets. Many adults changed voluntarily when the junior rule when into effect to set a good example. In our area, there have been two recent accidents with skilled dressage riders who suffered serious, life-threatening head injuries from minor mishaps riding on the flat, which reminded us all of the need to use our best efforts to reduce these risks. How can we help get this message through to those who oppose the requirement?

Dear Gail,
The individuals I have spoken with who aren’t in favor of the helmet rule fall into the following categories:

1. Those who consider the helmet to be too unattractive to wear. Everyone would prefer a helmet that is both aesthetically pleasing and meets the ASTM/SEI approval, but it is absurd to oppose a rule improving safety due to vanity.

2. Those who feel that if you’re of legal age, you shouldn’t be told by the USEF what helmet to wear. The USEF is the national governing body for equestrian sports, tasked with doing what is best for equestrian sports in this country. That includes making rules for both the welfare of the horses and humans and, consequently, the best interests of the sport. It’s obvious, from their unanimous approval in January, that the USEF directors believe this rule to be in the best interests of the sport and its participants.

3. Those who haven’t found a helmet that fits them properly. Proper fit of the helmets is very important to their usefulness. There are many models and brands available on the market now and in many different price ranges. One of the greatest problems is that some people will sacrifice proper fit in order to have the same helmet as their peer group. On July 5, 2005, the USEF sent an e-mail to manufacturers of ASTM/SEI-approved helmets asking them about the availability of custom fitted helmets. (Non-approved helmet manufacturers also received the same notice in order to inquire about whether they were going to seek approval for their helmets.) On July 13, 2005, USEF received a reply from Frank Plastino at International Riding Helmets, saying, “To order a custom-made ASTM F1163 helmet we would have to send you a special strip of material that you would need to heat up with a hair dryer and then place around your head until it cools down. Once it cools, it will take the geometry of your head, and then you must send it back to IRH. We can produce your helmet within one weeks time.” Frank Plastino can be contacted at 732-290-3000 or ridinghelmets@optline.net. 4. Those who are misinformed as to the statistics regarding the helmet rule and are reacting to hearsay and stories of accidents with the approved helmets which have yet to be documented or proven. This is the most disturbing group of all. The USEF has received letters and petitions from individuals not in favor of the helmet rule. This is a very small group of people who seem to be polarized around an even smaller group of uninformed/misinformed people. Some of these people have cited incidents of injury due to the approved helmets, but are unable to provide any concrete evidence that any of their assertions are true. To date, they have provided no evidence to support their claims. It is unfortunate that people will take this hearsay as gospel and sign petitions and copies of letters without doing their own due diligence and at times without reading what they have signed.

The USHJA will be hosting a helmet safety seminar featuring physicians and other safety personnel at their convention in Miami on Tuesday, Dec. 6, between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm. In addition, if you have computer access, do a search on ASTM/SEI-approved helmets. You’ll find an amazing amount of information, not only for equestrian sports, but for many others as well. 

Ellie, Cos Cob, Conn.
Why did you allow the helmet rule as passed at the USHJA’s Arizona convention to be changed at the USEF convention after telling USHJA members they need not go to the USEF convention because the rules passed by the USHJA would stand as passed?

Dear Ellie,
I believe if you had attended the USHJA convention, you’d have a different perspective on this issue. Since you are basing your opinion on second-hand information, I can understand your confusion. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

The helmet rule presented at the USHJA meeting was proposed by the USEF Safety Committee and could not be amended at the USHJA meeting unless a quorum of the Safety Committee was present, which there was not. This rule-change proposal affected all disciplines holding hunter, jumper or hunter seat equitation classes.

During the discussion in the open forum, an amendment to the rule as proposed by the Safety Committee was discussed and voted upon. The amendment was to require protective headgear at all times while mounted on a competition grounds, but not mandating it be ASTM/SEI-approved. A representative of the Safety Committee, present at the forum, agreed to bring this proposed amendment back to the committee. As no quorum of the Safety Committee was present, no amendment to the rule-change proposal could be made at the USHJA meeting. It was very clear that this was a proposed amendment to the Safety Committee and not a rule-change proposal in itself.

When the final board meeting of the USHJA convention began, I explained the procedure for rule-change proposals. RCPs receiving approval from all committees referenced would automatically go into the “Approved Consent Calendar” and go forward to the USEF convention as approved by the hunter/jumper disciplines. RCPs receiving disapproval from all committees referenced would automatically go into the “Disapproved Consent Calendar.” RCPs not unanimously approved or disapproved by the committees referenced would be voted upon by the USHJA board and put into one of the two above referenced “calendars.” Once RCPs had left the USHJA convention, the only way for them to be removed from either “calendar” was for a USEF director to remove it and present it to the USEF board. Those RCPs referenced to the hunter/jumper committees that were cross-discipline would go forward to the USEF convention, with the actions of the committees and the USHJA board noted.

As to attending the USEF convention, all meetings for hunter and jumper committees that in past years had occurred at the USEF convention were held at the USHJA convention. Only the National Hunter Committee and the National Jumper Committee held meetings at the USEF convention. The USEF directors elected to represent the hunter and jumper disciplines attended the USEF convention and we were informed of the discussion at the USHJA convention. The USHJA board did its job by not approving the RCP so that it would be discussed at the USEF convention, and the USEF provided us with the materials we needed to make a decision that is in the best interest of the sport and the welfare of its participants. The entire USEF board voted to approve the helmet rule as presented by the Safety Committee. In addition to me, this included the following hunter and jumper elected representatives: Tom Struzzieri, Susan Ashe, Louise Serio, Susie Schoellkopf, Arthur Hawkins, Ann Kursinski and Robert Ridland. Some 46 out of the 54 Directors were present. Keep in mind that since this rule also affects other disciplines, the elected representatives of those disciplines also voted in favor of it. 

Martha, Ocala, Fla.
I submitted an extraordinary rule-change proposal to change the rule requiring us to wear ASTM/SEI-approved helmets, and I’m told it was voted down. Please explain why there will be a rule requiring adults to wear these helmets?

Dear Martha,
I haven’t seen your extraordinary rule-change proposal, nor am I an officer of the USEF, so I cannot comment on their actions regarding it. But I can tell you that the helmet RCP was not passed without the data to support its importance to our sport. The USEF is responsible for maintaining the highest possible standards for equestrian sports. The directors acted responsibly and in the best interests of the majority of participants in our sport.

You need to take a minute and think about how the landscape of riders has changed over the past 20 years. Today, the majority of riders at USEF competitions are in the children’s, adult and entry level divisions. Many of them do not spend a lot of time riding and training and, hence, are not as experienced and are not as capable of handling their horses as those who spend a great deal of their time riding. It’s time to be realistic as to what the majority of our riders need in regards to safety and put aside personal preferences.

I recently read a front-page article in USA Today referring to the increased number of motorcycle fatalities, and the three possible causes listed were “a sharp rise in motorcycle ownership, rollback of mandatory helmet laws, and an increase in inexperienced bikers riding powerful machines.” There is no doubt in my mind that all three of these causes can be directly related to equestrian sports. We have many more participants than in the past, we have not had a mandatory helmet rule except for junior riders, and we have many inexperienced riders mounted on powerful horses, which are living, breathing animals that can be unpredictable at times.

I wear my ASTM/SEI-approved helmet at all times when riding. It’s a choice I make for myself. It may not be the same choice you make for yourself. But I hope you’ll understand the need for this rule and will continue to participate in USEF-sanctioned competitions.

Rob, Middleburg, Va.
Can you, please, elaborate on how the mileage rule may change? What are the options being discussed? I recall David O’Connor discussing a rating system that would reward shows that have the best prize money, footing, or facility in general. Would shows with higher ratings receive more protection? And the shows with poor ratings receive less protection?

Dear Rob,
Our entire system of date allocation was revamped this year, and it has many components that each breed and discipline must continue working on to develop the rating and mileage recommendations that each feels is in their best interest. The USHJA Show Standards Committee, which has geographical representation from exhibitors and competition management, has been working all year on a system of rating competitions based on rule-required standards as well as a way to differentiate between shows of the same level rating by implementing an amenities score for shows. This would give all participants at the shows the ability to score each show on both its adherence to rule-required standards and also on the amenities that make the shows unique. It will be just as important to evaluate a competition when it does a good job as when it does a bad job.

The current evaluation system is not doing what it needs to do for us. By adding the amenities portion, we believe that participants will be able to have a greater voice in evaluating and rewarding the shows that are well produced. Consequently, they’ll make a difference in which shows continue to exist.

Mileage between competitions is another component of the date-allocation puzzle. Another small group with the same type of representation is working on this. One concept is to reward the higher-level shows that produce an event that is of a benefit to our sport with greater mileage protection. If you look at our current system, we already reward higher-rated shows with greater mileage protection, but without differentiating between shows of the same rating. The other element to be considered is the quality of the higher-level show in regards to receiving greater mileage protection. In addition, the number of horses competing in each state in each quarter of the competition year adds a useful component to the discussion on mileage.

What’s good about our situation is that we can continue to amend our requirements in future years. We do not have to have every problem solved at the beginning, because there are problems that we will only find as we advance forward. One thing is clear to me: We must go forward because we have the opportunity for all participants to be involved in the rating and quality of our shows. 

Angelique, Cincinnati, Ohio
I’m not a USEF member, but I belong to a local hunter/jumper association and enjoy showing in their shows, a couple times a year. I’ve read that you want the USHJA to sponsor clinics and other educational programs. Why? What will this do for me that my trainer doesn’t? And what would I get out of joining the USHJA and the USEF?

Dear Angelique,
Regardless of whether you compete at the Olympic level or the entry level, everyone has something to learn. Education is the greatest asset available to horseman. The USHJA has numerous programs to help produce clinics on topics such as training, riding, teaching, legal issues, veterinary, judging, and starting your own business. We already have on the website a Trainers Directory, where your trainer can register for free. This helps provide people with information on trainers. In addition, a mentoring program has started, in which equestrians with questions can be partnered with a professional to help answer their inquiries and give them guidance.

These clinics can provide you with additional knowledge that will help you navigate your way in equestrian sports. The quarterly USHJA Newsletter will provide you will information on upcoming events and information you will need to compete at USEF competitions, as well as news of events happening in our sport. If you’re interested, the USHJA can assist you in producing clinics and seminars in your area, which will help you to become active in providing educational opportunities to your fellow equestrians. 

Laura, Vienna, Va.
Why does the rule only require approved helmets while jumping? If we want the senior members of the horse show community to be safer shouldn’t we have started with a rule that required helmets at all times, or enforced the existing rule? I think we will still see people hack around the rings in the morning sans helmet even with the new rule implemented.

Dear Laura,
I wear an ASTM/SEI approved helmet whenever I’m riding, both at home and at competitions. I too would have preferred to have a rule that required the use of these helmets whenever mounted at USEF competitions, not just for jumping, but, after much research and discussion, the USEF Safety Committee submitted this language, which is consistent with the FEI rules. At least this new rule is a start in the right direction. I hope that once the new rule is in effect, we’ll see an increase in the number of senior riders wearing their helmets all the time when on a horse. Even without it being in effect yet, it already seems that more people wear an ASTM/SEI-approved helmet than don’t.