• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Event Announcements now available FREE to all registered users

We just reconfigured the Event Announcements forum to be available as a free service for all registered forum users. See the thread stuck at the top of that forum for more information.
2 of 2 < >

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

So.... the Konyot elimination.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    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.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by supershorty628 View Post
      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.
      Trying a life outside of FEI tents and hotel rooms.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Mardi View Post
        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.
        "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller

        Comment


        • #24
          "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....

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Eclectic Horseman View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by ccoronios View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #27
                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.

                Comment


                • #28
                  What kind of spurs are we talking about here?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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.
                    Groom to trainer: "Where's the glamour? You promised me glamour!"

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Gimbalist View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        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.
                        www.svhanoverians.com

                        "Simple: Breeding,Training, Riding". Wolfram Wittig.

                        Comment

                        • Original Poster

                          #32
                          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.
                          "Friend" me !

                          http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Originally posted by BaroquePony View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Originally posted by ThreeFigs View Post
                                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.

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Originally posted by Isabeau Z Solace View Post
                                  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.
                                  "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    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.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Originally posted by Discobold View Post
                                      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.
                                      "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        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?

                                        Comment

                                        • Original Poster

                                          #40
                                          I think the check steward went to the judge, the judge then eliminated her.
                                          "Friend" me !

                                          http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X