• 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

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

rotational fall at Bramham CCI***

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

  • #41
    When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

    The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

    Sad.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Coppers mom View Post
      When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

      The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

      Sad.
      So if we agree with your assumption that MOST riders under 25 years old don't have the skill set (which by they way, I don't agree with), we should ban ALL riders under 25? Sorry, this falls under the same heading as the USEF/USEA knee jerk reaction rules for the sake of making rules "so it looks like we are promoting safety". What magical knowledge is imparted on your 25th Birthday? Why not 24 years old or 26 years old? .... By the way, if there was magical knowledge imparted on your 25th birthday... I didn't get the message!

      There is absolutely no evidence that riders under 25 are any less safe than anyone else. .... and if you are wondering I am waaaaay over 25 years old and have no chance of achieving that level and am not associated with anyone under 25 at that level. I just hate arbitrary rules that do nothing but make rules.

      Our qualification system should be able to produce qualified riders. Period. It shouldn't matter what age they are, what color they are, what gender they are, what type of horse they ride, etc. If they are qualified, they are qualified. If we need to make changes to the qualifying system, than so be it but making arbitrary rules is not helpful.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Carol Ames:

        So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions.However at Badminton, there were NONE, why?
        It must have been a freak non-accident.

        Comment


        • #44
          Sad when we are asking why we DIDN'T have an accident at an event rather than why we DID?

          Comment


          • #45
            I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.

            The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level.

            Comment


            • #46
              Copersmom, 25 and under more pron to realy bad accidents?

              So why had Phillip Dutton 2 rotanionals in 6 month and one of those killed a horse.
              That I have no use for them, does not mean, that I don't know them and don't know how to use them.
              Caveman extraordinair

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Coppers mom View Post
                I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.
                Um... by this statement:

                When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?
                Sorry if I misunderstood your post but who were you referring to as "we" when you stated "when are we going to realize that most people that age.....". It sounded to me like you were advocating minimum ages above 25.


                The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level
                You are either qualified or you aren't. If you happen to be 20 and unqualified, then you are unqualified. If you happen to be 20 and you are qualified, then you are qualified. I use the term "qualified" in the true sense of the word, not necessarily in relationship to our current qualification system.

                I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by SevenDogs View Post
                  Um... by this statement:
                  I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.
                  No, if I thought no one under 25 (btw, that's from the article, not me) should ride at X level, I would have said so. I know I'm not always the clearest, but I'm not exactly good at insinuations either

                  The problem with our current qualification system is that it's really not a very good judge of skill or overall experience. I know a ton of people that can tear around, at Pre-lim even, that are only there because of a good dressage test and saintly pony. Dressage will be gorgeous, but they clearly lack the skills to be at that level going over fences. But, because it's not outright "dangerous", just incompetence, no one says anything.

                  No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.

                  As a side note, I don't think it's fair to compare Darren's fall and this girls. Both were horrible, but when you compare the numbers, he's statistically doing way better than say, Laine Ashker. If an older rider rides 40 horses before having a fall, and a younger one rides 10, it's not the same. You can't say that age has nothing to do with it if you compare the horses ridden vs. falls. If you go that way, age does have something to do with it. Falls like this ARE happening to younger riders more often in recent years, you can't deny it.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Coppersmom:

                    I guess I am not clear on what exactly you are saying. In one sentence you say that you are not advocating age restrictions and then in the next you say you are.

                    No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.
                    What you are proposing is NOT a solution. It is grasping at straws, rather than dealing with the real problem. Regulating age because it is "easier to regulate than anything else" is not good reasoning and does not solve anything. We have way too many rules that have no real chance at improving safety because "at least we are doing something" and those areas are "easier to regulate" rather than solving real problems like Course Design, Team Leadership, and Qualifying procedures.

                    For the record, I do not believe in any age restrictions and particularly not after age 18. It is a lousy way to qualify a rider at any level. I also don't believe you have any real statistics to back up your claim that falls are happening more to younger riders and yes, I CAN deny it. I think your arguments do not hold water.

                    Unless you think that sheer number of years you are on earth imparts eventing knowledge, age restrictions make no sense. If you take a 20 year old rider and a 40 year old rider on the same mount with the exact same experience, I do not believe that the 40 year old is safer by virtue of his or her chronological age. He/She COULD be safer or HE/SHE could be a 40 year old idiot. Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!

                    Sorry, but I think you are headed down a very dangerous road with your line of thinking. The only way real problems are going to be solved is by systematically and critically looking at the problem and taking the necessary steps to solve it in it's entirety. Age restrictions don't even come close to achieving this. It seems more like a knee jerk reaction to the very sad story discussed in this thread rather than a logical solution to the problem.

                    I am not trying to sound harsh but I think it is important that we step up and say enough is enough with ridiculous rules. We want real results by looking at the real problems!
                    Last edited by SevenDogs; Jun. 17, 2009, 01:42 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

                      And did I ever say anything about age being the only qualification, or that the qualification system is just dandy as it is now? No. I know it's easy to get worked up over this kind of thing, but please, take a second look

                      And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.

                      As far as falls happening to younger riders, of course they are! It's simple statistics. How many horses did Karen, Bruce, or Mike flip over before they were 30? How many did they kill? Not nearly as many as young riders today are. This isn't a knee jerk reaction to the article. If an adult rides 30 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, and a junior rides 2 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, statistically, the older person has a greater success rate of getting around. That's not grasping at straws, that's simple math. Young riders are moving up more and more quickly, and it's showing when they get to the really big stuff and they get hurt. When someone moves a young horse up too quickly, they make mistakes no matter how talented, and sometimes it catches up to them. Same with people. I don't see how that could possibly be denied.
                      Last edited by Coppers mom; Jun. 17, 2009, 01:48 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Coppers mom View Post
                        You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

                        And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.
                        I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.

                        Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?

                        At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Copper's Mom,

                          You need to re-look at your facts. Do some homework before you spout out that Karen didn't kill any horses before thirty, and look at horse falls with Mike and Bruce. It happened back then too, we just didn't have internet to talk about it. That is a totally invalid agruement.
                          I was running at the 3 star level when I was 18 years old, and I am sorry to say that I don't think I was under-qualified in any way. Many of the people you are spouting off as examples of riders who didn't ride any horses that died before they were 30 ALSO were riding at that level at 18-25. Go check some facts please. Age has nothing to do with it, experience and rider ability does, and that is NOT totally age coorelative.
                          www.trainoreventing.com

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

                            I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.
                            "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                            Thread killer Extraordinaire

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by SevenDogs View Post
                              Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!
                              I dunno, Sevendogs, I competed in my first horse trial at age 24, and my second a few months later, after my 25th birthday. I did better my second time out. Clearly, being 25 and having the blessing of the Fairy made all the difference.

                              ETA: Coppersmom: Are you, by any chance, a politician? You're doing a beautiful job of talking in circles, dancing around your point, and generally making sure that nobody really knows what you mean while always tying it up at the end with a neat, "I don't see how anybody could disagree with me." Since you clearly think everyone is misunderstanding you, rather than repeating the same things that were apparently misunderstood the first time, let's try a clear statement of what you think. Stop making us guess. The suspense is killing me. Exactly what rule change would you suggest?

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Let's invent one! calling all engineers

                                Let's invent a cup/ log or pole holder that could be easily attached to a xc jump , telephone poles/ logs, which could be used to hold a frangible pin; They would need to be inexpensive so, organizers could afford them; engineers, anty ideas? or
                                breeder of Mercury!

                                remember to enjoy the moment, and take a moment to enjoy and give God the glory for these wonderful horses in our lives.BECAUSE: LIFE is What Happens While Making Other Plans

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by SevenDogs View Post
                                  I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.
                                  I didn't say that everyone has the same talent, riding experience, etc. But, how likely is it that a 16 year old is going to have the experience of an 18 year old, or an 18 year old of a 20 year old? I've already said that an adult will make the same mistakes that a junior will if they've been riding the same amount of time, I'm not saying that age means everything. However, I think it's pretty safe to say that you can't cram 20 years of riding experience into a 14 year old.

                                  And it's well known that teens are more likely to push the limit. You can't argue against that. Yes, you get some that are ultra-responsible, but most have an incredible drive, and sometimes only think about getting to the finish line. Sure, there are plenty of examples against it, but I haven't found it to be the norm, no matter if it's with driving, sports, horses, anything.

                                  So, again I ask, if a car insurance company knows that young drivers are at a greater risk of getting hurt, how can you think that it would be any different if you put a young person on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own and send them galloping at a solid fence?

                                  Originally posted by SevenDogs View Post
                                  Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?
                                  Because I've talked to several of them. So, rather than stopping and thinking about all the reasons why you didn't have those older riders having rotational falls (course design, long format, etc), you just dismiss it as completely impossible that they didn't have the kind of catastrophic falls we have today? In the days of the long format, there was a lot more prep, a lot different courses, and riders learned a lot more after running 2 horse trials than they learn today at 2 horse trials. Todays young riders are growing up without that experience, and that's part of the reason they're having trouble. They aren't getting as much experience galloping over solid objects at one speed before moving up. Combine that with more technical courses, and it's obvious why everyone's having more trouble with the short format. This is why, even if their scores qualify, many riders aren't ready to take that next step. If we could make it so that everyone (not just adults, not just kids, not just people at one level) would spend a little more time at one level before moving up to the next, it'd be a lot better, IMO, than the current system of qualifying on scores alone.

                                  Originally posted by SevenDogs View Post
                                  At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.
                                  Please stop looking for ways to dismiss me, and read. Sorry to be blunt, but it's obvious that I favor an age limit, just not the one you jumped to conclusions about (banning everyone under the age of 25).

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by vineyridge View Post
                                    Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

                                    I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.
                                    I too, know several young eventers who are far better educated than most. But, the majority of people haven't been fox hunting since 8, or had weekly lessons with excellent trainers since they were 10. These are the exceptions, not the norm. For most people, age has a lot to do with competence. I was going training, and thought I was doing great, until I went to an equitation instructor. Man, was I not ready. But, I was placing well and having fun, so I didn't even think about how awful I looked, and how much I was relying on my saint of a horse. Most kids will be like me, riding a saint, having ok-good instruction once a week (heck, even with outstanding instruction, no one ever told me how bad I was), and parents that think that just getting around is the greatest thing in the world. I realize that there are exceptional young people who would be effected by age limits, but most would not, and they might actually build a better foundation in the long run.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      I'm not dismissing you. I'm DISAGREEING with you because I think your theories are flawed, your statistics are not well researched, and your conclusions are wrong.

                                      I will always fight against rules for rules sake and sweeping generalizations. I don't believe in making rules that (by your own admission) would keep qualified people from competing because it is "easier" than getting to the root of the real problem.

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                                        What difference does it make, not being snotty just actually curious. How would the horse have fallen if there was one. I'm still inclined to think the fall would be pretty nasty.
                                        Maybe he wouldnt have flipped, but since he was alright anyway, that could have been better or worse for him.

                                        However, the rider is far ahead in the pictures, even with frangible pins she would have gone flying and ended up in bad shape anyway.

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Coppers Mom
                                          On what basis do you make the statement most have "not been in weekly training" with excellent instruction since age of ten! I would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.
                                          To say that the 21 year old riding three stars is less qualified than the 26 yr old or 40 year old simply won't stand up as a valid way to qualify riders.
                                          If a rider is minimally qualified to ride at the level they are riding at, they are minimally qualified no matter their age.
                                          There are alot of under 25's who have taken the long road to get there, they just started their journey very young. Age is not the tool to measure qualifications, it is level of competence.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X