Another rider death

[RAyers]

Watching the helmet camera, past videos of the rider, and seeing how the course rode, here is what I think happened.

The table is between 2 serious questions of related distances. It is against a tree line where there may have been shadows that disrupt the visual representation of the fence (classic jumping into and out of shadows).

As has been hammered into me from a long time ago, there are no such things as “let up” or “easy” fences on course. And any fence that is “easy” is one that you need to ride insanely accurately, not for anything more other than to add money into the confidence and trust bank of your horse. Every good fence is putting “money” into your horse so when you have to make a withdrawal at a questionable ride or fence, the horse gives you the benefit.

I suspect the rider, getting through the first combination, overlooked the table as an “easy” ride and was more intent on the next combination. They missed the tiny details that made that fence not a “let up.” It was one that needed the rider to be forward but not one where a gap distance is the option. As seen in the video, the ride was to come forward to a close distance with no pulling on the reins, keep the body quite and let the horse workout takeoff while the rider supports that.

The fence was an appropriate “trick” at this level. It was a fair question that could allow a horse a break between harder questions, but still had to be ridden with intent and attention.

[startbox]

Late to the party. But after watching her 2* rides… never should have been allowed to ride at intermediate. Horse runs through every jump and there is no control. She could even have been reasonably flagged for a yellow card at Rebecca (even though to my knowledge she wasn’t). How do I know this? I moved up to intermediate and subsequently 3* after having many foot perfect 2s and still spent time struggling at the intermediate/3 level with things like, you guessed it, missing at huge tables. And yes, even sometimes at “easy” intermediates like rocking horse is known as. Perhaps there needs to be a suggestion for a separate panel at upper level/big events whose responsibility it is to identify these riders and have continuing discussions with them through their competition development.

[RainWeasley]

@Jealoushe

Here is the fence Caitlyn Fischer died at. Another one with no real ground line (sorry, mulch DOES NOT count)

https://app.crosscountryapp.com/sydney-international/cci-one-star-5PuF?base=satellite&feature=jump-2-alf9

For comparison purposes, can you post a picture of a table with what you would consider to be a good ground line?

[ladybugsbw]

The pressure to move up is what has driven me away from eventing recently and I do think that is a huge issue (one of many big issues).
I used to jump higher and compete with intentions of moving up, but after some nasty falls (not related to cross country), getting older, and losing confidence, I am happy to pop around at starters and eventually a beginner novice. I have NO intentions of going higher currently.
I have had a hard time trying to find a trainer that truly respects that decision in my area (had to move and I miss my old trainer terribly). Whether it is jacking up jumps in lessons or pressuring me to do more while xc schooling, it seems like my decision to stick to the small stuff is always ignored.
They always say, but your horse and you are capable of more… just because people can doesn’t mean they should or want to.

[JER]

@RAyers

As seen in the video, the ride was to come forward to a close distance with no pulling on the reins, keep the body quite and let the horse workout takeoff while the rider supports that.

Based on her videos, the rider was not capable of this ride. It was a question she didn’t have the resources to answer.

[mkevent]

I wonder if the speeds are a bigger issue now because of the type of horse the upper levels now favor.

I know a majority of these horses have significant TB blood, but I wonder if the emphasis on dressage and stadium and the type of horse that excels at that comes at a price of less safety at speed?

If all aspects of the sport have changed except the speed required, maybe what we’re asking of todays event horses is outside of their safe capabilities?

I know that is not the only answer. But look how much the sport has changed.

I only started Eventing in the 1990s (and only up to Prelim) but so many things are different. No level creep, most of the riders (at the lower levels anyway) were riding self trained horses and stayed at those levels quite a while. Or maybe that’s just how I remembered it. I don’t remember tons of young riders mounted on Uber fancy horses.

I almost wonder if riders who have not trained horses have less of an understanding of how a horses mind works? If you have not started and progressed through the levels together, do you know how to ride technically but maybe not as much intellectually? If you’ve never had to ride a horse where you had to work through training issues, would you innately have a little less on an understanding of what you are asking if the horse?

I am not dismissing the amazing amount of talent it takes to ride at the upper levels, as it is way above my abilities. I just wonder if this may be another of the factors in the issue of safety.

[DunByMistake]

The discussion about readability of jumps is really making me think.

Most of my cross country experience is on ‘old school’ courses that were built in the 80s and 90s. The majority of the jumps are very classic cross country - logs, ditches, coops, cabins, etc. Not a lot of skinnies or tables. Jumps are all very natural as well - constructed of logs and often soaked in creosote to protect from elements. They are all relatively dark with little painting and other colours used. Thinking about them, a lot of the jumps don’t have a true, dedicated groundline. They also tend to be solid with very few airy jumps.

At the one course in Montana, I have ridden a lot of different horses there up to Training level. I’ve never had a horse struggle to read any of the fences or seen other horse/rider combos struggle with that. When I watch that helmet cam, I am struck by the difference in the jumps. Almost every jump is brightly painted in a variety of colours. There were very few natural looking fences. I also really disagree with the idea that a bush in the middle of the jump under an airy fence is a ground line. Knowing that horses see colour much differently than we do, I wonder if that has contributed significantly to the problems in recent years as courses have become more colourful and decorated.

[anon69112984]

@beowulf

There is currently a GoFundMe set up to promote frangible fences/MIM clips for Prelim and above -
https://www.gofundme.com/f/frangible-fences-for-eventing-in-us

I am sorry but MIMs and pins are not the solution! It is like believing wearing your seat belt when driving will help you stay clear of accidents.

People need to learn how to ride cross country and how to school their horses both in dressage, cross country and jumping.

Equally important people need to stop rush through the levels and think they are capable for the next level when they barely not even made their more than often one and only MER on a previous level.

We need officials that come with a back bone. We need education and better fence judges and course designing!

Sorry for ranting but I am so upset over this girl and horse I did not even know. Such a waste and heart breaking and it is obvious the system - both national and international -totally failed them.

[RAyers]

@Puffergrrl

I would even posit that the fence in question could cause 2 problems.
As Jeloushe and others have mentioned, it could be read as having no groundline and suck horses and riders in too close.
Or, as kind of shown in my rough markup below, it could also be misread with a false groundline quite a ways in front. It looks like the plants are intended to give the horses a proper groundline to judge, but they aren’t a color that horses can distinguish from the ground or the grass, especially with some of the shadows from the tree line probably moving throughout the day. Leaving early in front of a wide table has to be dangerous.

Yes. And like I said, you have to ride this carefully. It is the equivalent of an oxer with no ground line in stadium. Thus, you need keep your and the horse’s attention at the top rail (top of the fence). As the video shows, using the center post helps remove any issues that come from seeing through the fence. It keeps the horse focused up. Elisa rode this beautifully.

[Jackie_Cochran]

As a non-eventer I have a question.

Shouldn’t the course designers concentrate on asking questions of the RIDER instead of the horse?

After all, at the Olympics it is the RIDER who gets the medals, it is the RIDER who goes into the record books, not the horse. This is different from regular horse shows where the ribbon is actually put on the horse in a little ritual and the horse’s contribution to winning is actually recognized (I do not know if the ribbon pinning means anything to the horse though.)

If the course designers are asking questions of the horse, well shouldn’t the horse get to go up on the podium in the Olympic games when the medals are awarded? After all if the questions are geared to the horse and not the rider the horse should be the one rewarded for answering correctly.

This puzzles me. I do not think that horses are totally dumb by any means, but every scientist that has researched the horses’ brains all remark about how small they are, especially in comparison to the human brain.

Let us get back to asking questions to the RIDER, the actual brains of the twosome. I know this may not reduce the deaths and accidents, but maybe this craziness of asking the questions to the horse would end. And maybe the more of the riders would imitate top eventing riders by presuming that they, the rider, are actually expected to come up with the answers instead of leaving it all up to the horse.

[RAyers]

@Jackie Cochran

As a non-eventer I have a question.

Shouldn’t the course designers concentrate on asking questions of the RIDER instead of the horse?

After all, at the Olympics it is the RIDER who gets the medals, it is the RIDER who goes into the record books, not the horse. This is different from regular horse shows where the ribbon is actually put on the horse in a little ritual and the horse’s contribution to winning is actually recognized (I do not know if the ribbon pinning means anything to the horse though.)

If the course designers are asking questions of the horse, well shouldn’t the horse get to go up on the podium in the Olympic games when the medals are awarded? After all if the questions are geared to the horse and not the rider the horse should be the one rewarded for answering correctly.

This puzzles me. I do not think that horses are totally dumb by any means, but every scientist that has researched the horses’ brains all remark about how small they are, especially in comparison to the human brain.

Let us get back to asking questions to the RIDER, the actual brains of the twosome. I know this may not reduce the deaths and accidents, but maybe this craziness of asking the questions to the horse would end. And maybe the more of the riders would imitate top eventing riders by presuming that they, the rider, are actually expected to come up with the answers instead of leaving it all up to the horse.

You have it all backwards. Truly good riding means the rider and horse work together. The horse MUST have some ownership of the ride. Not ONE person in the world is smart enough or capable enough to tell a horse everything needed to be done and never make a mistake.

Just because a brain is “smaller” does not mean that there is an intelligence beyond ours. Sure, horses can’t do differential equations (maybe because they don’t have thumbs with which to write), but they are insanely capable of answering these questions without our continual input.

I will reference two years ago when Ingrid Klimke fell off at Badminton and her horse continued the course, jumping the next two fences on their own!

Most fences on XC ask questions of the rider. They are, “can you stay out of your horse’s way and let them jump on their own?” Weldon’s Walls are one such example. It is a rider frightener where an unsure rider will pull and interfere where a confident rider will kick up and not touch the reins other than to support. If that isn’t asking a rider question, I’m not sure what is.

Also, if you start asking rider questions, you remove the independence of the horse and make this into a h/j round.

[fanfayre]

@JER

Based on her videos, the rider was not capable of this ride. It was a question she didn’t have the resources to answer.

@JER, in this instance RAyers was referring to the video posted of Elisa Wallace’s round as an example of ‘how to’, which is rather ironic give that one (uninformed) poster also used her as an example of “OMG- all you eventers are awful riders”, albeit on a different horse…

[Marigold]

@JER

Did anyone here see Burghley last year? Those white monstrosities that no horse should have been asked to jump as part of an XC course? They were frangible all right but so what?

A dangerous or inappropriate obstacle is still a dangerous or inappropriate obstacle even if it’s frangible.

Bolding my own. This is one of my biggest concerns. Do I think frangible technology is important, to act as a last-resort safety trigger in the event of a horse or rider error? Yes. Do I think we’ve already seen examples of course designers relying on the technology to justify aggressive design or absolve them of design errors? Also yes, and that is utterly unacceptable.

I posted the following on the Burghley thread last year, but it bears repeating:

In the coroner’s report about the death of Olivia Inglis, the following is written:

All the experts emphasised that frangible technology should not drive the design of particular fence, nor should it be used to justify what would otherwise be an inappropriate fence.

Link (quote from page 38): http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/INGLIS%20Olivia%20-%20Findings.pdf

@subk

Frangible technology has been used by course designers to make courses harder and even more technical and perhaps more dangerous in the long run. Every frangible pin break should be recorded and the information should be used, not just to penalize a riders score, but also as reflection of the quality of course design and as such the competence of the course designer.

We have 5 star events with over a dozen frangible pin breaks, several on the same fence, and no one bats an eye. No one bothers to consider that there is a design problem and without the pins there would have been carnage. Each break should be viewed as technical horse falls not for rider scoring, but as a way to view the quality of the course. If a course produces an excessive number a technical horse falls and the same designer keeps producing courses with high number of technical falls, it’s time to stop hiring that designer and perhaps consider a way to apply some sort of sanctions on designers with high numbers.

Frangible pins are a stop gap measure that hide bad course design and let us all ignore poorly design courses and bad course designers.

It’s been years since I rode at the upper levels or competed a lot but while I did I stop going to events where Mark Phillips designed the courses, precisely because the amount of falls that seem to happen on his courses. Vote with your entry fees. As a competitor I should be able to view results sorted by XC course designer. If we changed our culture to view pin breaks as a bad reflection on a designer–just like we do horse falls–then gave competitor the information the market would organically produce pressure to change.

Subk, that is an exceptional post, and I think one very worth implementing. I would love to see this system in place, ASAP.

[JER]

@fanfayre

@JER, in this instance RAyers was referring to the video posted of Elisa Wallace’s round as an example of ‘how to’, which is rather ironic give that one (uninformed) poster also used her as an example of “OMG- all you eventers are awful riders”, albeit on a different horse…

I’m confused.

I thought that was the fence at which Kat/Kerry were killed at Rocking Horse.

I don’t know anything about Elisa Wallace’s video. Didn’t watch it.

I was referring to the ride that Reed said the table required. My comment was that - based on Kat’s videos - Kat was not capable of riding this way on XC.

[Rallycairn]

@Jealoushe

These are the arguments that get me though. Here we have a pattern of a fence emerging that is more likely to cause a fall and no one wants to hear it. Course designers, riders, etc all say horses jump better with a ground line. We have 2 deaths at fences with no ground line recently and still, everyone says its no issue. I mean, what is the harm in adding a ground line?

Why are so many against any change that could potentially save lives. This is exactly the attitude that is turning me off.

Of course no jump is “safe”. Of course you can jump without a ground line safely many times, however this type of fence specifically with the false ground line is not safe. It is the type of fence that has caused many many falls (that stupid planet fence at the Olympics then at what Burghley after?).

Just stop making fences that horses can’t read well.

Absolutely. These types of changes, plus a big one to me – rethinking how optimum time is determined. The Elisa Wallace video was noted by someone for seeming like a smooth round, without a lot of “gunning” between fences/combinations – but as the levels go up it appears harder and harder to establish and keep a rhythm, and many, many posters have noted how physically AND mentally taxing the frequent changes in pace (that can’t be avoided) are, as well as the technically demanding fences and combinations. Change how optimum time is determined to take into account the number of combinations and other technically demanding fences there are on a particular course! I realize that may be somewhat subjective and possibly hard to determine, but something has to counteract the need to gun it between fences and pull down to SJ canter for the technical questions.

Plus frangibles NOT used to make harder fences or questions, but to make “fair” fences all the safer.

But honestly, I don’t see a culture of change happening. Despite great comments and suggestions in this thread, the inertia has been too great to overcome for over a decade now, despite loss after loss. Why would things change now?

Eventing may substantially dry up due to outcry from outside forces (like animal rightists, or greater public attention to rider deaths, or losing Oly status, etc.), or loss of venues and increasing expenses, etc. – but I don’t think it is going to significantly change at the national and international level from the inside. Would love to be proven wrong though!

And I’m just a fan, haven’t competed myself in years and only did so at lower levels – so total armchair quarterbacking here. It’s just a sport I’ve loved watching and being a fan of and cheering for favorite horses and riders.

[RAyers]

@JER

I’m confused.

I thought that was the fence at which Kat/Kerry were killed at Rocking Horse.

I don’t know anything about Elisa Wallace’s video. Didn’t watch it.

I was referring to the ride that Reed said the table required. My comment was that - based on Kat’s videos - Kat was not capable of riding this way on XC.

JER,

Three pages back is a helmet camera of the course from Elisa Wallace. It shows clearly how the fence needed to be ridden. I believe that you are correct in your assessment.

[JER]

Has anyone done a horse head cam video on XC?

I mean the GoPro on the horse’s head, approximating the horse’s POV.

[RAyers]

@JER

Has anyone done a horse head cam video on XC?

I mean the GoPro on the horse’s head, approximating the horse’s POV.

Tried it. Got sick watching play back.

[beowulf]

@anon69112984

I am sorry but MIMs and pins are not the solution! It is like believing wearing your seat belt when driving will help you stay clear of accidents.

People need to learn how to ride cross country and how to school their horses both in dressage, cross country and jumping.

Equally important people need to stop rush through the levels and think they are capable for the next level when they barely not even made their more than often one and only MER on a previous level.

We need officials that come with a back bone. We need education and better fence judges and course designing!

Sorry for ranting but I am so upset over this girl and horse I did not even know. Such a waste and heart breaking and it is obvious the system - both national and international -totally failed them.

I don’t disagree, but frangibles can be part of the solution. They’re not the sole answer to our problem - there’s a lot of issues at play here - but it seems a multi-pronged approach is needed.

Now to stop employing the course designers that make the track leading up to the fence that much more difficult when a frangible is involved…

[MissCoco]

@JER

This is one of the biggest issues in the sport.

Horses don’t see the way we do and they don’t get to walk the course. The horse gets to see it for the first time at speed, jumping stuff.

There is a general level of ignorance in the sport about how horses see.

In the Table of Doom shown here, you can point to any number of issues from the lack of clear sight lines for the horse. There’s the ground issue, there’s a dark/light issue going on with the shadows, there’s a white top to the table amid darker browns and a green background (research has shown that horses see white ‘later’ than brown or green) and there’s that the table appears to be flat (which I thought we’d done away with).

As others have pointed out, tables usually jump well. The shape is a good one for the arc of the horse, etc. The data is good on tables in terms of accidents.

But then tables have been involved in a number of serious accidents. It may be that accidents at tables are what would be called ‘low-probability, high-catastrophe’ - and that should be enough to give them a serious re-examination.

Thank you for this explanation about the danger of this fence, as I also was under the impression (from vaguely remember articles posted on various threads here) that tables were considered a “safe” fence type supported by data.
It makes logical sense to me that due to their shape/width they might be more dangerous to have a fall at, even if statistically they are less likely to be the cause of falls.

Does anyone know of research that tracked both falls at certain fence types and types/outcomes of falls?