My apologies @vineyridge, I didn’t realize that was directed at me. To clarify, I was speaking about both permanent injury and death to both horses and riders, not only death and not only to humans. When you add all that up, it is not at all uncommon to see at least one type of event in that category at a 4* level event.
Diarm Byrne was a corporate lawyer and was roommates with Sam Watson (the Irish ULR), which is how he got interested and educated on the horse thing. They are both pretty charismatic too, not for nothing. The Eventing Podcast is worth many, many listens, not to mention the lives they’ll save with ERQI. (I am a huge fan of Equiratings, obviously!)
I’ll never forget that one, it’s burned into my brain. The horse landed with all four legs splayed and shaking in nearly a complete halt after two separate jumping efforts and still was urged on. Heartbreaking, and dangerous.
Attention FEI and Eventing officials and powers-that-be: if the whole world can see something like EW’s run happening on a livestream, you should be watching it too. For the good of the horse, for the sport.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to figure out in my other post… it seems like the GJ is hesitant to pull riders off course for some unknown reason. Either they don’t trust their [meaning the GJ’s] judgment, they need to get a majority rule, and/or they hem and haw so long that the rider has completed or fallen off before they get a chance to. Meanwhile, they were all too happy to yank Becky Holder when her ride got a minor cut a couple years ago. Is it because once a rider has been stopped (for whatever reason), they’re no longer allowed to continue? The logic just doesn’t make any sense to me. :no:
I don’t think any of the reasons you gave are why the GJ isn’t proactive. I think it is FEI policy to interfere with competition as little as possible, and that a lot of their rules about abuse, etc. are just window dressing that will not be vigorously enforced.
Hadn’t seen that Movistar round before. Yikes. :eek:
I’ve mentioned my experiences with the GJ not pulling up horses that had put their legs through jumps or galloping on 3.5 legs. I think they lean towards giving riders the benefit of the doubt, but adrenaline is a hell of a drug. Combine it with a competitive spirit and things can add badly. I think the hands off attitude with x-c needs to be reduced and horse welfare needs to be the absolute top priority. Yes, entry fees can be expensive and people travel a long way, but horses come first.
Oliver Townend used to virtually carry his first 4* mount, Topping, around the course, year after year. I gathered that he either got around with Topping or didn’t ride 4* … this was before AN began sending him made 4* horses. Topping was not up to a 4* endurance and jumping test and many, many people knew it and commented on it. The horse was an absolute saint to forbear collapsing and usually finish, but I can’t imagine the awfulness and pain for him.
As far as riders who did not go to their horses after a fall, or didn’t respond sympathetically to their horses, the list is long, long, long, over the years. But some of the riders who had such an incident had a good reputation as fine and caring horsepeople. I could mention several incidents and I think the names would make some people uncomfortable because that is not their reputation … but I don’t think there is any point in calling them out. Why it happens isn’t really definable, but in many cases, in addition to the shock of a fall that wasn’t anticipated, there was also the overwhelming realization by the rider of bitter disappointment at an apparent career-changing failure. That’s the one common factor I can recall.
In no way does that make it ok, but it’s not an isolated situation.
My point is that the course was not a disaster for every entry, by any means. A number of pairs did well over that course. Some were up to it, on the day. Some were not. The ones who were on song were ok. The ones who weren’t, were not ok, and/or their horses were not ok. It’s about saving some people from themselves (and their horses as well).
If a rider and/or horse enter above their level (on the day! it changes), nothing on earth will save them the consequences, even if the most benign outcome is barely scraping around and finishing with a bruised and sore horse, with or without jumping penalties. Finishing in that manner is not the point of Badminton - I hope.
Of course some horses/riders/pairs not being ready for the course on the day is true in a great many divisions in a great many horse trials, generally speaking. But the consequences are less likely to be as severe as one goes down the levels. Given the long list of problems of inadequacy at Badminton every year, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that 82 horses out of the start box may include too many who shouldn’t be on course. The best half of the field would be a different statistical outcome … of course that also is always true, but in this case it would be trimming off some serious problems, not just some runouts.
The Paul Tapner fall is a good illustration of the challenge of good data assessment, but one point of view is that Paul Tapner might have been the only fall in a more limited field, rather than one of seven. Another challenge is Mark Todd and Leonidas, a pair that normally sails around challenging courses. They came home clear but it was not a pretty trip, and poor Leonidas must have been scraped and bruised pretty badly as he virtually swam over any number of obstacles. What happened to make that the case? Was it fair to drag Leonidas through that, even though the grand horse brought home a paycheck at the end?
Combined with more closely screening entries would be tweaking the course design with data that would help safety. The combination of the two would make for a Badminton that was just as big and scary as the one they ran, with much, much better safety and horse-welfare results.
As the new EQRI is showing, a qualification can come and go. A horse that is well able at one point in their career may not be at another, not just from year to year, but even month to month. I don’t know the perfect selection criteria, that’s beyond my pay grade, but I think the gathering of in-depth statistics on individual horses, riders and courses, and mashing up the data productively, could be a starting point to help sort it out.
It’s now time for the obstacle/course version of EQRI. I’m less interested in determining where Badminton 2017 fell on the scale than in the individual obstacle configurations, what came where on the course, the effect of grades and their positioning, etc. & so on details. That means some several experts reviewing video (more than one set of expert eyes on every video) and coming up with classifications and more classifications of individual obstacles and course design elements, and cross-referencing like mad in the database. And applying those super-spectacles to all courses for which we have good video of lots of rides on the day. One thing about Badminton - with 82 on course, that’s certainly a LOT of data points, and the more there are, the more valid the observations.
Data and stats are never the final word or the ultimate solution. But they point people in directions that may be otherwise overlooked. And they help cut through the guesses and assumptions to define what works and what doesn’t.
I need a budget, a project manager and a project group … I’ll quit my job, and with unlimited resources and no roadblocks, we get the first beta stats out in 3-6 months (depending on how much video is out there) (fantasy dream) … :winkgrin:
An interesting read from Mark Todd on Badminton:
[h=1]Mark Todd: Eric Winter nearly got it spot on at Badminton[/h] Opinion
This weekend put Badminton back in its position as the leading event in the world, and there was no one there who didn’t feel that Andrew’s win was thoroughly deserved.
I was delighted with my horses, who both jumped double clear, finishing fourth and sixth.
Eric Winter was very brave to design a cross-country course like that in his first year; from the word go we thought, “Wow — Badminton is back to its meatiest best”, and he very nearly got it spot on.
Some of the distances weren’t quite right, however, such as the exit out of the Lake. It walked a long one stride, but the majority of horses chipped in an extra one, and a distance which is neither one nor two strides is unfair on horses. On dry land it is different, as you can alter the pace, but after a big drop in and a turn through water to a step up it is very difficult. There were too many questions asked of the horses at this fence at an early stage.
The Hildon Water Pond was uncomfortable to ride through and it was only because of the generosity of the horses and determination of the riders that they kept trying to jump and go between the flags.
But once you were past the corners at 21, you were pretty much home safely as long as you rode sensibly. We have got so used to courses where the distances are very precise; here you had to be prepared for anything and competitors who sat down and rode by the seat of their pants were rewarded. It demanded bold, sensible riding. Experience showed, but we also saw some less experienced riders who used their head and took some long routes to keep their horses confident get home clear.
Those who didn’t often gave their mounts a fright early on, and if they kept asking the big questions, didn’t get round.
If this is what Badminton is, then it needs to be consistent and to stay at that level. If riders know that, then we shouldn’t see so many combinations who aren’t ready for it turning up. [h=4]Yellow cards[/h] American rider Elisa Wallace got a yellow card for her fall with a very tired Simply Priceless at the final fence. Frankly, the ground jury should have given themselves a yellow card for allowing it to happen, especially in the main arena — they should have stopped her earlier. [h=4]Mark discrepancies[/h] Once again there were too many discrepancies in the dressage marks, and noticeable differences between those on the first day and on Friday afternoon. I know that the different positions of the judges around the arena mean it is difficult to see everything, and not everyone has the same opinion on the quality of a movement, but maybe it is time for TV monitors in the judges’ boxes so they can see a more rounded picture. Marks of four, 4.5 and seven for a late change, for example, are unacceptable and can be avoided.
I love giving the GJ a yellow card for not doing their job. LOL
On another topic … the Badminton cross-country livestream replay shows a very good clip of the Shanghai Joe runaway. Go to 1:01:29. It shows the fall. Keep watching after the slow-motion replay … they go back to the horse going like a mad thing through the crowd and on, and it’s pretty obvious that he’s a danger to himself and others. 1:02:10 goes straight to the runaway. It is very sad to watch, especially knowing the outcome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_eMFptrExs&feature=youtu.be
My personal thoughts: no one is saying that Lynn (or Lauren, who had a similarly steady-but-clear round) are not good horsemen. No one is saying they are not good riders, or talented combinations. Certainly no one is saying, as the comments section on the article seems to imply, that it is easy to get around Badminton at a slow pace. No one is even saying that she should have gone faster - she should go as fast as is safe and no faster, and no one would argue otherwise.
However, what is indisputable is that that performance is not a good enough performance for a competitive team, and that riders who collect more time penalties than a stop are not mathematically useful to a country in international competition (unless all you want is a completion). If the horse cannot go faster in adverse conditions than he did at Badminton, then the horse will not be able to help a team to a strong finish at a major championship in the event of tough, or even unusual going.
In the same conditions, Yoshiaki Oiwa, riding in the horse’s first 4* (besides Rio), and his own first 4* (besides Rio) since 2011, finished well ahead of the US combinations. Tom McEwen, a 25 year old for GBR, riding in the horse’s second 4* and its first Badminton, finished ahead of the US combinations. Cathal Daniels, an Irish 20-year-old riding in only his second ever 4* (and first Badminton) on a 10 year old mare he’d produced himself, turned in a round with just one-fifth of the time penalties of the fastest American round.
I am not trying to be cruel. I am not trying to say that the American riders did not, by-and-large, do the absolute best they could for their country and their horses on the day. I am simply saying that if Americans want to be competitive on an international stage, they need be better at coping with adversity than they were at Badminton. Maybe this is better coaching, more experience, increased support, or something I haven’t thought of.
But just because I’m not a four star rider doesn’t mean I can’t do the math.
Yeah, if Lynn wants to be more competitive she’s got to train Donner to keep all his shoes on. Ha!
I thought it was a good article, explaining her reasoning for riding like she did convincingly. I think a lot of people drew conclusions about why the round was slow based on the lack of info we had (lots of accusations Donner was tired) and I am glad that does not seem to have been the problem. I hope he gets another chance next year (and keeps his shoes in place!) Would love to see what he could do with a little better luck.
Donner must be tough as nails to jog up fine the next day, having done most of the course without a shoe.
The thing is, Donner and Lynn didn’t need to cope with adversity in this instance. She’s got a well-proven four-star horse who has made the time at that level twice at two different venues and put in one of the fastest rounds of the day at Rolex in 2015 where not one horse made the time. This pair has a proven XC record at the four-star level, and proven multiple times they can go fast. What benefit AT ALL does it do for herto press for time after losing a shoe on greasy footing, while she can tell Donner is suffering in his confidence?
It wasn’t a team event. If it had been, likely she would have chosen to risk more for a strong team result. It wasn’t that she knew he was hurt; she just knew the risk was higher without that shoe. And with no major benefits to taking on that risk and lots of detriments if it went badly, she chose not to take on that risk.
Meanwhile, we still have two more seasons before WEG for her to put in strong, solid CCI results. Yes, right now there’s a list of riders and horses who just completed Rolex who are probably ahead of her for a team slot. I’m sure she is very aware of that. But if she puts in two strong CCI4* results this fall and spring, the slow Badminton run will get discarded as a fluke. Meanwhile, she didn’t risk coming home with a broken horse by pushing for time. She has a sound horse who will actually be able to go do those CCI runs. And since it’s her only horse at this level, that’s pretty damn important.
This pair has dealt with adversity. They went out on the 2014 WEG course, suffered two stops, and carried on. They didn’t retire, and they still came in faster than the average time. They know what it’s like to slog through mud and slop, and they’ve done it multiple times since without stops, and fast when they have all four shoes.
Of all the Americans to be criticized for Badminton performances, she’s pretty much the lowest on my list. Give her a break for not being Michael Jung.
And kudos to first-timers you mentioned. However, their accomplishments don’t necessarily take away from Lynn’s decision. Eventing is often a game of all or nothing, and there’s every chance that next time might be their chance to make a horseman’s decision.
Agreed! After reading her blog, I was left scratching my head and wondering if there are really that many people that didn’t realize he lost the shoe and left her virtually no choice but to go slow if she wanted to finish. The only thing that disappointed me about that round was the lost opportunity for Lynn and Donner, because I have no doubts she would have finished a lot faster and moved much further up had the shoe stayed on. Donner is a horse you can count on to finish XC, and we’ve certainly seen how much the US needs that. I hope he can keep that dressage score down and be in the hunt for the WEG team.
And while it looked like there were some places that Lauren could have made up at least some of the time, after a fall at Rio, I can’t blame her for wanting to ensure a completion either.
Lynn’s blog made good points, it’s just a shame she was the one who felt criticized and compelled to write it.
I read that article and while it was helpful in understand her thought process in the moment, it also read a little like “be quiet and go away, I know what I’m doing”. A salient point for me was that when she lost that shoe, knowing that his ability to go at a competition speed was out, knowing that he’d have more chances of slipping, what value was there to finish. One slip and it could go bad. A testament to her riding and his athleticism they were able to cross the finish line,.
See, they way she puts it people cannot question her on that or maybe even ask in hindsight, would she reconsider, pull up and save him for another day. I think it was HSB that pulled up after 4 fences from a refusal and figured why push what cannot be. I think it is legitimate to question the ability to field competitive riders at international levels and if they are truly prepared. Deeper still, it shows that without a strong coaching influence in this country, those that go overseas are really on their own with no real experience to guide them. There seems to be no real plan, no standard to work towards as shown by France and Germany at this point.
I cannot find a entry list for luhmuhlen, it would be interesting to see who’s competing there and see if any lessons are learned from Badder.
This is a fabulous comment, and I agree with every part of it. I should have phrased my original comment better, because ultimately, Lynn and Donner are a very strong combination in my (unimportant) eyes. I love watching them and they regularly give a masterclass on cross-country.
I was more trying to respond to Lynn’s general points, which I read as “please don’t criticize the slow runs, because riders are just being horsemen”. In the case of Lynn, where she and Donner have a proven track record of speedy rounds, it’s much easier to write one slow run off as a fluke. And so hypothetical selectors would basically ignore the Badminton result, and decide based on the others. But for LK and Veronica, for example, this Badminton run was meant to erase questions raised at Rio, which it really didn’t for me. I still don’t know if the horse can make time and jump uprights at the same time.
At the end of the day, it is important to know if riders are capable of being horsemen and finishing with a good team score. By which I mean, what if this had been the Olympics? Would she have chosen to be a bad horseman in the interest of the team score? Would she have run equally slowly and mathematically hurt the team? Or can she find a way for her to creatively do both?
Again, I am not criticizing her performance. I’d give my right arm to finish just outside of the top 20 at Badminton, and I’d sure as heck want to keep that horse safe! I am only trying to discuss it in the context of a bid for a team, and what the takeaways are from retiring, versus finishing slowly, versus risking it and going all out. I don’t think other finishers should take away from anyone’s performance at all, they just provide context for who other countries have available for team spots themselves.
