Badminton 2017 Cross-country

[Jealoushe]

I thought Lynn was not one that was really being questioned on this thread. There is no argument that Donner is amazing, and that her ride on a horse with three shoes was nothing but a good safe plan.

The only thing that irks me is the constant BNRs calling anyone who questions what they do “trolls” or “armchair athletes” “hiding behind computer screens”. Not many of us are anonymous…and many would say the same opinion out loud in public.

If ULRs want eventing to be popular so they can make money and be famous, then they sure as hell better get a thicker skin. NHL, NFL, Nascar, FIFA…there is SO MUCH discussion online about every aspect of players games, motives, and even personal lives. Equestrians have for the most part been very lucky that our sport is hidden and there is an air of secrecy that is understood in the sport. By bringing eventing out to the public and having it so prominent on social media, there is going to become a fandom where people discuss what has happened.

I absolutely HATE how any time anyone questions anything EN and their clique run to their own platforms to cry about judgey computer trolls who know nothing. We should just “trust” what they are doing and shut up because we know nothing. I’m so over this opinion. BNRs are not perfect, none of us are, and unfortunately when bad decisions are made or people are left disappointing there is going to be talk. They need to learn to look away instead of attacking it head on. It only makes the Pros vs Ammies divide even larger.

They lose all the interest in the actual sport and horses and turn it to focus on stopping anyone who may have a bad opinion of them.

[Divine_Comedy]

@Marigold

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.

Ah, I see your points! I definitely took her article as explaining her own actions and decisions and not trying to explain anyone else’s choices. I too have questions surrounding Veronica now, although I do believe she was an inevitable choice for Rio and I question more LK’s choices than the mare’s fitness or ability to complete right now. After Badminton, that still holds. I don’t quite understand why she chose to go so slow, if she thought the course didn’t suit the horse perhaps she should have withdrawn and attempted for a competitive run at Luhmuhlen.

I believe in this particular instance that HSB also made the correct, horseman’s decision. She had a run out early on course, a run out that was pretty clearly on her decision making and not the horse’s. It was a course riding very toughly, and with one stop it was already not a WEG qualifier for the US team. Maybe she felt she was not mentally tackling the course that day. HSB and Harbour Pilot missed out on being considered for Rio due to an early frangible pin at Rolex in 2016, and she was a good horseman and didn’t chase for the qualification. I’m sure she has that in mind and is not about to leave qualification until the final season again.

I think in regards to being horsemen and finishing with good team scores, we have to remember that if she pushes for time without shoes, that does not necessarily mean she is a bad horseman. The horse is not hurt, it is just that the risk of injury is greater. At team events, the benefits to even just finishing is also greater. So do you weight the greater benefit and decide to take on additional risk? Those are more philosophical questions that arise when you make this sport a team sport and every single rider has to ask it of themselves.

For WEG we do still have a dropped score, so the benefits change with each passing rider. If you are the fourth on a team to go and all three riders have finished with a number score, do you push it after you lose a shoe? Do you play it safe and go slow? Do you push it just enough to better the worst score put up thus far on your team?

If you’re not the final member on your team, and someone prior to you has not completed, the finishing score is paramount. You play it safe, even at the cost of individual glory. This may be the future of the Olympic teams with no drop score. If the riders who have come before you have all finished, you can risk more…but with a lost shoe do you choose to play it safe instead?

Team decisions are a totally different animal and vary extremely depending on many different factors. However there is no doubt that often riders will choose to continue in a team situation when they would have chosen differently when competing individually. The only way to practice these decisions is to compete more often on teams, like the Nations Cup; the problem is that certainly team decisions might lean more towards the team than the horse. This is the sport. Unless we get rid of teams, this will always be the sport.

[Divine_Comedy]

@Jealoushe

I thought Lynn was not one that was really being questioned on this thread. There is no argument that Donner is amazing, and that her ride on a horse with three shoes was nothing but a good safe plan.

The only thing that irks me is the constant BNRs calling anyone who questions what they do “trolls” or “armchair athletes” “hiding behind computer screens”. Not many of us are anonymous…and many would say the same opinion out loud in public.

If ULRs want eventing to be popular so they can make money and be famous, then they sure as hell better get a thicker skin. NHL, NFL, Nascar, FIFA…there is SO MUCH discussion online about every aspect of players games, motives, and even personal lives. Equestrians have for the most part been very lucky that our sport is hidden and there is an air of secrecy that is understood in the sport. By bringing eventing out to the public and having it so prominent on social media, there is going to become a fandom where people discuss what has happened.

I absolutely HATE how any time anyone questions anything EN and their clique run to their own platforms to cry about judgey computer trolls who know nothing. We should just “trust” what they are doing and shut up because we know nothing. I’m so over this opinion. BNRs are not perfect, none of us are, and unfortunately when bad decisions are made or people are left disappointing there is going to be talk. They need to learn to look away instead of attacking it head on. It only makes the Pros vs Ammies divide even larger.

They lose all the interest in the actual sport and horses and turn it to focus on stopping anyone who may have a bad opinion of them.

Lynn may not have gotten much heat on here but if you missed it, Patrick McGaughan wrote a lengthy criticism on FB of the choices of Lynn, HSB, and LK at Badminton. He gave EW a pass because she apologized for pushing her horse to exhaustion. No mention of stalking off in a temper without looking back at him after she fell.

It was pretty heavily shared and lots of people chimed in. Personally, I found it to be totally off-base, criticizing the wrong people for the wrong reasons and giving those who needed some reality a total pass. I wouldn’t at all be shocked if Lynn’s blog is more a response to that and not so much COTH. For that matter, I am fairly certain most of the pros avoid reading COTH.

As for growing thicker skins…yeah, the ULR should grow thicker skin. Why do you let it bother you so much that they haven’t all done that yet? You (we all) are going to continue to pick apart everyone’s choices; it’s a sport, that’s what happen in sports. You should read the forums my DH frequents about college football; we don’t have anything on them. Facebook and Twitter are full of criticism of athletes, refs, you name it. Part of the way they grow that thicker skin is by avoiding the mass commentary on their performances, hence the avoiding COTH. I don’t worry myself too much if the professionals haven’t yet learned have a thicker skin. I’ve got enough things to worry about in this sport.

[Marigold]

@Divine Comedy

I think in regards to being horsemen and finishing with good team scores, we have to remember that if she pushes for time without shoes, that does not necessarily mean she is a bad horseman. The horse is not hurt, it is just that the risk of injury is greater. At team events, the benefits to even just finishing is also greater.

This is definitely the heart of the discussion, and where to draw the line is inherently different for each partnership. Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I could

@Divine Comedy

Team decisions are a totally different animal and vary extremely depending on many different factors. However there is no doubt that often riders will choose to continue in a team situation when they would have chosen differently when competing individually. The only way to practice these decisions is to compete more often on teams, like the Nations Cup; the problem is that certainly team decisions might lean more towards the team than the horse. This is the sport. Unless we get rid of teams, this will always be the sport.

This is where I wonder about the Land Rover grants - how much it does (or is meant to) change a “riding for yourself” approach to a “riding for a team” perspective. Regardless, I certainly agree that these decisions are a piece of the puzzle that need to be practiced, just like any other part of the sport. Unfortunately, NA riders are at a definite disadvantage in terms of access to that kind of practice. It would be incredible to find ways to improve that for our riders.

[Jealoushe]

@Divine Comedy

I don’t worry myself too much if the professionals haven’t yet learned have a thicker skin. I’ve got enough things to worry about in this sport.

I don’t worry, but it’s annoying that there are now what, 4 articles about this? And how many about the actual rides at Badminton, or what they might change in their training for the future.

I am annoyed because all they care to talk about is “poor us” and “leave us alone trolls”, instead of telling us about their trip. What changes they may make in the future. Or how about CoTH or EN highlighting someone new, like Madeline Backus…and telling her story of how she made it to Rolex. Its old and boring.

I mean MJ had a meme made out of him from his head of the lake pic from Rolex and I don’t see him writing articles on how the internet needs to go away.

[Rallycairn]

Absolutely, if you want fans, you have to accept criticism. I have often made the same comparison in my mind to one of the other sports I follow, in a tangential way – college football. OMG everything from head coaches to defensive coaches to special teams coaches to players to recruiters and politics of signing players to … – is all under heated, vociferous, passionate criticism and discussion from pretty much every store clerk you encounter in a college town to people beside in the grocery store queue to multiple online forums to half a dozen preview and wrapup shows on TV. The mildest criticism leveled at a college football coach makes COTH look like a cakewalk.

I truly don’t get it – don’t people realize that getting into discussion and having passionate opinions is a big part of FANDOM? If nobody cared, nobody would talk. Eventing should be glad to have fans who care enough to want to talk or even rant, not worry so about putting armchair critics in their supposed places. Or the oft repeated fallacy (argumentum ad hominem) that you have to be able to ride **** or coach **** yourself to be able to see the big, black writing on the wall that the US team hasn’t completed a team recently or had good results (with a few exceptions, like Gina and Philip) in 10-15 years.

Who are the cupcakes again?

PS: I read Lynn’s blog entry, and it does sound like responding to spectator and social media criticism – but from where? This thread was about 95-99% in support of her performance once it was noted that Donner lost his shoe so early on. The riders’ own FB pages have been outpourings of praise for the most part. The Patrick McGaughan remarks were the only major criticism I saw.

[jump4it]

[QUOTE=JP60;n9745128]

If the Eventing community does not hold someone to a standard that puts the welfare of the horse before anything else then we tacitly accept death and maiming as par for the course.

Why can’t it be the riders? Everyone wants to blame the CD but the riders walk that course (several times) and they make the decision to ride it. They don’t have to do it; they could withdraw if they felt the course was unfair. Nobody is forcing these riders to ride these courses and nobody has forced them into this career. They know what it takes to make it to the top of this sport and they make the decision to try and be at the top.

[JP60]

@Jealoushe

I don’t worry, but it’s annoying that there are now what, 4 articles about this? And how many about the actual rides at Badminton, or what they might change in their training for the future.

I am annoyed because all they care to talk about is “poor us” and “leave us alone trolls”, instead of telling us about their trip. What changes they may make in the future. Or how about CoTH or EN highlighting someone new, like Madeline Backus…and telling her story of how she made it to Rolex. Its old and boring.

I mean MJ had a meme made out of him from his head of the lake pic from Rolex and I don’t see him writing articles on how the internet needs to go away.

It’s not so much the Lynn’s getting bothered by the unwashed masses, it’s the folks here that at times become their proxy in support and say “Why land sakes that rider is perfect and you are just horrible, horrible for saying other. Bless your heart”. They take the same attitude, “Who are you”, but alas, it is closer to home since we all share on these forums.

If Lynn had stopped at “yep, I made this decision based on this or that” and left it there we could have a jolly good debate on it, but instead she goes all armchair and pc screen riders, pretty much dismissing the people she might want supporting her. Same with any and every other professional. Basically it comes to this, you want a visible sport, you want spectators and fans? Then expect that those same people will comment, remark, debate, sadly at times insult, but at one’s peril, do not dismiss them. Sometimes crowd sourcing an accident or mistake, going back and looking at something from another’s eyes gives light to a better way.

Funny story, there is this rider see, and she goes out on a 4* course and within the first third all those arm chair, PC riders and seeing a tired horse. They watch it get worse and yet no response from the rider. The masses are screaming “What are you doing!?” not moments before she and the horse falls.

The masses rant, rave, talk, publicly, privately, but certainly loudly, accurately, and one would hope with even slight attention from the elite. “That was Wrong” all say. Then the next year another rider goes out on a 4* course, the masses see a tired horse, we see a horse getting worse, we scream “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING”, because we remember the year before, but this elite rider, maybe didn’t want to pay attention to the crowd, didn’t want to think “That could be me”…the results were harsh.

Calling someone a name, ridiculing their personality adds no value, but an honest debate, discussion can yield new thinking and even professionals could learn from the collective mind if they take it as just a point of information. Not an attack.

I would not want to see Elisa Wallace on a team unless she can show me that when it comes time to answer the question which is more important, the horse or the team, she chooses the horse. I also wish we had a Coach that helped them in those types of decisions.

[JP60]

[quote="“jump4it,post:707,topic:431532”]

@JP60

If the Eventing community does not hold someone to a standard that puts the welfare of the horse before anything else then we tacitly accept death and maiming as par for the course.

Why can’t it be the riders? Everyone wants to blame the CD but the riders walk that course (several times) and they make the decision to ride it. They don’t have to do it; they could withdraw if they felt the course was unfair. Nobody is forcing these riders to ride these courses and nobody has forced them into this career. They know what it takes to make it to the top of this sport and they make the decision to try and be at the top.

With that view point, shall we then say that the deaths of passengers on a crashed airplane is on the passengers, not the pilot for hey, they made the choice to get on the plane.

The FEI’s own mission statement has the phrase “welfare of the horse” in it. In the CD guidelines it is stressed to consider the welfare of the horse so let me ask you, where does it start?

We had 7 horse falls, one injured on course, one put to death resulting from a fall and subsequent runaway situation. That’s severe turbulence the pilot could have avoided, even if the passengers are told in might be a bumpy ride.

We had 1 horse fall, not related to a fence, and a few minor rider falls.

Tell me, which one considered, at its core, the welfare of the horse.

These professional riders know the score. They got sponsors, syndicates, very rich owners, and even team selection pressures so when they get to a course like Badder and internally say “this is not good” they are fighting a very loud inner voice that tells them to make it work. A dutch rider pull out before, because he understood that. He even said as such “My horse is not liking this style of course and I don’t care about anything else”. Bravo! How many others really felt “Bravo” or did they think “couldn’t cut it”.

If we want a blood sport then by all means, put the onus on the rider, leave the CD completely free to design some harsh, punishing, confidence dropping course for you know what, people will ride it, because either they never got what “welfare of the horse really means” or they don’t care.

However, I’d prefer to hold CDs to the standard set by the governing body and if they can’t or won’t enforce it, they they too have the same attitude.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

@Divine Comedy

Of all the Americans to be criticized for Badminton performances, she’s pretty much the lowest on my list.

Agree with the whole post but especially this particular sentence. If a lost shoe in slick conditions isn’t a good solid reason for not going faster, then nothing is.

[Willesdon]

Badminton is not a team competition. There were individuals riding who are American.

Quoting the number of fatalities in eventing really needs to be put into the context of deaths in other equestrian disciplines. How many in racing, polo, fox hunting, show jumping, barrel racing over the past 18 months or so? Eventing is not uniquely dangerous but a lot of people are apparently convinced that it is. By evidence collected over the past decade by British Eventing, the sport is becoming safer.

[jump4it]

[quote="“JP60,post:709,topic:431532”]

@jump4it

With that view point, shall we then say that the deaths of passengers on a crashed airplane is on the passengers, not the pilot for hey, they made the choice to get on the plane.

The FEI’s own mission statement has the phrase “welfare of the horse” in it. In the CD guidelines it is stressed to consider the welfare of the horse so let me ask you, where does it start?

We had 7 horse falls, one injured on course, one put to death resulting from a fall and subsequent runaway situation. That’s severe turbulence the pilot could have avoided, even if the passengers are told in might be a bumpy ride.

We had 1 horse fall, not related to a fence, and a few minor rider falls.

Tell me, which one considered, at its core, the welfare of the horse.

These professional riders know the score. They got sponsors, syndicates, very rich owners, and even team selection pressures so when they get to a course like Badder and internally say “this is not good” they are fighting a very loud inner voice that tells them to make it work. A dutch rider pull out before, because he understood that. He even said as such “My horse is not liking this style of course and I don’t care about anything else”. Bravo! How many others really felt “Bravo” or did they think “couldn’t cut it”.

If we want a blood sport then by all means, put the onus on the rider, leave the CD completely free to design some harsh, punishing, confidence dropping course for you know what, people will ride it, because either they never got what “welfare of the horse really means” or they don’t care.

However, I’d prefer to hold CDs to the standard set by the governing body and if they can’t or won’t enforce it, they they too have the same attitude.

Your comparison/logic doesn’t work. Who exactly are the passengers in the eventing part of this? You have a horse and a rider, the rider decides they want to compete at the 4* level, they decide they want to do this for a living or compete at this level, they decide they can safely make it around the course. If they have a problem with how the course is designed they don’t have to ride it. If they think that riding the course will jeopardize the welfare of the horse they shouldn’t ride the course. I’m sick of seeing the CD’s getting blamed for everything and I have yet to see an UL rider throw a fit over a course.

[Littleluck55]

[quote="“JP60,post:709,topic:431532”]

@jump4it

With that view point, shall we then say that the deaths of passengers on a crashed airplane is on the passengers, not the pilot for hey, they made the choice to get on the plane.

The FEI’s own mission statement has the phrase “welfare of the horse” in it. In the CD guidelines it is stressed to consider the welfare of the horse so let me ask you, where does it start?

We had 7 horse falls, one injured on course, one put to death resulting from a fall and subsequent runaway situation. That’s severe turbulence the pilot could have avoided, even if the passengers are told in might be a bumpy ride.

We had 1 horse fall, not related to a fence, and a few minor rider falls.

Tell me, which one considered, at its core, the welfare of the horse.

These professional riders know the score. They got sponsors, syndicates, very rich owners, and even team selection pressures so when they get to a course like Badder and internally say “this is not good” they are fighting a very loud inner voice that tells them to make it work. A dutch rider pull out before, because he understood that. He even said as such “My horse is not liking this style of course and I don’t care about anything else”. Bravo! How many others really felt “Bravo” or did they think “couldn’t cut it”.

If we want a blood sport then by all means, put the onus on the rider, leave the CD completely free to design some harsh, punishing, confidence dropping course for you know what, people will ride it, because either they never got what “welfare of the horse really means” or they don’t care.

However, I’d prefer to hold CDs to the standard set by the governing body and if they can’t or won’t enforce it, they they too have the same attitude.

So, are you saying the riders who competed at badminton walked this course and said this course is very dangerous but I’m going to ride it anyway because I have sponsors or trying to make a team. Screw the welfare of the horse. Why aren’t you crucifying all the riders who rode in it. Sounds like they don’t care about their horses.

I I think your analogy works better if the pilot was told to fly through a tornado. He can make the decision to fly through the tornado and put his passengers(horse) at risk or he can say I’m not going to do that for the welfare of my passengers.

[Equibrit]

He could have also taken the option to fly around the tornado, and taken a little more time.

[vineyridge]

Since when are the 2018 WEG teams 4 riders with a drop score? I was under the clear impression that the 2018 WEG was going to run under the 2020 Olympic rules.

Just checked the FEI rules on size of eventing teams at the World Championships, and the new rule for this says a Team will consist of 3 or 4 athletes. So I guess the FEI hasn’t decided yet how many people make up a team.

[JP60]

[quote="“jump4it,post:712,topic:431532”]

@JP60

Your comparison/logic doesn’t work. Who exactly are the passengers in the eventing part of this? You have a horse and a rider, the rider decides they want to compete at the 4* level, they decide they want to do this for a living or compete at this level, they decide they can safely make it around the course. If they have a problem with how the course is designed they don’t have to ride it. If they think that riding the course will jeopardize the welfare of the horse they shouldn’t ride the course. I’m sick of seeing the CD’s getting blamed for everything and I have yet to see an UL rider throw a fit over a course.

I hate my job. I despise it, but do you see me going up to the boss and saying “hey, I think you created a piss poor work environment with unsafe working conditions. How about you change it.”

No. Because that is my profession and I have two choices, do my job or leave. I could go to regulators, but then they go to my boss and I’m still screwed. As an amateur I am blessed with the ability to say “No, I’m not doing that because of X”. I have nothing to lose and to think that these professional riders today don’t understand that if they say no, if they challenge the system, they may be out of the job and in this case the job is Team selection, better horse prospects, clients, sponsors…attention. Do you not get that these people, even Micheal Jung are professionals. They are not some hybrid of Ammie Gentleman Rider. They do this to make money and there comes a moment when they have to make a choice of their job or the welfare of the horse when as an ammie I can stop, turn around, quit for another day. I only pay for the fun, I don’t get paid.

To be clear, I do not put all CDs under this view. Derek has mastered the art of challenging riding teams without maximizing risk or punishing the horse. A few others seem to take the same bent. How about we support those that do it right instead of protecting those that don’t. The whole point of rules, guidelines and mission statements is to establish how a body will make decisions, not to give a finger to it,

You never answered my one important question. Which course supported those ideals better?

As to my analogy, Mark Todd himself, as an announcer commented that the striding was not good. Another rider going clear said the same along with other negative comments. Jung commented that this course did not reward a horse so at the end of the day, if some of the top passengers say it was not a good ride, maybe, just maybe the governing body should investigate, review, and make changes such that the ride is a little bit better for the horse, because without those four legs, we do not have a sport. If I buy a ticket, get to the airport and see a POS airplane I have the choice to get on or not, but if my job requires me to get to the destination, I may overlook the rust, the leaking fluids, the green pilot, because…I got to get there.

Thank God I never have that as a decision point in my riding.

[JP60]

[quote="“Littleluck55,post:713,topic:431532”]

@JP60

So, are you saying the riders who competed at badminton walked this course and said this course is very dangerous but I’m going to ride it anyway because I have sponsors or trying to make a team. Screw the welfare of the horse. Why aren’t you crucifying all the riders who rode in it. Sounds like they don’t care about their horses.

I I think your analogy works better if the pilot was told to fly through a tornado. He can make the decision to fly through the tornado and put his passengers(horse) at risk or he can say I’m not going to do that for the welfare of my passengers.

No I am not. Read what I wrote and figure it out. While you’re not doing that consider this, since she put it out there.

Lynn Symansky’s horse threw a shoe some point on course. By her on words she knew she could not ride competitively to the end. By her own words she knew her horse might slip more, and this horse had done multiple 4*, been there done, so why…why push on? The horse was not going to increase confidence, hell they don’t know a finish from fence 4. The horse was not going to gain more experience running slow…so why? Answer me why she pushed to a finish that would do nothing for her standing, do nothing for her horse and tell me she was thinking of the “welfare of the horse”, even 51% above her own ego and life pressures. Is that bad? No, but is is reflective of the professional event rider today.

[Highflyer]

[quote="“JP60,post:717,topic:431532”]

@Littleluck55

No I am not. Read what I wrote and figure it out. While you’re not doing that consider this, since she put it out there.

Lynn Symansky’s horse threw a shoe some point on course. By her on words she knew she could not ride competitively to the end. By her own words she knew her horse might slip more, and this horse had done multiple 4*, been there done, so why…why push on? The horse was not going to increase confidence, hell they don’t know a finish from fence 4. The horse was not going to gain more experience running slow…so why? Answer me why she pushed to a finish that would do nothing for her standing, do nothing for her horse and tell me she was thinking of the “welfare of the horse”, even 51% above her own ego and life pressures. Is that bad? No, but is is reflective of the professional event rider today.

If she was thinking solely of the welfare of the horse, she wouldn’t have run it at all, or shipped it overseas, or ever put it in a trailer or pointed it at a fence or ridden it. All of us put our horse’s welfare-- their LIVES, even, below our desire to compete. Even at Novice. Even as amateurs. Every time we ride, or trailer, or compete, we risk their safety. Let’s not pretend that it’s in the horse’s best interest to event.

[kcmel]

[quote="“JP60,post:717,topic:431532”]

@Littleluck55

No I am not. Read what I wrote and figure it out. While you’re not doing that consider this, since she put it out there.

Lynn Symansky’s horse threw a shoe some point on course. By her on words she knew she could not ride competitively to the end. By her own words she knew her horse might slip more, and this horse had done multiple 4*, been there done, so why…why push on? The horse was not going to increase confidence, hell they don’t know a finish from fence 4. The horse was not going to gain more experience running slow…so why? Answer me why she pushed to a finish that would do nothing for her standing, do nothing for her horse and tell me she was thinking of the “welfare of the horse”, even 51% above her own ego and life pressures. Is that bad? No, but is is reflective of the professional event rider today.

I agree with this. Why continue on a super-tough, punishing 4* course with a horse that has lost a shoe? And I don’t think Highflyer’s analogy about putting your horse on a trailer, blah blah blah is a good one. There is a big difference in HF’s examples and running a horse with compromised traction around Badminton.

[And why all the lost shoes? There were several at Rolex too. Has the technology to keep shoes on a horse on an 11 min 4* run not been developed? Do the Europeans have the same problems we do? Maybe they have better farriers as well?]

[Jealoushe]

@Willesdon

Badminton is not a team competition. There were individuals riding who are American.

Quoting the number of fatalities in eventing really needs to be put into the context of deaths in other equestrian disciplines. How many in racing, polo, fox hunting, show jumping, barrel racing over the past 18 months or so? Eventing is not uniquely dangerous but a lot of people are apparently convinced that it is. By evidence collected over the past decade by British Eventing, the sport is becoming safer.

Please don’t bring that “it’s a dangerous sport so don’t question it” type mentality here. No matter the discipline no matter the sport the drive to make it safer for the athletes and especially the horses should always be a top priority. When there are NO deaths it should remain top priority. We ask these horses to do this for us, we owe it to them.

This happens to be the eventing forum, so the topic of Eventing Safety is front and centre.

Please supply your data supporting your claims of BE.