Boyd Martin's Crackerjack Euthanized at Pau

[JER]

Eventing has never been free from death and destruction. The concept of safety is a matter of degree.

And I’m not sure how the term safety applies to what happened to Boyd’s horse this weekend.

We can go on and on about pre-existing damage, which may very well be present, but even the studies admit this damage is often not visible through medical imaging. So then what? Do we cancel the jog and instead have all the horses submit to full-body nuclear scintigraphy prior to doing dressage?

The racehorse studies are of a different demographic of horses under a differing set of stressors. These are 3,4,5YO horses galloping on a track. They jog, they breeze, they race. They don’t do dressage or hack out. They’re not done growing. Eventers are older, have dressage training and lots of trot-based fitness work, are used to more varied footing, and are not always full TBs. (It is true that OTTBs in eventing may have left the track due to injury so these might count as pre-existing.)

Perhaps a better comparison would be with National Hunt horses in the UK. Jump racers are older, bigger, fitter, compete over longer distances, work outside on the gallops and jump at speed.

[bpolli]

@JER

Eventing has never been free from death and destruction. The concept of safety is a matter of degree.

And I’m not sure how the term safety applies to what happened to Boyd’s horse this weekend.

We can go on and on about pre-existing damage, which may very well be present, but even the studies admit this damage is often not visible through medical imaging. So then what? Do we cancel the jog and instead have all the horses submit to full-body nuclear scintigraphy prior to doing dressage?

The racehorse studies are of a different demographic of horses under a differing set of stressors. These are 3,4,5YO horses galloping on a track. They jog, they breeze, they race. They don’t do dressage or hack out. They’re not done growing. Eventers are older, have dressage training and lots of trot-based fitness work, are used to more varied footing, and are not always full TBs. (It is true that OTTBs in eventing may have left the track due to injury so these might count as pre-existing.)

Perhaps a better comparison would be with National Hunt horses in the UK. Jump racers are older, bigger, fitter, compete over longer distances, work outside on the gallops and jump at speed.

All really good points!

[CarrieK]

@JER

It’s not really about pushing the horses too hard.

The real problem is the lack of margin for error. There are potentially grave consequences to even a small mistake. Leave a leg, stumble on take off or landing, misread the face of the fence. This goes for each XC obstacle individually – and you’re jumping 30 of them at the highest levels. Factor in tiredness (physical or mental), pilot error, simple distractions and it gets harder to stay in the safe margins.

THIS! “…lack of margin for error.”

[CarrieK]

@devvie_continued

So why don’t we try to avoid doing so here?

WINNA WINNA CHICKEN DINNA!!!

[Ruth0552]

@Winding Down

@Ruth0552 you make some valid points. And I give a hoot about your opinion. :winkgrin:

Changes in footing should be managed and we need more information about how such changes negatively impact soundness.

As for poor courses and poor footing, I find that the UL riders are the first to scratch. At least here in Area II, if the footing is too hard, I think you see the scratches mostly at the UL sand mostly by the pros. I worry much more about the less educated folks who do not realize how poor footing can injure a horse. We need to continue, and amp up our research on such factors as footing and changes in footing. For sure.

The events that have super footing and safe courses typically draw in top riders.

I do not think it is fair to blame UL riders for unsafe courses.

Yikes- I was not trying to blame UL riders for unsafe courses! They certainly are not responsible for course design. Also, when I say UL, I kinda mean Prelim+. And you are right- Pros probably are the first to scratch, and it would be helpful if they were more vocal about why if it is a course safety issue. If your top riders that draw spectators are scratching, maybe you will reconsider the course, either then or in the future.

On another note- whether or not courses have changed is, to some extent, irrelevant. People and horses are dying now. We have the technology and the ability to make courses safer, but it hasn’t been done. Just because it is equally as dangerous as it was “back in the day” doesn’t mean it is something that should continue.

[kcmel]

@Winding Down

As for poor courses and poor footing, I find that the UL riders are the first to scratch. At least here in Area II, if the footing is too hard, I think you see the scratches mostly at the UL sand mostly by the pros.

Yes, at the HTs, but how often have you seen a rider scratch from a 4* because they felt the course was unsafe, or even one jump was unsafe? The pressure is immense, especially at an overseas event. They are the ones ultimately that are putting their and their horse’s life on the line.

Has a group of riders ever banded together and approached the TD about a fence on the course that they feel is unsafe, and gotten that fence removed? Before XC has started? At a 4* or even a 3*?

[Stormers85]

@CCook

Agree or disagree with Denny’s posts (either in content or presentation), the line that everyone repeats about waiting to address this issue out of respect for Boyd and Crackerjack’s other connections is bull. Sad as it is, a horse death represents a kairotic moment when all eyes are on the issue and there’s an opportunity to make a change. Now is the time.

Disagree 100%. By his own admission, DE had typed out the post after receiving a phone call, he didn’t even see the accident happen. And right away says he saw it coming all along because he was pushed beyond his limits. I’d bet anything BM received more than one message berating him from one of DE’s followers, based on the comments I saw on DE’s post. How does that help anything?

All it did was sidetrack the discussion of safety in eventing because now it’s “old timers vs current ULRs,” which DE then pushed further by posting messages from other former ULRs (anonymous ones, naturally). It wasn’t a good move on his part, as he had a lot of supporters and has now lost some because of his behavior.

Yes, eventing safety is something that we should always strive to improve. But I’m tired of DE’s raving about the old days. Those videos were hard to watch.

[JER]

@kcmel

Has a group of riders ever banded together and approached the TD about a fence on the course that they feel is unsafe, and gotten that fence removed? Before XC has started? At a 4* or even a 3*?

Yes.

This has happened at Badminton on a few occasions, including with one fence that was the most un-jumpable thing I’ve ever seen due to its placement.

[Winding_Down]

@CCook

I’m confused by your series of posts on old-time courses versus today’s courses. What is your point? That because there have always been deaths in eventing it is okay for this to continue?

My point is that much of the discussion of this most recent accident stemmed from D.E.'s repeated argument that eventing is more dangerous now than it was with the long format, and that no one cares (especially the UL riders who, ironically, are a major force on the eventing safety committees) about eventing safety currently. So I bring this up only in an attempt to educate the minions who may still believe what he has been saying. I apologize if I am being repetitive.

Do you really think that my point is that it is okay for deaths in eventing to continue? I hope that no one thinks I am such a horrid person. :sadsmile:

[Winding_Down]

@CCook

The only place that the “old courses vs. new courses” argument has in this discussion is to determine the best, safest elements of both and use them to reduce risk in the future. Otherwise, it’s a moot point. They both had/have dangerous elements and we should be able to do better than the death rates on BOTH types of courses.

I agree. I think that it is brought up only to educate and counter the false statements about courses being more dangerous than they were back then. See my post above. Peace.

[CCook]

@Stormers85

Disagree 100%. By his own admission, DE had typed out the post after receiving a phone call, he didn’t even see the accident happen. And right away says he saw it coming all along because he was pushed beyond his limits. I’d bet anything BM received more than one message berating him from one of DE’s followers, based on the comments I saw on DE’s post. How does that help anything?

All it did was sidetrack the discussion of safety in eventing because now it’s “old timers vs current ULRs,” which DE then pushed further by posting messages from other former ULRs (anonymous ones, naturally). It wasn’t a good move on his part, as he had a lot of supporters and has now lost some because of his behavior.

Yes, eventing safety is something that we should always strive to improve. But I’m tired of DE’s raving about the old days. Those videos were hard to watch.

All right, I thought about not including the word “Denny” in my post because I was afraid some people on this forum would read that word and never be able to move past it. I should have followed my gut.

My point was that this discussion needs to happen now. Just like it needs to happen after EVERY fall on course, horse death, or rider death. Because it is an unusual point in time when there is momentum for change.

[CCook]

@Winding Down

My point is that much of the discussion of this most recent accident stemmed from D.E.'s repeated argument that eventing is more dangerous now than it was with the long format, and that no one cares (especially the UL riders who, ironically, are a major force on the eventing safety committees) about eventing safety currently. So I bring this up only in an attempt to educate the minions who may still believe what he has been saying. I apologize if I am being repetitive.

Do you really think that my point is that it is okay for deaths in eventing to continue? I hope that no one thinks I am such a horrid person. :sadsmile:

@Winding Down, I in no way meant to imply that you are a horrid person. If I did so, I apologize. I’ve been surprised at what some people believe is an acceptable level of risk on this thread and was sincerely just trying to understand your point. I have appreciated your posts – some of which I’ve strongly agreed with and some of which I’ve strongly disagreed with – because it seems like you are thoughtfully considering the situation and trying to find a solution. I wanted to understand why it kept coming back to the tired “old courses were not safer” line because it didn’t seem productive to me. Thank you for explaining.

In general, I hope no one on this forum takes my posts as an attack on anyone personally – this is a debate and I’m engaging to test my own beliefs and those of others so that we can find a better path forward.

[CCook]

@JER

Yes.

This has happened at Badminton on a few occasions, including with one fence that was the most un-jumpable thing I’ve ever seen due to its placement.

The power of these riders to do this is limited because they can’t do it at every event or they wouldn’t be able to make a living. So banding together to object to the odd unfair course makes sense, but what about when courses are consistently dangerous?

[Jealoushe]

The post about horses dying at every event in the UK in the “old days”…methinks the friend has selective memory or a vivid imagination. Or maybe these were at Riding club events and not BE events.

I asked my old coach in the UK (4* dressage judge, been judging these events since the early 80s, so hes been around the block ) and he said that is total BS. He can only recall a handful of deaths from the 80s-2000s at events he attended or judged.

This conversation is still going back to Denny…it should be focused on the loss of a horse and whether or not it was preventable or we can learn from it.

[Madison]

@CCook

My point was that this discussion needs to happen now. Just like it needs to happen after EVERY fall on course, horse death, or rider death. Because it is an unusual point in time when there is momentum for change.

I think the rub here is what do you mean by “this discussion” – if you are supportive of the way Denny chose to make it so personal, so soon after the tragic loss, I think it is pretty clear a lot of people including me found it classless and inappropriate and disagree. Had he said “this is so sad, I’m heartbroken, and we need to look further at why this happened – look at the footing, look at the course design, etc . . .” without the personal attacks and lack of compassion, I think many people would agree we should always try to learn what we can from any fatal accident and a productive discussion could have been had (except he deletes the comments of anyone who disagrees with him).

[smalleventer]

@kcmel

Yes, at the HTs, but how often have you seen a rider scratch from a 4* because they felt the course was unsafe, or even one jump was unsafe? The pressure is immense, especially at an overseas event. They are the ones ultimately that are putting their and their horse’s life on the line.

Has a group of riders ever banded together and approached the TD about a fence on the course that they feel is unsafe, and gotten that fence removed? Before XC has started? At a 4* or even a 3*?

Often times a fence on XC is deemed unsafe until after there have been multiple falls/refusals at it. A lot of this comes as hindsight, thats why I think you see less withdrawls at 4* and 3* events. Often fences on the course walk don’t appear trappy or tricky until ridden.

[Stormers85]

@smalleventer

Often fences on the course walk don’t appear trappy or tricky until ridden.

This. It’s also one of the reason riders retire on course. The course may walk ok, but then the horse comes out with a different opinion. The ULRs have no intention of hurting themselves (or their horses), and I can’t imagine they’re particularly not interested in dying. For most, it’s their profession so they may feel more pressure to complete or get a good score, but at the same time, BECAUSE it’s their profession, if they get hurt, there goes income.

So…how does the 0% injury/fatality rate actually happen? Lower speeds at XC? Reduce fence height? Make all XC fences collapsible (or designed to be safer when collapsed, since not all of them are now)? Less combinations? Less fences altogether? Body scans for each horse instead of or in addition to the jog? No footing changes?

[CCook]

@Stormers85

So…how does the 0% injury/fatality rate actually happen? Lower speeds at XC? Reduce fence height? Make all XC fences collapsible (or designed to be safer when collapsed, since not all of them are now)? Less combinations? Less fences altogether? Body scans for each horse instead of or in addition to the jog? No footing changes?

Great post! Thanks for getting us on track with the solving the root problem.

I don’t think a 0% injury/fatality rate is possible, although it should always be the goal. As @JER posted earlier, eventing will always have dangerous elements and “the concept of safety is a matter of degree,” but better than what we are doing now is certainly possible.

I have my own “common sense” ideas on what we can do (some of which you named), but honestly we need reliable research and people more qualified than me to answer the questions you posed @Stormers85. We need to get people who are passionate about this issue AND have the knowledge to address it in a room together to hash it out. We need outside safety experts (such as those for dangerous worksites and industries), academics with PhDs in engineering/biomechanics/equine science/etc, UL course designers, current UL riders/trainers, past UL riders/trainers, UL owners, professionals from other equine and human sports that have dealt with their own safety issues, and representatives from the LLs that watch and support those ULs. And probably some others I’m missing.

How do we make a conference like this happen? Who can we go to for funding for research?

[annacoreys]

@smalleventer

Often fences on the course walk don’t appear trappy or tricky until ridden.

I think something that might help with this is requiring course designers to have experience riding at the level that they’re designing for - Rolex XC this year was a delight to watch and didn’t strike me as too complicated/technical, and I think a lot of that has to do with Derek Di Grazia’s experience at the 4* level.

Obviously his years of experience designing courses play into it too, since he’ll know what doesn’t work from his past courses, but I think that if it were required to have experience riding at the level an individual is designing for, they’ll know what kind of fences they would be comfortable being asked to ride themselves and won’t be so quick to assume that it will ride well enough just because it works on paper or when you walk it on foot.

Just a thought based on some of the discussions I’ve seen floating around/looking at whose courses seem to be reasonable the vast majority of the time and who seems to consistently have unnecessarily technical questions.

[Blugal]

The sad thing is, there already are international conferences both for eventing and eventing safety. The latter is invite-only I believe.