Posted by Sticky Situation:
I think blaming the failure of the US eventing team to deliver in tough international competition on the lack of government-provided healthcare is pushing it a bit.
It isn’t just about the health care system effecting the US Event Team, but more the entire horse related industry that supports it in some manner.
Some parents are going to be thinking about why they don’t want their younger children to ride.
I’m guessing that mandatory Instructor Certification Programs also help cut down on injuries. I’m referring to young riders here … because I have seen so many young riders get hurt due to really bad decisions on the part of ‘instructors’, accidents that are very preventable with a bit of knowledge. I’m talking about really stupid stuff that ends up very badly.
This is an example of part of how young riders learn to ride well … having fun, looks like this girl has had some instruction … she’s got her helmet on, she’s riding with a buddy, equipment is clean and well fitted on the pony, she is praising her pony for putting up with her …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U0ArE_gjkI
You gotta get them when they’re young … she looks like she’s been riding awhile … by the time a rider is 18, if they aren’t at home with all types of horse movements, they aren’t going to pick that up easily.
I’m curious about the yellow cards that were issued, particularly Hawley Bennet-Awad’s. She received it for continuing past 3 refusals, but if I am not mistaken, one of her refusals was not clear cut; her mare skittered around before launching off a drop. Did they try to pull her up after 3, or did the officials on the ground not realize it either? Is it mandatory to give a yellow card regardless? If they didn’t try to stop her I think she has a good argument that she didn’t realize she’s had 3 stops.
I wish I could find video of these things.
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7749316]
I’m curious about the yellow cards that were issued, particularly Hawley Bennet-Awad’s. She received it for continuing past 3 refusals, but if I am not mistaken, one of her refusals was not clear cut; her mare skittered around before launching off a drop. Did they try to pull her up after 3, or did the officials on the ground not realize it either? Is it mandatory to give a yellow card regardless? If they didn’t try to stop her I think she has a good argument that she didn’t realize she’s had 3 stops.
I wish I could find video of these things.[/QUOTE]
CrowneDragon, Hawley actually continued on with FOUR stops, although I agree that the first one was iffy. She was given two at the first water complex, and then one each at the other two water complexes, I believe. Even if the first one was iffy and debatable, theoretically after the fourth one, that would have been three regardless of the status of the first one.
Having said that, I am still disappointed that she received a yellow card for this in a team setting. It appeared that no effort was made to pull her up, and I’m sure she would have stopped if she had been. I’m also sure she would have stopped far earlier (possibly after first water complex) if this team setting. However, I’m sure she was determined to come home to make sure her team had a third score in case they needed it. I always heard (from former WEG and Olympic members from the older days) that if you are on a team, you finish or ride until you are pulled up. You can’t always be sure in the heat of the moment that you counted right, and I could certainly see Hawley thinking perhaps she had been mistaken on the number.
She should have been pulled up, and I question WHY she wasn’t. But I do not for one second think Hawley should have pulled up herself if she wasn’t sure…and I think giving her a yellow card for continuing (in this particular setting ONLY) is not right.
Well, with all the mess at xc, lack of training for the jump judges apparently… does it surprise anyone?
Thanks for the clarification, Comedy. Perhaps the EN article should be updated, but either way, there are some good points made in the comments in addition to the ones you made. http://eventingnation.com/home/two-yellow-cards-two-warnings-emerge-from-weg/
I really do wish there was video of these infractions, for everyone’s education. I keep looking around and haven’t found anything.
I watched the video on FEI TV, and replayed it a few times. Hawley ought to have been given 3 stops at the down bank alone. Giving her only one stop was generous. She knew leaving that water complex that even one more stop meant she was eliminated.
I do not agree that riders should just keep going. This comes back to the reason for the rule: after 3 stops it is not the horse/rider’s day. Time to quit and regroup for another day. I used to be against this thinking, until I was at the event where Mia Ericksson died in a rotational fall that occurred after she was eliminated for too many stops. Hawley was at that same event…
[QUOTE=Blugal;7749913]
I watched the video on FEI TV, and replayed it a few times. Hawley ought to have been given 3 stops at the down bank alone. Giving her only one stop was generous. She knew leaving that water complex that even one more stop meant she was eliminated.
I do not agree that riders should just keep going. This comes back to the reason for the rule: after 3 stops it is not the horse/rider’s day. Time to quit and regroup for another day. I used to be against this thinking, until I was at the event where Mia Ericksson died in a rotational fall that occurred after she was eliminated for too many stops. Hawley was at that same event…[/QUOTE]
I disagree that she would have know how the drop would have been score as she left the first water complex. It may be easy to see in replays but it’s less clear when you are on the riding and it’s all happening in a matter of seconds. The three stops after the drop, however, WERE very clear and by the stop at the final water complex, she had had three clear issues and she should have know she was eliminated. I can’t see a reason to quibble with the yellow card.
Kdow, I think you make some excellent points. The viewpoint about healthcare, social benefits, college for your kids is very different in Europe than here, and it is a mindset that is worth taking into consideration. Healthcare is good in the U.S. but it is very expensive and any eventer worth his/her salt knows that injury is in the cards - what kind of insurance can they afford? Health care in Europe is excellent but is also cheaper because it is folded into the taxes. Plus, the horse culture is older and is widespread. Healthcare/horsecare may not be THE differentiating factor but it certainly “is” a factor.
[QUOTE=Blugal;7747883]
Could this be done at an existing 3* site - such as Bromont, that holds a spring 3* but no fall event? Or can/should it be combined with a 3* such as Fair Hill or Galway, such that duplicate officials aren’t needed? And riders could bring a 3 and 4 star horse and not be doing extra travel etc.? There must be a good reason that no other events combine 3 and 4 stars… although at one point, Rolex did. And maybe Adelaide?[/QUOTE]
Yes Adelaide generally has 1* and 2**. Don’t think they had the 3* or not but they did also have the young riders championship. Also wondered why Rolex didn’t have more then just the 4 * division. Why is that?
P.
[QUOTE=Polydor;7752645]
Yes Adelaide generally has 1* and 2**. Don’t think they had the 3* or not but they did also have the young riders championship. Also wondered why Rolex didn’t have more then just the 4 * division. Why is that?
P.[/QUOTE]
There was a (brief) thread about this after the 2013 Rolex:
There’s a couple of good arguments for and against such an addition.
Rolex used to have both 3 and 4 star divisions. I think they stopped holding the 3 star about 10 - 15 years ago (in the early 2000’s). The first year that it was only a 4 star, the days ended very early and IMO it was awkward, having so few horses competing. (I am remembering that there were only about 30 4 star horses that first year). But gradually the 4 star division increased to the point where it is today.
I believe that Rolex decided to eliminate the 3 star because it was overshadowing the 4 star, and Rolex wanted to be known as a 4 star event.
The 3 star moved to the place in Georgia which holds a lot of big events.
But, Rolex proved that it is possible to hold both a 3 and a 4 star together, with the 2 divisions jumping many of the same fences; the harder 3 star jumps were the easier 4 star jumps and then each division had jumps that were specially for them. I remember that the head of the lake was used for both divisions, with the “alternate route” for the 4 star being used as the direct route for the 3 star.
Rolex proved that there is no reason why the two division cannot be held concurrently, just like Intermediate and Advanced are held at the same venue on the same dates.
[QUOTE=FalseImpression;7749713]
Well, with all the mess at xc, lack of training for the jump judges apparently… does it surprise anyone?[/QUOTE]
Obviously I cannot comment on the training of the jump judges at WEG, but I have jump judged a lot and in a case such as this, “Control” is the person who has the job of overseeing the progress of each horse on course and informs everyone at once what is happening.
If a jump judge sees a refusal at her jump, she immediately radios in [e.g.] “Number 100, first refusal at jump xx”. Then she will either say, “Number 100, second refusal at jump xx”, or “Number 100, clear on second attempt at jump XX”. Then the jump judge makes notes (and or a diagram) of exactly what happened when the refusal(s) occurred.
Control will then come over the walkie talkie and tells everyone that Number 100 is carrying 2 refusals, he/she will be eliminated if he/she has one more refusal anywhere on course. At that point each jump judge knows to stop the rider and tell them to leave the course if rider has a refusal at that judge’s jump.
These instructions are given at the early morning meeting of jump judges before EVERY day of x/c. Even if you have judged 20 times, you still have to be there for the meeting.
I cannot imagine that, at WEG, there would not be such a meeting, even if some of the judges were newbies. And, weren’t there 2 judges at each fence? There are 2 judges at each fence at Rolex.
This system works 99% of the time at horse trials and small events, with a lot of newbie volunteers in the US. If there is ANY confusion (as in: did a horse take 1 step back twice, or was the horse only presented to the fence once, and took 2 steps back?) the TD zooms over to that fence and immediatly questions the judge, while the facts are still very clear in the jump judge’s mind.
And, yes, if there is any doubt, the horse is allowed to continue and the issues will be discussed later. That is why the first scores posted are only the provisional scores. The final scores are posted once everything has been double checked and approved as correct.
It is hard to believe that such a system would not be in place at WEG.
I read comments on the WEG FB pages of judges saying they were trained (from doing other xc courses), but the training at WEG was not up to par. And the one judge had to argue about her physical position because she was supposed to watch two jumps and where they wanted her to stand, it was impossible to see the second jump… so…if they can’t figure out where to place the judges… who knows what else…
I read an interview by AN on H&H (I think) where he said what he thought of WEG xc… a mess!!
Hawley continued on after 4 stops - rules are rules and that’s why she has a yellow card…yes it sucks for her but it seems a lot of sucking for riders was happening at WEG.
I think that the biggest issue with adding *** or **** events is that there are just not enough horses. A *** at Rolex would kill Jersey Fresh and possibly Bromont. We are only talking about maybe 60 to 70 US horses. Having three spring ***s would be serious overkill. And cost millions of dollars which would have to be raised from somewhere. Ditto a fall ****— it would be cheaper to send 30 horses to Europe than build and maintain another event.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;7753090]
I think that the biggest issue with adding *** or **** events is that there are just not enough horses. A *** at Rolex would kill Jersey Fresh and possibly Bromont. We are only talking about maybe 60 to 70 US horses. Having three spring ***s would be serious overkill. And cost millions of dollars which would have to be raised from somewhere. Ditto a fall ****— it would be cheaper to send 30 horses to Europe than build and maintain another event.[/QUOTE]
Bromont is going to have to build a 4* course for the 2018 WEG. If they shifted their dates to the fall, they could do like either Adelaide (2* & 1*) or Luhmuhlen (4* and CIC 3*). I do think North America could support a fall 4*.
Hawley may not have ‘deserved’ a yellow card in that we can assume she not someone who would intentionally to continue if she knew she was already eliminated. Indeed, if she were in doubt, at WEG she really should continue and not jeopardize the team score until she’s informed definitely.
That said, I think they had to issue the yellow card anyway, because the governing body can’t go by the rider’s intent. There’s no way to know what that was, accurately. It’s not a good precedent to NOT issue a yellow card for the infraction, no matter how unintentional.
I think there might also be an action toward course control and whatever officials involved who did not evaluate and act promptly to pull her off the course. We probably won’t know what happened about that, but that’s a major error for the reasons mentioned in some of the posts above.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7753156]
Bromont is going to have to build a 4* course for the 2018 WEG. If they shifted their dates to the fall, they could do like either Adelaide (2* & 1*) or Luhmuhlen (4* and CIC 3*). I do think North America could support a fall 4*.[/QUOTE]
Of course North American can support a fall 4*. It needs time to build the division - no instant gratification, if that’s what people demand. But one thing this country doesn’t lack is people and horses. We have so much more of both than does Europe. We’ll get there - if and only if NA is given a chance to do so. 
If every new sport and venue on the planet waited until there was already a population of ready athletes, there would be NO new sports or venues anywhere. A population of ready athletes can’t emerge until they have the facilities to do so.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;7753090]
I think that the biggest issue with adding *** or **** events is that there are just not enough horses. A *** at Rolex would kill Jersey Fresh and possibly Bromont. We are only talking about maybe 60 to 70 US horses. Having three spring ***s would be serious overkill. And cost millions of dollars which would have to be raised from somewhere. Ditto a fall ****— it would be cheaper to send 30 horses to Europe than build and maintain another event.[/QUOTE]
and that is one reason why the US riders will have to work a lot harder than those in Europe to gain the same amount of experience. In Europe it is relatively ewasy to travel from country to country for more *** or **** events and there is also a larger pool of riders to compete with.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
