Jon Holling's thoughtful COTH column on safety

[Stall_Rest]

@Winding Down

What sort of substantive change do you (and others) envision?

@Winding Down you certainly ask a fair question. There is a lot of hand wringing on social media now. So, specific suggestions might be something people can focus on instead of “just do something, do anything”. Note I am not diminishing the passion being expressed on this board. Far from it. But, if you believe, as I do, that nothing will happen until the elite core refuses to compete, then perhaps they need to be pushed. With that, here are some specific suggestions for the powers that be, expressed in terms of new rules which can be merely inserted into the rule book, after review of course:

(1) any competitor who has a horse under his/her care die at, or because of, a competition is automatically suspended for 13 months. 13 months assures the rider cannot compete at the same event next season. The suspension is for all levels of sanctioned competition. (Note, is this suspension even as harsh as a drug / doping suspension?) A panel will review the suspension, but the review shall be no sooner than 1 month (to allow adequate time to collect data), and no more than 6 months, after the competition in question. The rider may appeal the suspension at this hearing. Also note that the 1 month hearing delay to collect legitimate, not emotional, data means the competitor automatically may not compete during that month. This is aspect not appealable.

(2) All sanctioned competitions above Preliminary (1*) levels shall have the order of phases be: Dressage, Cross Country, Stadium. This assures that at the higher, more demanding levels of competition, there will be adequate care of, and inspection of, the horse after the Cross Country phase. This also aims to reduce the tendency of some horses being conditioned so as to optimize Dressage performance and just finish Cross Country. {should the rule be for above Prelim or Prelim and above?}

(3) All cross country obstacles on any sanctioned course shall be required to conform to a “profile envelope” which defines the ground line, face, leading edge, top, etc… Best practices will be used to update the currently published design guidelines, paying particular attention to the face of tables. Obstacles found not to conform to these design guidelines shall be declared as non-conformant and not allowed to be used on a sanctioned course. The course designer and jump constructor responsible for their design, construction and installation on what was to be a sanctioned course, shall be placed on probation for 12 months. If either receives a second infraction of this nature within that 12 month period, they shall be prohibited from designing or constructing any approved course or obstacles for 13 months from the second infraction.

(4) Guidelines for placement on Cross Country of tables and similar obstacles (e.g., large oxers, open corners, etc), shall be written and published. Their purpose is to place them at a fair location on the course so as not to inordinately penalize the horse and its rhythm. These guidelines might require that obstacles such as this not be placed before the Nth jump or X% of the course, and also not after the Yth jump on in the last X% of the course. Any course designer who violates these jump placement rules shall be suspended for 13 months. This is not appealable, as the rule would be quite clear and the nature of a course is to be known well in advance.

(5) Cross Country courses shall be evaluated to ascertain whether they have a sufficient percentage (?? what should that be?) of the course (by distance) which consists of a natural canter / gallop. A course should have a natural rhythm which should build up and down gracefully. It should not consist of high speed sections immediately followed by highly technical, tight, slow sections which many obstacles “connected together” (not necessarily as combinations but needing to be considered as a “section”). Guidelines should be published to suggest better sequencing of obstacles, as well as placement relative to the topography.

(6) A competitor may not compete more than 2 horses (should it be 3?) at any given level at a competition. (so, no more than say 2 horses in Prelim, or whatever.) In addition, a competitor may not compete more than 4 horses total at any competition. The rule is clearly meant to encourage riders to focus more time on fewer horses, thus aiding the welfare of the horse. It is admitted that the rule might adversely impact the business model of running many horses through a competition to maximize their sale value. However, the purpose of the sanctioning body and rules is horse welfare, not horse sales.

(7) There is a question as to whether abrupt changes in riding surface from turf to arena might adversely impact the horse and cause injury. Modern high performance competition arenas are optimized quite differently (compression, rebound, grip) from that of every day training arenas. They are also different in nature to turf. So, two actions are proposed: (a) technical study of the nature of the riding surface safety and performance at transitions (such as turf-arena) shall be commissioned, and (b) until further technical knowledge is obtained, there shall be no gallops from turf into an arena. If a course section or finish is to be in an arena, then the “rhythm” of the ride shall be gently slowed down through a use of terrain, turns, obstacles well in advance of the transition so that the the transition into the arena shall be at a pace and balance appropriate for safety. It is not intended that the horse and rider come blasting into the arena like the end of the Marathon in the Olympics. The finish of Cross Country is not the finish of the Kentucky Derby. Rather it is intended that the finish and the transition to an arena be as safe as feasible.

should I keep going with more…?

[Winding_Down]

Thank you Molly Sorge and others who are putting this together!

[frugalannie]

@JER

Molly, I suggest inviting forum member RAyers to join your panel. He’s a longtime eventer with loads of real-world experience in safety. He’s been posting all sorts of wisdom on here for over a decade and he would be a very valuable addition - and also a counterpoint - to your eventing-centric group.

I second this suggestion. If timing is an issue, conference call may be a good start?

[Winding_Down]

@Jealoushe

My opinion is that most ULRs dont want change because they might not be as competitive or able to make as much money. I do not see that they care about the safety of the sport or their horses at all save for a select few.

@Jealoushe How do you come to this opinion?

[Winding_Down]

@RAyers

NOW FOR THE REALLY IMPORTANT LESSON!!!

The key was having a FULL, FUNDED, SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM of ALL aspects of racing. It was lead by Dr. Sid Watkins. It was funded BY THE GOVERNING BODY, using advertising, media income.

USEF, USEA, FEI are all chasing marketing dollars. They want to fill their pockets. Who pays the price? Horses and riders. Time for these entities to put money back where it should be.

So what suggestions do you have for fully funding our current safety research which involves, of course, developing/refining jump safety and studying accidents etc? How can this build upon current fundraising? (I myself do contribute to the safety research fund for the USEA).

I think generating ideas on funding and adding more experts (?). Perhaps including more who have a research background in jump & fence construction/data collection would help? Surely if one were to do an international search, there are those who spend their livelihood on equine safety.

[Jealoushe]

@devvie_continued

What really bothers me about the horse death at this event is that we DON’T know, because nothing was ever released / no definitive statement made, about what really happened there. At the event there was speculation that the horse experienced some kind of adverse health event BEFORE falling into/onto the jump, but since no further information was forthcoming, I can’t say with confidence that I know what happened to that horse, even though I was there.

Yes exactly. Nothing was made public because the owners and those who saw made the determination themselves, without doing an actual review.

[Jealoushe]

@Winding Down

@Jealoushe How do you come to this opinion?

It’s obvious to me. Some have even admitted it, just ask the question why SJ is second all the time now instead of last and the majority of the responses is “well I like that way because my horse jumps clear more often with it first”.

Any big changes to the sport could effect their ability to ride as many horses as they want at an event, which effects their sales, owners, and qualifications. The sport should be built around the sport, and safety of it. Not built around lining pockets of those who choose to make a living at it.

[RAyers]

@Winding Down

So what suggestions do you have for fully funding our current safety research which involves, of course, developing/refining jump safety and studying accidents etc? How can this build upon current fundraising? (I myself do contribute to the safety research fund for the USEA).

I think generating ideas on funding and adding more experts (?). Perhaps including more who have a research background in jump & fence construction/data collection would help? Surely if one were to do an international search, there are those who spend their livelihood on equine safety.

Good question. And I leave that to others to work out. I am a scientist. It will take someone at the top (e.g. governing body, Kessler) with the fund raising background and the rolodex who recognizes the necessity for this work.

I think the focus has been on the fences too much. Now the need for other parameters must be examined.

[Stall_Rest]

@RAyers

Good question. And I leave that to others to work out. I am a scientist. It will take someone at the top (e.g. governing body, Kessler) with the fund raising background and the rolodex who recognizes the necessity for this work.

I think the focus has been on the fences too much. Now the need for other parameters must be examined.

@RAyers is right on funding. How to adequately fund safety research is a squishy topic to say the least.

There has been focus on fences, certainly. However, on this thread I enumerated 7 specific rules changes, only 2 of which had to do with XC fence construction or placement. Those 7 were meant to force change in a direction – a forcing function as it were. Some might view a few as harsh. Others may view them as appropriate. I leave that to the group.

As a group, we run the risk of trying to “boil the ocean” by expanding in all directions of the problem. And, without making specific proposals, we run the risk of being viewed as simply “agitating with our hair on fire”. I also am a scientist. In that vein I would encourage people to rank order the problem as they see it (what’s the #1 thing you propose?, What’s #2, and so forth). And, I would encourage everyone to be very specific. Make specific proposals, proposals which, if implemented, can be measured. They may be good, or they may not. But all are helpful.

[mugsgame]

Personally, i find it astonishing that more is not done on rider PPE. We had a system which prevented crush injuries (EXO) and yet it has been sidelined because it was ugly or bulky. Nothing has changed in body protector or hat designs for years. The materials just get slightly better. Until an external force is placed on manufacturers there is no incentive for them to change the status quo.

[Jealoushe]

@mugsgame

Personally, i find it astonishing that more is not done on rider PPE. We had a system which prevented crush injuries (EXO) and yet it has been sidelined because it was ugly or bulky. Nothing has changed in body protector or hat designs for years. The materials just get slightly better. Until an external force is placed on manufacturers there is no incentive for them to change the status quo.

Actually this reminds me a good question for the CoTH symposium.

@COTH Molly Sorge can we request the question; "why are vests (such as air vests) which are NOT safety tested, with NO scientific research promoted and encouraged to be used by the US Eventing governing bodies?

[FrittSkritt]

@Jealoushe

Actually this reminds me a good question for the CoTH symposium.

@COTH Molly Sorge can we request the question; "why are vests (such as air vests) which are NOT safety tested, with NO scientific research promoted and encouraged to be used by the US Eventing governing bodies?

Not to mention manufacturers (coughcough PointTwo) are using testimonials/quotes by their sponsored riders to tout their products’ “safety” instead of using scientific evidence and studies to back up their claims. (Oh wait, there are none.) IMO this is completely inappropriate and would be low-hanging fruit for a false advertising lawsuit.

[FrittSkritt]

@mugsgame

Personally, i find it astonishing that more is not done on rider PPE. We had a system which prevented crush injuries (EXO) and yet it has been sidelined because it was ugly or bulky. Nothing has changed in body protector or hat designs for years. The materials just get slightly better. Until an external force is placed on manufacturers there is no incentive for them to change the status quo.

@mugsgame - I’ll give some credit to Charles Owen for producing a helmet that now passes SNELL standards. It’s one of only a handful of riding helmets that are available that are SNELL certified… until now, the only ones on the market were pretty much only available in the UK and Europe (Gatehouse).

[IFG]

@Jealoushe

• Why are course designers allowed to continuously use fences we KNOW through scientific data analysis are up to 75%more likely to cause a serious fall - IE corners in water, jumps in water, corners and fences out of water?
• Is there a link between being either a professional rider or an amateur rider - or say owner/rider and the severity and occurrence rates of falls?

This! We know from a paper published in 2004 I think (I can get the ref), that jumps in water a dangerous, yet they are still used. Will Faudree paid the price for that by breaking his neck at such a fence. Others have had less catastrophic injuries.

[IFG]

@devvie_continued

What really bothers me about the horse death at this event is that we DON’T know, because nothing was ever released / no definitive statement made, about what really happened there. At the event there was speculation that the horse experienced some kind of adverse health event BEFORE falling into/onto the jump, but since no further information was forthcoming, I can’t say with confidence that I know what happened to that horse, even though I was there.

I was at an event where someone died, in 2004. I was never able to find out if the rider had died related to the jump or had a heart attack (or something else) approaching the fence. The Chronicle said that it was related to an accident. It was right before a stone wall jump on Novice. The rider was taken away in a helicopter, and the event continued. I went out on XC after him, and, needless to say, my heart was not in it, and I was eliminated before getting near that jump.

[IFG]

@frugalannie

I second this suggestion. If timing is an issue, conference call may be a good start?

A third to add Reed. He is an active eventer and a scientist.

[CSU92]

@RAyers

In other words, accidents will happen, but what can be done to protect the participants WHEN those accidents happen.

.

Is this the theoretical path you allude to?

http://www.vitalmx.com/photos/features/Red-Bull-A-Day-In-The-Dirt-16,37684/113013ditdsat036,71497/GuyB,64?mobile=false

[Winding_Down]

@Jealoushe

It’s obvious to me. Some have even admitted it, just ask the question why SJ is second all the time now instead of last and the majority of the responses is “well I like that way because my horse jumps clear more often with it first”.

Any big changes to the sport could effect their ability to ride as many horses as they want at an event, which effects their sales, owners, and qualifications. The sport should be built around the sport, and safety of it. Not built around lining pockets of those who choose to make a living at it.

But you said that most UL riders do not care about the safety of their horses, and I found that a puzzling statement. How on earth could you generalize about such a large and diverse group? I am an UL rider (but last competed above prelim 4 years ago), and I care about the safety of my horses.

Well, geeze, I guess I don’t. Learn something new every day, :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Jealoushe]

@Winding Down

But you said that most UL riders do not care about the safety of their horses, and I found that a puzzling statement. How on earth could you generalize about such a large and diverse group? I am an UL rider (but last competed above prelim 4 years ago), and I care about the safety of my horses.

Well, geeze, I guess I don’t. Learn something new every day, :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you a professional? Those are the riders I am referring to.

You don’t understand what I am saying. Obviously they care about their horses, BUT they care about their business more. That’s the whole point. I’m not saying they don’t give a sh*t about the horses…but the horses come second to the business. I didn’t say all riders either, but you have some obsession with my posts and want to find any reason to quote and laugh at me.

[Auburn]

Jealoushe, There in lies the crux of the problem. When the Committee members and Officials begin to take us seriously and not “laugh at us”, then, and only then, can we have meaningful dialogue. BTW, thank you for understanding and responding to some of my questions/ideas.

Winding Down, Do my questions not merit an answer? I guess that my thoughts will just be ignored, as usual. :o