Jon Holling's thoughtful COTH column on safety

[RAyers]

@CSU92

Is this the theoretical path you allude to?

http://www.vitalmx.com/photos/featur…4?mobile=false

Nah. Doug Henry is a paraplegic who needs the cage to protect his body on a highly modified bike. He can’t use his legs to balance as other riders, thus the cage has to be present so he doesn’t rip off his legs.

I’m more of:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ipc0-GfOoxo/maxresdefault.jpg

It’s good when you can walk away from a 100 mph + crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DmBUFT9CA

The safety suits developed in MotoGP were developed by instrumenting riders for over 10 years, recording falls, crashes, and studying the forces imposed. They found the concept of airbags is not good, other than in a few specialized locations in the suit. Also, the concept of a tethered airbag was easily shown to be more dangerous (hence why the suits have integrated sensors with the bike). Again, another example of a DEDICATED research program designed to understand safety factors and intended to create an effective safety system for all participants.

[Winding_Down]

@Auburn

RAyers, What is your opinion of some of the ULR’s specifically raising more money for the USEA by using Facebook? Will this money actually go where it is needed? So far, I have not made a donation, because I am afraid that it will not go where I want it to go.

Winding Down, I have some questions for you- To whom, are Course Designers accountable? To whom, are TD’s accountable? If you say, by sending in an evaluation form, that anything will be done about an issue, then you are fooling yourself. I have tried that, several times, and gotten absolutely no response from the USEA about the specific issues.

I haven’t seen people raising money on FB for safety research. I donate directly to the USEA Safety Fund.

I honestly do not know to whom officials are accountable.

I apologize for not seeing your questions earlier. I have not looked at this thread for quite awhile. Shame on me. :sadsmile:

[COTH_Molly_Sorge]

Hi all, the panel that held a roundtable discussion at the Chronicle on Tuesday came up with some interesting points. We’re working through all the content now and plan to post four articles on Nov. 27-30 on www.coth.com, including some video, about what was discussed. Thanks for all the input!

[IFG]

@COTH Molly Sorge

Hi all, the panel that held a roundtable discussion at the Chronicle on Tuesday came up with some interesting points. We’re working through all the content now and plan to post four articles on Nov. 27-30 on www.coth.com, including some video, about what was discussed. Thanks for all the input!

Thank you for the update!

[NCRider]

Looking at the video of the Stutgart indoor eventing, it looks like it was all xc jumps, not a mixture of both. I wonder if that is safer than the combo derby type we tend to have here in the US.

[Blugal]

Did anyone see Justine Dutton’s article about coming back after her rotational fall this summer at Great Meadows? Titled: That fall scared me… I knew something had to change.

She is suffering vision loss which may be permanent. She reflected on her participation in the sport post-accident.

http://heelsdownmag.com/?p=11748&utm…ampaign=buffer

[JER]

@Blugal

Did anyone see Justine Dutton’s article about chiming back after her rotational fall this summer at Great Meadows?

That was a great read, Blugal. Really, it deserves its own thread.

I have loads of respect for Justine Dutton after reading that. I hope she makes the fullest recovery possible and has a future full of fun with horses.

Also, I have to say that’s the first time I’ve ever read/seen/heard anything positive about the UK rider Laura Collett. (For a variety of reasons, her reputation hasn’t been the best.) But that she’s taken so much time to help a rider across the Atlantic who she’s never met - that speaks volumes about her. Very impressive.

[Auburn]

@Winding Down

I haven’t seen people raising money on FB for safety research. I donate directly to the USEA Safety Fund.

Doug Payne, whom I respect, started a post on Facebook, which raised a good bit of money for the safety fund. He began it, because of all of the uproar over Denny E’s. Facebook post, after the loss of Crackerjack. I believe that there might have been another ULR, who did the same. I did not donate. Until someone can show me how Officials and Course Designers are held accountable, I will not donate.

We can give money, until we are blue in the face, but it will do nothing, if there is no accountability. JMHO

[IFG]

@Blugal

Did anyone see Justine Dutton’s article about coming back after her rotational fall this summer at Great Meadows? Titled: That fall scared me… I knew something had to change.

She is suffering vision loss which may be permanent. She reflected on her participation in the sport post-accident.

http://heelsdownmag.com/?p=11748&utm…ampaign=buffer

It was a great read. Thanks for linking to it. Her attitude was mature and sobering. I have not competed since 2008, though I continue to follow the sport, and my daughter competes. My horse was older, and I was paying college tuition, so no new horse was going to come into my life. By the time that I could start to think about riding, I was having thoughts similar to Justine’s, e.g., was it worth giving up all of the things that I have given up to compete. And I was only at Novice.

[IFG]

@Auburn

We can give money, until we are blue in the face, but it will do nothing, if there is no accountability. JMHO

Yes. From the listing of the panel that I have seen, there are few scientists.

[skydy]

@FrittSkritt

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.

I doubt any questions regarding air vests will be addressed since the manufacturers are so entrenched in the sponsorship of all things eventing.

[SJ172]

@IFG

Yes. From the listing of the panel that I have seen, there are few scientists.

The panel consults with scientists as needed. High level experts sometimes are not willing to volunteer for panels when they are so in demand. I do not believe that members of the panel subscribe to this forum.

[Jealoushe]

@SJ172

The panel consults with scientists as needed. High level experts sometimes are not willing to volunteer for panels when they are so in demand. I do not believe that members of the panel subscribe to this forum.

Webhave had people who are in science and medicine say they have offered their help only to be rejected.

[JER]

@SJ172

The panel consults with scientists as needed. High level experts sometimes are not willing to volunteer for panels when they are so in demand. I do not believe that members of the panel subscribe to this forum.

This post sums up everything that could be NQR with the safety committee.

1. How does the panel determine when consultation with scientists is ‘needed’? The membership of the committee - mostly riders, organizers and officials - is not perhaps the best at determining when it is ‘needed’.

2. We know that neurosurgeon and ex-eventer blackwly has volunteered her expertise and the committee did not respond to her offer. She’s good enough for the NFL and other professional sporting organizations but apparently she’s not ‘needed’ by USEA.

3. Members of the safety committee have posted here at various times, and very recently, Jon Holling wrote an excellent column for COTH magazine on safety. I would be very, very surprised if he hasn’t followed the ongoing discussion of his piece. So it can’t be that they’re all ignoring the online discussion.

[SJ172]

I am not sure when the panel has needed the consultation of neurosurgeons but when they do, I would expect that they shall review curriculum vitae to determine qualifications. I trust that the panel is competent enough to decide when consultation with experts is required. I do not think this warrants stating that the panel is NQR or, as implied, incompetent. Many believe that the panel has made much progress with limited funds available.

[KellyS]

@SJ172

The panel consults with scientists as needed. High level experts sometimes are not willing to volunteer for panels when they are so in demand. I do not believe that members of the panel subscribe to this forum.

Please do not take offense at this, but I think this statement is absolutely false about experts, at least the very good ones. I work with top scientists around the world every day and they are SO happy to volunteer their time in order to help with issues, especially those of safety. I have also found that the most well known, in-demand scientists are the ones willing to volunteer their time the most–that is why they are so busy!

Also, why does the panel not work with scientists regularly? Unless the panel members themselves are experts in research, statistics, modelling, and all other aspects of studying safety, I would think having people with this expertise ON the panel rather consulted “as needed” would make a huge difference in productivity.

I don’t think this post is meant to come across the way it does (such are the trials with electronic communication), but this gives the impression of exclusivity and a “we know best” attitude rather than “what can we do to get the very best scientists and experts on our panel to help us.”

I agree with other members who refuse to donate money to a safety fund without knowing how it is being used and what the results of the findings are. The poster mentions limited funds, and the information presented here is probably not going to help increase donations.

If you’re really having problems getting scientists to help you, have you thought about asking the several people on this forum who have the connections to provide introductions?

And using CVs to determine who is best? Why are you not asking for recommendations from the top scientists/experts in each field of study?

This just does not sound right to anyone who works in research.

[JER]

@SJ172

Many believe that the panel has made much progress with limited funds available.

Let’s talk about funds for a moment.

‘Limited funds’ for safety. Does anyone know what is the safety budget for the USEA? What else is in that budget that’s less important than ensuring the safety of horses and riders?

How about for USEF? I mean, USEF gives or steers well into the six-figures to ship horses and riders around the world for competitions. That’s a lot of money. Is it in the interest of the USEF membership to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on travel to far-flung competitions when only ‘limited funds’ are available for safety?

At some point, it’s a question of priorities, isn’t it?

[skydy]

@SJ172

The panel consults with scientists as needed. High level experts sometimes are not willing to volunteer for panels when they are so in demand. I do not believe that members of the panel subscribe to this forum.

The panel need not subscribe to this forum. In the past, professionals who participate in this forum have generously offered their time and connections through “official” channels and have been rebuffed.

Please don’t give us the “no expert is interested” excuse, not here, not on this forum (I guess you can have at it on facebook, where apparently anything goes).

I have been following the commentary and concern on this forum about this issue, for years and I am appalled by your ignorance regarding the willingness of professional people to help.

Are you honestly unaware of the concerted effort by professionals, who have experience in many aspects of eventing (as well as their day jobs in professions that can be of use to the safety concerns of the eventing PTB) whom offered their skills in the past and who’s offers of assistance were summarily rejected by the PTB?

Honestly, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.:no:

I don’t mean to be harsh. If you are truly ignorant about the past efforts of these professionals to assist in the research of eventing safety, then please do some research and I think you will reconsider your words.

Please Disregard This Post. See Post #85 and #86

[Brandy76]

@Auburn

Well, it is about time that an ULR spoke the truths, about which we have been talking for years! Thank you, Jon Holling!!

I have gone to the Rider Reps and TD’s about things that were not correct with a cross country course and been told that the jumps stand as is. One time it was a BN Championship. We had to go through the water, up an incline and over a brush fence that was set 9 feet away from the water. Standing at the take off point, the jump was over 3 ft. I was told it “is a Championship course.” So, I paid a $45 fee and dropped back to plain BN.

Another time, the BN ditch was not as written in the Rule book. I took my copy of the Rule Book to the TD. He told me, “We are not changing it. The TD’s want to change this rule anyway, so the jump stands.”

I truly wish that other ULR’s get on board with Jon.

This is precisely the type of culture and attitude I see most of the time. Was walking a course over the summer. The N division, not a championship, had a jump on a hill against a tree line. Ok fine. However it also had 5 strides away on a bending line, around a corner, another jump - a very airy looking chevron. You did not see it until after landing and rounding the corner - two strides out. All down hill, around a blind corner!
I mentioned it to the CD. “Well it is within the rules, and some of the people here schooled it and had no problem”.

Thank you Jon Holling, for not only bringing all this up, but also and mainly for speaking to the culture aspect. For me, I feel it is the main driver for people not speaking up.

[mountainbells]

Brandy76…who was the CD?