I absolutely think a rule the makes bloody mouths an immediate dq would resolve this issue clearly and leave no room for subjective assessments about whether it was a tack issue or a rider issue or a “darn horse bit herself again” issue. This literally makes this entire conversation moot as Little would have been disqualified a half dozen times, would not be a high profile or sponsored rider, and we wouldn’t have to be concerned about our national champion dq-ing at WEG because another judge isn’t so accommodating in their scrutiny of the horse with the bloody mouth.
oh, and also because you simply shouldn’t compete or keep running a horse who is bleeding at the mouth. We shouldn’t need to have a rule that says that, but we absolutely and clearly need a rule that says that. Because it’s sheisty.
I don’t know that it would “greatly” impact the sport, but I would hate to be that one rider caught out for a truly accidental, incidental one time bit of blood (& horse pronounced OK by official vet) that would be DQ’d under a no-tolerance rule. A lot of stars have to align to make it to a CCI, a lot of entry fees, travel expenses, miles of conditioning, balancing fitness and soundness and funds…I would hate to be the one driving home, out thousands of dollars and knowing I “wasted” those miles on my horse because the GJ saw a teeny tiny spot of blood that essentially was unnoticed by my horse…I don’t want to see a rider with stellar horsemanship who has a single occurrence of a bitten lip be punished/DQ’d by completely inflexible rules.
Give the rider a yellow card, a severe written warning, and set them down if it happens again. I’d even be ok with the racing DQ, and knock them down a placing (or more). If the horse has earned a qualifying score from the event, let him keep it… don’t make the horse haul hundreds of miles, get fit again, risk injury, etc when the horse did his job as asked. There should be room for a vet to subjectively determine the severity of a mouth injury and decide if the horse is fit to continue (same as any other minor injury that may happen on course).
If the bloody mouth happens again, the 2nd yellow card results in automatic suspension (6 months, I think?). That has more impact than DQ from a single event…rider can’t compete on ANY horse at an FEI event during that time. That would be appropriate in the ML situation, IMO. And, god forbid, if it ever happened to me, or someone I respect, I would be ashamed, remorseful, and shocked but I would sit my 6 months and completely reevaluate my horse’s suitability, my riding, my tack, and my program.
AJ, how about the rider who was bounced out of the tack at the HOL? I am sure she trained up to it and is keenly disappointed but them’s the rules. Or even worse, the Dutch rider in 2010 who upon her entrance to the dressage arena at the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS was rung out for a bloody mouth. Horse was fine but championships were over for her.
Having messaged with Moderator 1, I am changing my post here to reflect an understanding between us. I am not changing my position or anything I’ve said regarding the object of this thread, merely my reply to the moderating team.
I believe it’s also FEI rule-writing season; talk to your local FEI eventing committee member. (In the US that’s Marilyn Payne or David O’Connor.) Nomination for new FEI committee members just closed; they’ll be appointed or elected this summer.
From Walsh Products FB Page:
WALSH PRODUCTS STATEMENT: In light of the recent controversy concerning Marilyn Little’s horse at the Land Rover Kentucky 3-Day Event and despite the ground jury/veterinary decision to allow her to continue to compete, our official statement is as follows;
Thank you so much for taking the time to contact us and express your concern! We at Walsh care deeply about the well-being of all horses and are advocates for their proper care at all levels of sport and disciplines. This absolutely applies to our sponsorships and we take pride in working with some of the best and most reputable in the industry.
While it is true in the past Marilyn was a sponsored rider of ours, she has not been since early 2017. We recognize that she is still listed as a sponsored rider on our website and that is something we are looking to remedy as quickly as possible. Our website is under construction and it’s something we are looking forward to getting up to date as quickly as possible. It is understandable how that can be misleading and we apologize for the confusion.
There was also concern over a Facebook post that was done congratulating Marilyn on a recent show. That was simply an oversight of a new team member who is working on our social media and once the mistake was recognized the post was immediately removed.
Again we apologize for any confusion on our current relationship with Marilyn Little and we are grateful for your reaching out to us. It is caring horse people like you who will make the changes necessary to help our horses live the best lives possible!
We appreciate your support and loyalty to Walsh.
If you have any other questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you and let’s continue to #WinWithWalsh!
Paul Treiber. Owner/President of The Walsh Company.
I’m curious how testimony from @alittlegray on this thread differs from that stated by @stormy17 (who I’m sure is quite busy with other matters right now) regarding another ULR’s questionable training and horse management methods. I don’t recall too much moderating on stormy17’s own posts on that thread, or some of the later ones regarding that trainer’s actions. Just curious, indeed.
I’ve been watching some of her previous rides on this horse, If you watch this particular ride around 49 seconds in and again at 1:20. I’m thinking this is where those pesky mouth bleeding thing started. Sadly I was actually happy to watch her riding had improved at Kentucky only to see the outcome…again.
With a note that I do not speak for COTH in any way, and the follow remarks are just that, my own remarks. Everyone has an opinion and many may disagree with mine.
I am sorry, but your statements reflect a great misunderstanding of “substantiation”. If we assume the statements you posted before the moderator edit are true (I personally have no idea either way), then I hope that you will come forward with the substantiation so that what you say can be given full and just weight.
Asking for that substantiation is not saying that you are lying. It is that most readers know nothing about you - including your name or your DD’s name - beyond what you claim in words, with no other hard evidence that would reinforce your credibility. You may be a very honorable person, but there are plenty of pot-stirring trolls who post baloney on social media for the fun of it. Some have done so on COTH.
So without something else to support what you say, how does any reader know that you are not just a troll? It’s up to the person making statements to back up what they say, at the time they are saying it.
You did not identify by name either yourself or your daughter. Maybe there are people who post on COTH who know who you are, but I can assure you the majority of readers (far more than ever post) have no idea. It’s just a voice from out there in internet-land. The lack of identity makes claims anonymous, and that’s how they have to be evaluated by thinking people.
You did not offer hard proof of your daughter’s employment in the Little barn. A PDF of some sort of paper that is official from that employer, with her name on it, could be linked. Sensitive things such as address, contact info, financial info, etc. can be blocked out with marker.
Your statements may be true, but without independent supporting evidence, they are just your statements. Support such as other eyewitnesses who back up the story. Video or photographs. Something that goes well beyond she-said he-said, that most people would be able to watch and interpret in a similar way.
As you yourself said in your original post, the Little barn and some of their staff will almost certainly deny your statement of wrongs. So who is the reading audience to believe, a statement by a known person, or a contradictory statement from an unknown person who has no independent support for their claims?
As has been said about a million times, people can use the internet to hide behind the screen while they throw whatever they wish out to the public. Please understand that this is the context that people read social media - with skepticism, until there is exactly the kind of independent, undeniable evidence, such as the photographs and eyewitness accounts that are giving ML such troubles. Statements made on social media have to gain credibility with an audience of complete strangers in order to be justly credited.
I understand the moderators’ actions. That’s my opinion, and I hope it makes sense.
Is there hard evidence that ML’s $$$ were what caused the editing of the post? Because it was in line with COTH’s long-standing policies. Not to enforce those policies would be uneven treatment of COTH forum content.
I have no idea what was behind the moderator’s decision. But …
From a legal liability standpoint: Last I looked, in the United States, the owners of forums and other social media that allow strangers to post their own opinions, statements and information have no legal liability for what is posted. None.
I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, but a real (or faux) bitten lip very publicly announced before a run would be a great way to cover up the possibility of a mouth being cut by rough handling or tender gums, especially with a quick wiping from the groom to hide the source of the bleed. Or did the vets examine her whole mouth afterwards (not just the front of the lips)? Hopefully they did! But even if the lip was “just” cut by a bite, shouldn’t that be enough to call it a day?
Add me to the group of 30+ years of competitive riding and never making or seeing a bloody mouth.
Its strange that with the big spotlight on the sport for horse casualties, overly tight tack and blood for any reason is no big deal. Hopefully this will trigger change.
Question - is the point of the super tight nose band just to restrict jaw movement, or does it also act like a twitch and cause endorphin release? Never been able to figure out how someone would be able to get a nice test out of a horse who’s annoyed by a nose band pinching their face, just thought of the twitch effect as a possibility.
Thank you for explaining this AJ, it is important for people to see that the Yellow/red card system has the potential for being effective with even more serious consequences while still giving officials some discretion.
There is only one part “there should be room for a vet to subjectively determine the severity of a mouth injury” I want to quibble with. This is not about the severity of an injury. Whip marks and spur rubs are not severe injuries, but instead are evidence of overly aggressive and perhaps abusive use of equipment. The subjectivity allowed is NOT to examine and assess the severity of the injury, but to account for the equipment used and the likelihood its use was inappropriate! If you use equipment that is much more likely to cause harm due to its severe nature you have a higher level of accountability for the results. Determining the level of accountability and accessing the potential of the equipment in use is what the judges’ discretion is for.
