New Qualifications to Upgrade Coming Soon

[Marigold]

@JER

I’m quite surprised that Jung would keep a horse like that. Or that he’d allow a student to risk their life on such a horse. This really changes my opinion of him and I’ll go so far as to say if the truth is as Marigold presented it, we need to get people like him out of the sport.

@NEEDS A NAP you are correct. I didn’t realize he was sold - he was competing out of that yard until later 2019. Record I am referring to can be found here: https://data.fei.org/Horse/Performan…3683592ABC897F

@JER I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I believe that all humans are imperfect people, and even the best of us can be tempted. If, instead of kicking people out, we can structure the rules to help guide people in the face of temptation, hopefully that can be a win-win for everyone.

[Divine_Comedy]

@JER

3. Dressage scores are seductive because dressage comes first.

I’m going to add that I think it’s less about the fact that it goes first and more about the fact that it is the only phase where you can get more and more advantage the better you are. In the jumping phases you can get an iffy clean and fast round or a foot perfect clean and fast round and it doesn’t matter, you still just get zero points added.

But in dressage the better you are, the more points you can knock off your initial score. This is going to incentivize drilling more and more dressage, buying more dressage type horses who can kind of get around XC, and in general lead to a focus on the dressage overall for the sport.

Equiratings once suggested having a ‘threshold’ for dressage as well…achieve 75% or better and it’s zero points. This is how it works for the jumping phases, why not for dressage? Then the focus could shift. (This was a podcast that aired in maybe 2018? It’s been a while and I’ve had a hard time finding it again.)

Keep closest to optimum as an initial tiebreaker, but then final tiebreakers could be in stadium…perhaps a puissance style jump-off to break ties? That would be super exciting.

[Marigold]

@Divine Comedy

Equiratings once suggested having a ‘threshold’ for dressage as well…achieve 75% or better and it’s zero points. This is how it works for the jumping phases, why not for dressage? Then the focus could shift. (This was a podcast that aired in maybe 2018? It’s been a while and I’ve had a hard time finding it again.)

The article explaining it, as well as the podcast itself, is here: https://www.equiratings.com/articles…72Ok6uqJ6Y7UxU. It actually uses the horse being discussed in this thread as an example.

[JER]

@Divine Comedy

I’m going to add that I think it’s less about the fact that it goes first and more about the fact that it is the only phase where you can get more and more advantage the better you are. In the jumping phases you can get an iffy clean and fast round or a foot perfect clean and fast round and it doesn’t matter, you still just get zero points added.

But in dressage the better you are, the more points you can knock off your initial score. This is going to incentivize drilling more and more dressage, buying more dressage type horses who can kind of get around XC, and in general lead to a focus on the dressage overall for the sport.

If dressage were the final phase, you’d be less likely to be playing Russian roulette on XC. Because you just might not make it to dressage.

As I’ve said here before, one way to make XC safer is to get rid of the dressage completely. Then there’d be no market for iffy leave-a-leg jumpers who have pretty gaits. And there’d be no incentive for riders to school dressage other than as necessary to create a safe, consistent jumper (which is actually a fair amount of schooling if you include things like pirouettes which you never do in eventing dressage tests).

Eventing dressage is at best mediocre dressage. The components and progression don’t necessarily fit in with the training scale. That makes it frustrating when you’re working with a talented young horse because you know that sticking to a proper training plan - which is good in the long term - means that you might have to wait a few years (until Intermediate with the collected gaits) to see that work pay off on the scoresheet.

So I’d go for pass/fail or just doing away with it.

[JER]

@Marigold

@JER I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I believe that all humans are imperfect people, and even the best of us can be tempted. If, instead of kicking people out, we can structure the rules to help guide people in the face of temptation, hopefully that can be a win-win for everyone.

Temptation?

I’m not sure that knowingly putting your student in a dangerous, high-risk situation has anything to do with temptation.

If you mean that MJ is having his student ride Ass Over Teakettle FRH or La Bioesthetique Base Over Apex to placate an ego-driven owner who wants a horse in MJ’s barn, then Jung is more sociopath than coach. If he wants to risk his own life, that’s his choice. His students are there to learn from him. And they are very vulnerable to his suggestions because they aim to please. They want to earn his praise.

What rule do you suggest will stop MJ from giving students horses to ride that he knows to be dangerous?

[tagsalong]

@Marigold

@NEEDS A NAP you are correct. I didn’t realize he was sold - he was competing out of that yard until later 2019. Record I am referring to can be found here: https://data.fei.org/Horse/Performan…3683592ABC897F

@JER I don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I believe that all humans are imperfect people, and even the best of us can be tempted. If, instead of kicking people out, we can structure the rules to help guide people in the face of temptation, hopefully that can be a win-win for everyone.

This also reminds me a lot of Caroline Martin’s Cristano Z. Something like 4 or 5 MRs in 2018-2019, pretty much every Advanced HT he tried.

[RAyers]

Reading some of the justifications for the creation of these proposals, it seems to me that a further separation for only professionals to run the upper levels and cut off the capable amateur.

The concept that they used “Olympic riders” as a metric is asinine. They are the exception to the rules, not the rule to judge others by.

[BayBondGirl]

I’ll be following these changes with interest and much support for the lower levels. There’s a few good points brought up here that I hadn’t considered, especially surrounding the dressage phase.

I attempted a move up to Training last fall on the most confident packer who was a successful Prelim (and possibly more) horse in her younger days. We’d had something like ~7 confident Pre-Trainings/Novices where we always placed in the ribbons, never had a rail in stadium or faults on XC. I was confident at that level but put my time and money into “perfecting” our dressage for the sake of good scores instead of the jumping and XC lessons that I needed for the move up and didn’t realize until we were at the HT.

Based on our show record, we were more than ready for the move up. But boy was it an eye-opener - we chipped in the majority of our stadium fences and it was quietly embarrassing for me; my unicorn got us through with only one rail down. We E’d out of XC the next day as I was way over-faced and she didn’t have the energy to take care of everything on her own (she’s a senior citizen) with no help from me. If she wasn’t so athletic and experienced, we could have easily gotten really hurt, and I am so thankful that never happened.

So I don’t know that I have any suggestions to contribute at the moment, other than that I personally will be much more careful in future to consider my true capabilities in face of a move up and, frankly, worry less about my dressage scores and more about XC safety. And I have zero aspirations to ever ride above Training level so I’m happy to advocate for the grassroots riders, of whom I am a happy member!

[Jeannette_formerly_ponygyrl]

I’ll argue that the accident rate would go way down if more jumps were really airy and vertical, there were maybe trap doors into pits on the line a drifting horse would take, if you made spectators gasp there would be a $500 fine, and something about snakes and sharp objects lurking.

. Ok, maybe a touch of modest proposal here, but instead of generous ground lines and easy turnouts subtly encouraging people to try a level, design it so if rider or horse are a bit green yet, rider, owner and coach are all shitting their pants in the coursewalk.
. Safety is counterintuitive. We’ll all walk the length of a 2x4 or 1x6 when it’s on the ground. Put it 2 feet up and we’re more likely to wait until egged on at the competitor’s party, even though theres not likely to be much consequence if we pop off. Suspend it 30 feet in the air, and we’ll insist on being roped up before walking across. Or in another vein, accidents go up and get worse when we widen and straighten a stretch of road. Keep a bunch of toddlers and sleeping dogs and kids playing kickball, and all but the sociopaths slow down.

. No, I don’t know how to create that in our sport, but I’m positive that meeting some pre set metric does far less for safety than having every participant viscerally aware of the consequences of screwing up would do.

[JER]

@Jeannette

I’m positive that meeting some pre set metric does far less for safety than having every participant viscerally aware of the consequences of screwing up would do.

When you say ‘every participant’, does that include the horse?

Horse fatalities outnumber rider fatalities. It’s the horse who bears the brunt of the ‘consequence of screwing up’.

And I think we can all agree that it’s a very high price to pay.

[endlessclimb]

2. Minimum Performance Standard for Show Jumping Phase

The Subcommittee has recently proposed a rule change to have show jumping rounds at the Training level and above which incur five rails or more result in compulsory retirement when show jumping precedes cross-country. A similar rule is already in place in the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. The Subcommittee worked with EquiRatings and the statistical analysis showed that there is a significant correlation for those who had four rails down in show jumping with horse falls on cross-country. “We felt like it was strong enough evidence and putting our horsemen hat on and it felt like it made sense to propose the rule,” said Holling.

Wait wait wait. There’s evidence that 4 rails or more down correlates to a XC fall, so we’re going to set our rule at 5? WTF? Am I reading that wrong?

[AskMyAccountant.17]

I have a question. At this point events can choose whether to hold XC or SJ before the other. In terms of having 5 rails, is this to say that a Horse X will have an E on their record for catching 5 rails in the horse trial in which SJ was before XC. Yet, a horse that had 5 rails in the horse trial which held SJ last would finish on a number score.

Consequently (myself, or another rider) may opt to choose the HT in which XC is held before SJ in terms of insuring my horse gets in a confident round on XC rather than risk having an E if my horse hits 5 rails.

I don’t disagree here. I just think there will be a disconnect if the horse with 5-rails in the event that held SJ before gets an E compared to the horse with 5 rails that held SJ last. Granted, in cases the affects of XC the day before may have a toll adding an additional factor of difficulty.

The point is safety, and that should come first. E/Number scores, whatever, if a horse is deemed not safe on XC, it shouldn’t be allowed to go out. I’m just curious as to the actual ruling once in place.

And then, once the occurence of 5 rails is incurred, do you ring the bell to excuse the rider? If so, would the same occur in the event that hosted SJ last. Your final phase, you get buzzed out at the occurence of five rails.

Just things to think about, because I would think you would have to do the same for both events.

I raise my hand as the rider with a poor SJ record. (the reason these questions pop up in my head.) I have a very very good xc horse with a very very nervous SJ rider. So grateful I’ve been biting the bullet and working on SJing last winter so I think I’ll be fine with this rule now. But, I’m a working-amateur professional. If I have trouble at an event, I’m going to go home and schedule lessons, I have to make each event count because I can’t afford to go to many. (I think that contributes to my SJ anxiety) My perception is that I’m not trying to rush up the levels , but I want each event to count because if I dont get it right then… Yes, the young horse I have owners funding and communicate with, they go to every event possible on top of all of the schooling. But my horse, we make each lesson and schooling session count and do extensive homework at home.

Last bit, just because it may not have been considered. I’ve ridden in different areas. Competing in Area II was so much easier from a cost standpoint because many events ran over one day, we’d pack the trailer the morning of and head over. As a middle-class adult if I needed to run an additional event, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue at all. In Area III competing is double/triple the amount for hauling to away shows, paying for stabling on-site, and two nights in a hotel because almost all the events are further away and over multiple days. Again, safety should be at the forefront of the conversation, but I can see the standpoint of a working adult riding in a lesser popular area thinking ok I’ve got to run an additional few events that cost me 600-800+/pop differing from the rider whose been in Area II paying 250-350 an event.

[Jealoushe]

@AskMyAccountant.17

I have a question. At this point events can choose whether to hold XC or SJ before the other. In terms of having 5 rails, is this to say that a Horse X will have an E on their record for catching 5 rails in the horse trial in which SJ was before XC. Yet, a horse that had 5 rails in the horse trial which held SJ last would finish on a number score.

Consequently (myself, or another rider) may opt to choose the HT in which XC is held before SJ in terms of insuring my horse gets in a confident round on XC rather than risk having an E if my horse hits 5 rails.

I don’t disagree here. I just think there will be a disconnect if the horse with 5-rails in the event that held SJ before gets an E compared to the horse with 5 rails that held SJ last. Granted, in cases the affects of XC the day before may have a toll adding an additional factor of difficulty.

The point is safety, and that should come first. E/Number scores, whatever, if a horse is deemed not safe on XC, it shouldn’t be allowed to go out. I’m just curious as to the actual ruling once in place.

And then, once the occurence of 5 rails is incurred, do you ring the bell to excuse the rider? If so, would the same occur in the event that hosted SJ last. Your final phase, you get buzzed out at the occurence of five rails.

Just things to think about, because I would think you would have to do the same for both events.

I raise my hand as the rider with a poor SJ record. (the reason these questions pop up in my head.) I have a very very good xc horse with a very very nervous SJ rider. So grateful I’ve been biting the bullet and working on SJing last winter so I think I’ll be fine with this rule now. But, I’m a working-amateur professional. If I have trouble at an event, I’m going to go home and schedule lessons, I have to make each event count because I can’t afford to go to many. (I think that contributes to my SJ anxiety) My perception is that I’m not trying to rush up the levels , but I want each event to count because if I dont get it right then… Yes, the young horse I have owners funding and communicate with, they go to every event possible on top of all of the schooling. But my horse, we make each lesson and schooling session count and do extensive homework at home.

Last bit, just because it may not have been considered. I’ve ridden in different areas. Competing in Area II was so much easier from a cost standpoint because many events ran over one day, we’d pack the trailer the morning of and head over. As a middle-class adult if I needed to run an additional event, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue at all. In Area III competing is double/triple the amount for hauling to away shows, paying for stabling on-site, and two nights in a hotel because almost all the events are further away and over multiple days. Again, safety should be at the forefront of the conversation, but I can see the standpoint of a working adult riding in a lesser popular area thinking ok I’ve got to run an additional few events that cost me 600-800+/pop differing from the rider whose been in Area II paying 250-350 an event.

Im just jealous you still have events that hold SJ last.

[Blugal]

@AskMyAccountant.17

Again, safety should be at the forefront of the conversation, but I can see the standpoint of a working adult riding in a lesser popular area thinking ok I’ve got to run an additional few events that cost me 600-800+/pop differing from the rider whose been in Area II paying 250-350 an event.

In my region there are no Intermediate level events at all. So each one is a minimum drive down the day before (Thursday, but sometimes, Wednesday because events are running over 4 days or they are so far away it’s a 9-20 hour drive), then if you are lucky and have a 2nd driver, you can make it home Sunday night by driving through the night, and go to work the next morning.

Speaking of which, it’s not great on the poor horses to travel so far, and adding more qualifications means more of these trips for the horse. Instead of doing local schooling and more lessons, which is a viable alternative.

Those events cost you 1-3 days of work, plus fuel for that long of a drive, entries and stabling. We are looking at $1500 in entries/stabling/fuel alone (especially once we go from Canadian Dollars to USD).

So let’s not use the Area II rider as the basis of new rules, nor the UK or Europe either. When talking about FEI qualifications, it’s not just us in US/Canada with these problems, think of Central and South America, Asia etc. It’s hard to make sure everyone’s safe when there are so few competitions at which to get qualifications. I don’t think tightening the qualifications helps in that scenario, since you are going to see people who are marginal try to compete because it’s so hard to get enough qualifying scores due to the competitions only coming around once or twice a year.

[asterix]

The cost/time sink differential is a real problem in this country, but I don’t think the answer is to have lighter qualifications for different areas. I don’t know WHAT the answer is, but that is not it.
As far as getting eliminated goes, I don’t see why the rider doing SJ last can’t be eliminated for 5 rails - it might not happen until the end of the course, and you might not be able to pull up a rider on course if it happened close to the end, but the rider can still be eliminated. No different than getting eliminated for, say, missing the last fence on xc. You might get across the finish line, but you’d still have an E on your record.
Some organizers like running SJ first because you weed out some of the most unprepared pairs before they get to xc.
There are always pairs that have really dicey SJ who are much more solid on xc, but they are less common than the ones who aren’t ready for either phase.
I have worked the SJ phase for many horse trials over the past 10 years and have a pretty big set of observations to base this on. Every event, we call over to XC to keep eyes on pairs that had rough gos…and every event probably 3/4 of them have real trouble on xc…but a few look just fine.

[ZELLA]

I’m all for cast-iron rules limiting people from moving up before each phase is confirmed. Eventing is supposed to be hard, an ultimate test of horsemanship. It was hard even when most XC courses were 15 variations of a coop, because it’s never easy to contain your horse and your nerves for all of three tests. It’s a shame that eventing fell into the mentality that things have to become more difficult or technical or faster just because time has passed and some riders are bored with the 15 variations of a coop. Why is a novice course now more difficult than a training course of the 1990’s? The showjumping phase has remained pretty much the same, but overall riders haven’t gotten better at it–you see similar faults over the decades spread throughout divisions. Four or five rails should be a signal that you’ve got more work to do at the level you’re at, no matter how great the horse might be at dressage or XC. There is no shame to spending five years at novice, or never competing above novice, if that’s where your collective skill set has plateaued.

[TXnGA]

I’m going to jump into the fray.

i definitely agree, level move ups should be monitored and considered greatly, especially the upper levels.

but I disagree with the 5 rail and your out, blatant rule. For instance, I have a confirmed 4* horse who has a clean XC record except time with multiple 4* short and long under his belt, but SJ is his weakest phase. And the beginning of the season is always worst.

that being said, the horse will never be a clean show jumper at the upper levels, a horse to be happy on 1 rails, but is a beast xc. And said horse gets sj cleaner as the season goes on.

for instance, he had 5 rails in a ht this winter, footing was atrocious mud, all horses were sliding in the footing, and it wasn’t a scary round, the horse was very unsure of the footing. Granted, partly my fault for putting in the wrong studs. I don’t think it is fair to then not allow this horse to continue to xc. He has a clean xc record for the past 3 years at this level. FYI, horse did go out xc at same event, with bigger/ appropriate studs and was one of the few horses to cone home clean on xc jumping. Why punish this horse on runs based on how he starts the season?

i think there has to be a better way to monitor risk assessment. EQI ratings are great ( this horse has green and deemed safe), but for the next step, more involvement from the TD? I don’t have an answer but I don’t think this is the answer.

[JER]

The SJ 5 rails is just more window-dressing.

It will not solve the problem of inappropriate or dangerous course design.

It will not solve the problem of official insularity (I described that upthread). Here’s an example: the most recent fatality was not pulled of the course at Rebecca or yellow-carded for dangerous riding, even after going into the canola field. That is a HUGE failure on the part of the officials and should be thoroughly investigated and those at fault should be held accountable.

It will not solve the problem of getting crushed by your horse in a fall.

You can make loads of rules and point to them and scream safety but that doesn’t make the sport any safer in terms of its real dangers.

[Jealoushe]

@TXnGA

I’m going to jump into the fray.

i definitely agree, level move ups should be monitored and considered greatly, especially the upper levels.

but I disagree with the 5 rail and your out, blatant rule. For instance, I have a confirmed 4* horse who has a clean XC record except time with multiple 4* short and long under his belt, but SJ is his weakest phase. And the beginning of the season is always worst.

that being said, the horse will never be a clean show jumper at the upper levels, a horse to be happy on 1 rails, but is a beast xc. And said horse gets sj cleaner as the season goes on.

for instance, he had 5 rails in a ht this winter, footing was atrocious mud, all horses were sliding in the footing, and it wasn’t a scary round, the horse was very unsure of the footing. Granted, partly my fault for putting in the wrong studs. I don’t think it is fair to then not allow this horse to continue to xc. He has a clean xc record for the past 3 years at this level. FYI, horse did go out xc at same event, with bigger/ appropriate studs and was one of the few horses to cone home clean on xc jumping. Why punish this horse on runs based on how he starts the season?

i think there has to be a better way to monitor risk assessment. EQI ratings are great ( this horse has green and deemed safe), but for the next step, more involvement from the TD? I don’t have an answer but I don’t think this is the answer.

I think you would be the exception rather than the rule and they want to err in the side of safety.

[Blugal]

@JER

The SJ 5 rails is just more window-dressing.

It will not solve the problem of inappropriate or dangerous course design.

It will not solve the problem of official insularity (I described that upthread). Here’s an example: the most recent fatality was not pulled of the course at Rebecca or yellow-carded for dangerous riding, even after going into the canola field. That is a HUGE failure on the part of the officials and should be thoroughly investigated and those at fault should be held accountable.

It will not solve the problem of getting crushed by your horse in a fall.

You can make loads of rules and point to them and scream safety but that doesn’t make the sport any safer in terms of its real dangers.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, with respect to Katherine Morel not getting sanctioned for the canola field incident. I think she should have been carded and spoken to. BUT I’m not convinced that in itself would have prevented her fatal crash. What I could glean (and this is 2nd hand, so could be completely wrong) is that she “just met the fence wrong” at the fatal crash. Does this mean she was too fast, out of balance, bad line, combination of those? Could be. Would giving her a yellow card at Rebecca Farm have changed her riding down the road, or would she have thought “ugh, stupid technicality, next time my horse gets a little rambunctious, just don’t go in the canola field”? And then have gone around to anyone who would listen, “My amazing horse went clear XC at Rebecca Farm, they penalized me for doing a circle, can you believe that?”

I don’t know her so of course I am only putting forward fictional examples based on what I have seen/heard other scary riders do in the past. They don’t seem to know they are scary. Their coach (if they have one) won’t acknowledge or also doesn’t know they are scary.

And even if all the above happened (which re-reading it sounds very harsh on Katherine), should she and her horse have died when she met the table wrong? Was the table a contributor to the fall, by its design or placement on the course?

Lots of this “feel good knee-jerk” rule-making is based on each person’s personal feeling that THEY would never do these things, so the rule is great because if affects other people. But that is like all of us feeling that we are better-than-average drivers, which is impossible. And, if the road is designed poorly, if other drivers crash into us, the weather is bad, etc. these are still things that affect us.

I agree with JER above that course design, fence design, official oversight, coaching… are all pieces of the puzzle.

Maybe 5 rails in SJ is statistically related to an increase in horse falls. If that’s true, then I am ok with it - it would have meant at least twice in the past it would have affected me - and we were not unsafe XC - but I would have learned a lesson from that and would have figured it out. And maybe in the end, been safer - on other horses due to increasing my skill in SJ.