NO such thing as "freak" or "fluke" accidents

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

@redalter;8666908

And for many of the pros/semi- pros, up and coming riders, etc., no, MANY of them, at least the ones I know, though they hate the direction the course design has taken, will not speak up for concern for their business, or to be perceived as the only one.

I IN NO WAY am blaming the pros, quite the contrary, they are trying to make a living and do not want to be the only voice on this battlefield.

I really wonder about this.

Disclaimer: I do not know anyone personally who has ridden or is currently riding at the upper levels.

But as a fan of eventing “wanna be a Grasshopper someday”, it seems like many of the pros whose names are well known in the eventing community are pretty tight with each other. They have their PRO rider organization and their informal networks - surely they are talking about the current tragic events, and surely if one big name wanted to go public with concerns, they wouldn’t have to be the only voice. I get that their businesses would be impacted and some sponsors might not be on board, and that is a risk - but these folks are risk takers by nature. I tend to agree with the idea that eventing at the upper levels is an “adrenaline” driven sport - so is it really more a matter of they like things the way they are, and they don’t want change because the highs won’t be as high?

I’d be interested in hearing any perspective that would help me understand better.

[RAyers]

I want it known I am not posting to bash the USEA (maybe the USEF and FEI a little though). The USEA still has to operate under the auspices of the USEF and as such, becomes hamstrung by those bodies. I actually am fine with how the USEA is working to approach safety given the overall culture of the sport.

More did come out of the speed study, e.g. Fences per 150 meters guidelines for CDs etc. but there are more things to be done beyond what we did, beyond my understanding.

There are some great thoughts and comments on this thread. I’m learning a lot from everyone. Now to have a think about how to get something implemented.

Reed

[Janet]

[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;8667138]
I think it says a lot that the USEA can’t afford to fund a continuation of the safety study but has money to pay for riders to go overseas to compete. That says everything about the USEA’s priorities.[/QUOTE]

It says more about the priorities of the people who donate to USEA. If someone donates money SPECIFICALLY to pay for riders to compete overseas, the USEA HAS to use it for that. They can NOT legally use that money for any other purpose.

Also. some of the overseas rider funding comes from USEF, or USET, not USEA.

[goodmorning]

Janet, do you happen to have or know where one can find the appropriation of membership dues?

[Janet]

The financials and the budget are presented at the Annual meeting. I expect you can get a copy from the USEA office.

As far as I know, the dues pretty much cover the cost of the newsletter, and part of the cost of maintaining the office.

[LookmaNohands]

[QUOTE=fordtraktor;8666371]
I don’t think I am at a point yet where I can believe we have taken away the horse’s initiative by not helping them get a distance. That makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]

This is not what I meant. I mean that all this training we have to do to get to the extremely technical combinations with the narrow fences, combined with the bending lines, the water, the banks, the steep terrain and the yawning ditches, causes our horses to listen, listen, listen and then listen when we get it wrong.

Things did’t used to be so technical!! They were big and scary but not this technical.

I just wonder if that is part of the problem.

I haven’t evented for a couple of years. I train problem horses. I train them to listen and not be distracted. I know how to get their attention and keep it as some of them start thinking naughty thoughts when left to their own devices. So I am not currently training any of them to think for themselves much. However, last year I bought a nice horse partly because he is a lovely type but mostly because the video of him jumping at an event showed initiative on his part to get around the course while his rider was not doing much to help him. He is a rehab though and I have not been able to jump him since I bought him. I only hope he hasn’t forgotten how to take care of his rider because I will most certainly be jumping him this summer!

[Gnep]

[QUOTE=RAyers;8667152]
I want it known I am not posting to bash the USEA (maybe the USEF and FEI a little though). The USEA still has to operate under the auspices of the USEF and as such, becomes hamstrung by those bodies. I actually am fine with how the USEA is working to approach safety given the overall culture of the sport.

More did come out of the speed study, e.g. Fences per 150 meters guidelines for CDs etc. but there are more things to be done beyond what we did, beyond my understanding.

There are some great thoughts and comments on this thread. I’m learning a lot from everyone. Now to have a think about how to get something implemented.

Reed[/QUOTE]
The USEA is completely hamstrung, they try, but are basicly powerless. If the USEF is not game, nothing will happen.
Just remember how the one crash rule and you are out, was handeled. As OC finally explained it to me, you crash it aint your day with that horse, just jump on the next horse.
How pissed of every body was, because you could not continue.
As long as the FEI and its national chapters like the USEF, are not developing a serious culture of safety, nothing will happen. It will be just slow and little steps, a little bit here and a little bit there. Neither is there any real effort by the top riders, lots of talk, probably. But the culture of a freak accident, a horse droped a leg, or a rider made a mistake, move on nothing to see here, all clear, is so deeply ingrained.
I wonder if they are afraid to open their eyes and actually are able to confront the realities, like a Stewart or a Lauda, well Lauda is a special case, but never the less, they stood up and called BS BS, not concerned what every body thought about them. They understood that their way of making a living and what they really liked to do, if they kept on going to funerals, or had to make hospital visits.

As I wrote in a nother thread, eventing is 50 or 60 or lets call it 100 times safer, than the stuff I rode during my youth, but it has still the same mentality, move on nothing to see.
All the other high risk sport have discarded that mentality. After Senna and Ratzenberg got killed in Imola, same weekend, the sport was turned on its head, unacceptable to have fatalities, even serious injuries, unacceptable.
Earnhard got killed and NASCAR turned its safety system upside down, fatality or serious injuries unacceptable.

I have no idea what it takes to bring that culture into eventing, maybe, but I do not want to finish that thought, Senna, Earnhard, yaiks…

[wildlifer]

Just another scientist (with too many research projects now taken away my COTH time, alas) thanking Reed et al. for excellent work & communication of findings/continuation of dialogue.

I’m a field biologist, raised by an engineer. Our work is also intensely risky, filled with not only obvious safety protocols required when we deliberately combine electricity & water, but a maze of health hazards from shuffling hands through glass/fish-hook-laden substrates to snorkeling in wastewater laced with endocrine disruptors & emerging contaminants we barely understand to angry people with firearms in the woods well beyond the reach of phones. And that’s not even breaking the surface.

While we can’t control everything out there, unconsidered risks are something we deem unacceptable. You can easily die of hypothermia when it’s sunny when you’re working underwater for 8 hours. Which is why we file float plans, put all of our equipment through rigorous testing & design cycles, why we have “No-Go” rules & locations where no matter what, nobody gets in the water because the criteria of safe field conditions have not been met.

And if something does happen, it gets analyzed, photographed, torn apart, reported & efforts will only continue after we’ve adapted to the information learned.

I’ve considered myself lucky enough through my volunteering & helping run events that have allowed me to work closely with & listen to & watch some world-class course designers & builders who do take safety seriously & continue to learn & adapt themselves. It’s been a fascinating education applying my own knowledge base of biology, physics, & biomechanics to the watching process & seeing how they interact (sorry that’s not very well worded, long work day).

It can also be frustrating to read about things that don’t “have” to happen. As I risk wandering into forgetting if I had a point, I’ll just say that I’m also a scientist who has to regularly do complex statistical analyses &, having more work than I can ever possibly handle, very much understand that frustration of those who’ve taken the time & labour to offer aid that’s been ignored, because it’s not something you can just slap together. We have so little extra to spare, but every conversation is important, if it can create space & energy for the critical changes that are needed, as is the endlessly-astonishing array of varied expertise we have in our sport. Science is amazing & powerful, but is crippled without communication, cooperation, & creativity.

[ksbadger]

The Federal Aviation Authority uses the “Swiss Cheese” analogy to explain aircraft accidents. In most cases there are multiple layers (think cheese slices) that all have to line up just so for a possibility to get all the way through the stack and an accident occur. Change one small aspect and you might get a near miss or even a flight so near normal as to be unremarked.
Per the FEI’s statistics, the possibility of a fatality is around 1 in 17,000, so we are dealing with very low numbers where even small differences can have a large effect on the outcomes. Most of the comments have been on the courses and the individual fences but it is painfully apparent that this sort of accident can occur at any jump at any level. In which case providing a way of decreasing the effect of the impact on the rider from the horse would seem to be the way to go. I know Reed is a specialist in materials so may be able to suggest something wearable that provides extra crush resistance similar to the old Exo Vest that is easier to fit to differing shapes - 3D printed carbon fiber?

[vineyridge]

I have a question. Has anyone ever tested jumps and colors and color placings and ground lines on free jumping horses to determine which things they can process best and the time it takes them to figure different combinations out?

seems to be that could be a fruitful and relatively inexpensive method of studies.

[Christa_P]

I really have to wonder if some of the problem is that people really want these to accidents that they have no control over. I am a big fan of Rush and like reading the posts their drummer, Neil Peart, writes about his travels, mostly on motorcycles and a recent post with a particular quote had me thinking about this issue with regards to horses in general and eventing specifically.

He went down when he hit a gravel path on a rural road and had this to say about the after effects:

http://www.neilpeart.net/index.php?cID=286

"The following day we had to ride over 200 miles, much of it in the rain, to the arena in Pittsburgh. I was on the spare bike, of course, and was glad to feel I hadn’t been made fearful by the accident. Down deep I believed there was nothing I had done “wrong,” and that has always made all the difference to me. A Primary Principle in my definition of Roadcraft, “Whatever happens, it must never be my fault.” "

Personally, I get more comfort knowing there was something I could do differently in the future, even if it wasn’t “my fault” directly, even if it is something as simple as being a little more aware of my surroundings. If it was truly out of my control it makes me more nervous when I’m in a similar situation.

[Jealoushe]

I don’t even think the issue is the fences… what about endurance? Why is xc an accuracy test now and not an endurance test. We could easily change and make the fences easier and the endurance portion harder, but that doesn’t interest the PTB does it. Then Tbs would be needed and not all the big fancy imported horses.

I feel like throwing money at making fences fall apart is putting a bandaid on a bigger issue.

[redalter]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8668118]
I don’t even think the issue is the fences… what about endurance? Why is xc an accuracy test now and not an endurance test. We could easily change and make the fences easier and the endurance portion harder, but that doesn’t interest the PTB does it. Then Tbs would be needed and not all the big fancy imported horses.

I feel like throwing money at making fences fall apart is putting a bandaid on a bigger issue.[/QUOTE]

Yes! At the end of the day, the fact is that XC is now a question of accuracy akin to a show jumping round, but with solid fences, over a long distance.

Imagine having to do show jumping for a mile or two, or three.
That is what xc has become, but the fences are SOLID. No matter how much we have safety studies, and new vests, and frangible pins, there is still this.

I am not saying the “good old days” were better with things like large concrete pipes, but shouldn’t the sport evolve to get better?

It seems we’ve replaced the old fashioned unsafe jumps and the need for endurance with this theme park, complicated show jumping course.
And, yes, there will be people who like it, and lots of horses who jump around fine, but there will still be tragedies.

So what is the long game, make the sport safer? Have we? Statistically, maybe, because there are more people out there competing.

But what is the benefit, truly, to making an xc course with 5 or more combinations, and accuracy questions, and related distances, an unrelenting technicality?

Is there a reason for making the courses this way?

Watch some Grand Prix jump competitions. They aren’t now asking the horses to jump entire GP courses that are 6 feet. They aren’t now asking horses to jump 30 fences in a tighter space, just to make it harder.

Why has xc devolved to this weird, technical nonsense?

It’s not like there were 6 way ties at the upper levels that the CD’s needed to make the courses full of skinnies, and techincal questions to weed that out.

I know I’ve never ridden above P, but I’ve groomed for a long format 3*, walked lots of courses, studied and been obsessed with the sport since early 70’s.

What we have now is different than it was, but not better.
And the culture, not just the pros, or FEI, or whoever, is what continues to allow it and dare I say, drive it.

No one, or at least not enough people want to stand up and say enough! Lest they be perceived at rocking the boat, or not being brave enough.

I think one of the very foundations of the mindset of our sport “kick on”, is working against us, to a degree.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8668118]
I don’t even think the issue is the fences… what about endurance? Why is xc an accuracy test now and not an endurance test. We could easily change and make the fences easier and the endurance portion harder, but that doesn’t interest the PTB does it. Then Tbs would be needed and not all the big fancy imported horses.

I feel like throwing money at making fences fall apart is putting a bandaid on a bigger issue.[/QUOTE]
A side anecdote in that regard. I just finished competing at Windridge (Area III US) at Novice. In looking at the stadium map, reading the changes in the course as the levels dropped I noticed this line ‘Fence 9 will not be a skinny for N, BN, Str’.

Hmmm, I thought, looking at the fence. That is a skinny? To my eye it was all of 8 ft across. The next morning as I was walking the stadium course an official remarked to me, after mentioning I was Novice, again that 9 would be changed and I said back chuckling , ‘Funny, I jump that length at home all the time, but okay, make it easy for me’.

It would not be hard, at all, to push the technical more on to stadium and design xc as more about endurance. Extend the length, even by a few more hundred meters. tighten the OT, but allow for a steadier pace throughout so horses are not mentally and physically worn down by the end. Make them think in the 84-90 secs of stadium where a mistake will be a rail, not a life. Instead of removing the “skinny” at novice, keep it in and make it smaller as the levels go up.

Windridge CD makes such a xc course. 1951 meters at Novice. 350 mpm (I’d have liked 375 or 380) Long canters to tough yet honest questions. They kill ya in stadium with grass in a bowl that requires you to ride your best or you will drop rails (I did).

Denny made a very good point on Facebook about the Macho mentality and how it seems to permeate this sport. Until we dilute that type of swagger we cannot effect change.

Right now, today, simple changes could be made from LL up to the Top which shift the emphasis of cross country to endurance and pace management, the emphasis of stadium to accuracy and balance without negatively impacting the sport. We could remove suspect fences that are meant to trick a horse, not test and still see cross country as challenging, exhilarating, formidable while reducing the risk of catastrophe.

What we need are more Windridges (LL) and Rolex’s (UL) that seem to balance the welfare of the horse/rider while still challenging their skills.

[vineyridge]

Of course my answer to the question of why courses have become so insanely technical is “the dressage coefficient.” The dressage coefficient was instituted in long format when the scoring changed in order to increase the importance of dressage–to keep the phases in line with the principle that each phase should have a certain weight overall. (That principle is now gone from the rules). Endurance day (three phases) was supposed to be worth the most, then dressage, and show jumping was supposed to be the least important overall.

Then came short format. The scoring didn’t change to take into account the elimination of steeplechase and roads and tracks. The dressage coefficient meant that the overall weight of dressage to the whole competition increased. And people started noticing that dressage had become THE MOST IMPORTANT phase. People started complaining that they didn’t want eventing to become a dressage competition. So the course designers reacted by making XC more difficult by making it more technical so it would make eventing results NOT a dressage competition–so XC might be the most important phase again.

[kcmel]

@JP60;8668179

.
It would not be hard, at all, to push the technical more on to stadium and design xc as more about endurance. Extend the length, even by a few more hundred meters. tighten the OT, but allow for a steadier pace throughout so horses are not mentally and physically worn down by the end.

You might end up with people pushing their horses more to make time. I don’t think galloping an exhausted horse over solid obstacles is going to make our sport any safer.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=kcmel;8668437]
You might end up with people pushing their horses more to make time. I don’t think galloping an exhausted horse over solid obstacles is going to make our sport any safer.[/QUOTE]
Don’t they do that now anyway, but over course with many more technical fences?

The name of the game is endurance and from what we’ve been seeing, at least on the US side, is that more and more horses are looking tired half/two thirds the way through a course. At the extremes, compare MJ’s horse at Rolex to ML’s horse, just on stamina alone and ask, were they even close on fitness.

The one thing R&T did was require a fitness program that ensured there was a horse left after three phases. That must have taken a lot of time and effort to get there. I know for even in my small way, training for a BN Long format was much greater than a normal season.

I asked some experienced Riders, one being my trainer if all this go fast, go slow, jump jump jump go fast go slow jump jump jump wears a horse out more than a steadier pace with more out of stride fences and a few technical questions to test accuracy, balance on bending lines, etc. The general feeling was yes, it is less wear and tear.

What we have now does not work. It is as simple as that. We train to just enough, not more than enough. We wear horses out quicker with these technical courses that still have the same paces as the more open runs of the past.

The whole point of the phases A-D was endurance and in dropping A-C, we seemed to have dropped the purpose from the phase. To your point, if a Rider is on a horse that cannot make it round a more open, gallopy, slightly longer course then first off, just as now, the Rider should pull up and retire, go back and modify his/her fitness program. However, By emphasising that cross country is about endurance, then maybe those riders will have already done the homework and had a horse ready and able to go the distance.

The sport is not safer now! We have tired worn out horses now. We have courses that don’t really test endurance, but just grind horses mentally and physically down now. What would I want as an Eventer? the course that asks the question, can you run across the countryside, jump fair, but challenging obstacles and do so on time and still have a horse at the back end of the finish line, ready to show jump the next day.

[BaroquePony]

Glad to see someone else brought up Denny’s recent post about the “macho” attitude that has crept into the sport.

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=JP60;8668473]

The sport is not safer now! We have tired worn out horses now. We have courses that don’t really test endurance, but just grind horses mentally and physically down now. What would I want as an Eventer? the course that asks the question, can you run across the countryside, jump fair, but challenging obstacles and do so on time and still have a horse at the back end of the finish line, ready to show jump the next day.[/QUOTE]

You must not have spent much time at the finish line of the big 4* back in the day. Or watching the catastrophic falls.

Numbers do not lie.

And in my experience, neither do vets.

[Gnep]

[QUOTE=JP60;8668473]
Don’t they do that now anyway, but over course with many more technical fences?

The name of the game is endurance and from what we’ve been seeing, at least on the US side, is that more and more horses are looking tired half/two thirds the way through a course. At the extremes, compare MJ’s horse at Rolex to ML’s horse, just on stamina alone and ask, were they even close on fitness.

The one thing R&T did was require a fitness program that ensured there was a horse left after three phases. That must have taken a lot of time and effort to get there. I know for even in my small way, training for a BN Long format was much greater than a normal season.

I asked some experienced Riders, one being my trainer if all this go fast, go slow, jump jump jump go fast go slow jump jump jump wears a horse out more than a steadier pace with more out of stride fences and a few technical questions to test accuracy, balance on bending lines, etc. The general feeling was yes, it is less wear and tear.

What we have now does not work. It is as simple as that. We train to just enough, not more than enough. We wear horses out quicker with these technical courses that still have the same paces as the more open runs of the past.

The whole point of the phases A-D was endurance and in dropping A-C, we seemed to have dropped the purpose from the phase. To your point, if a Rider is on a horse that cannot make it round a more open, gallopy, slightly longer course then first off, just as now, the Rider should pull up and retire, go back and modify his/her fitness program. However, By emphasising that cross country is about endurance, then maybe those riders will have already done the homework and had a horse ready and able to go the distance.

The sport is not safer now! We have tired worn out horses now. We have courses that don’t really test endurance, but just grind horses mentally and physically down now. What would I want as an Eventer? the course that asks the question, can you run across the countryside, jump fair, but challenging obstacles and do so on time and still have a horse at the back end of the finish line, ready to show jump the next day.[/QUOTE]

A BN Long Format ?

Ahhhhhhhhm.