Exactly. I feel for Jung but think that is the price you pay to walk away…
7 Likes
Exactly. I can’t believe how upset many followers of the sport are over this.
9 Likes
I mean, of course we are upset, what’s wrong with being upset? It’s not like those bothered by this are throwing a fit or taking away anything from those who won. Nothing to do with that. It’s a discussion about our sport…which is in the spotlight right now. But we should just didn’t pretend it happen and look away?
I’m sure if it was a Brit or a US rider sitting in gold it happened to the conversation here would be different.
Of course frangibles are great because they prevent falls when they work, but I still have to ask the question why they continue to use fences they know have a much higher rate of falls like open corners, and instead of not using those they throw pins on them. That is NOT a solution. That is a bandaid and has now caused a ripple effect.
I’m surprised so many people don’t think losing Gold medal position over something that shouldn’t have happened isn’t a big deal. But maybe that’s because of who it happened to.
This isn’t a discussion to reverse the final placings, it’s a discussion to see what went wrong and how to prevent it again in future.
7 Likes
But he wouldn’t have fallen, he was literally away and onto the next when the rail fell.
2 Likes
I look at it like this: it is not about the individual, but the whole. That inconvenient penalty made the difference for someone, somewhere. Jung paid the price for it but it’s not a price I’m unwilling to pay.
I agree with others I would prefer to see a different type of penalty for it - maybe time versus 11 - which I feel is stiff - but the technology is still relatively fresh in the field, and expensive.
That it deployed a few seconds after a light impact (assumed) is not an indication to me it failed to do its job, but rather maybe a delayed release/mechanism in place. If he rubbed the fence and it released a few strides away, well, don’t rub the fence.
We don’t know if he went clear or not - photos only show a little snapshot, we all have had photos snapped where in one moment we’re clear and the next the horse raps it with a hind end, or something to that effect. So for that I’ll reserve judgment.
I agree with you it’s time to shift the conversation to why on earth we continue to use open corners and expect frangible technology to save horse and rider pairs over clearly unsafe fences.
16 Likes
but…don’t we want event horses to be able to hit the fences…or at least…be able to tap their way over them? Lucinda Green said this more than once, the ones who are up and way clear over them aren’t the ideal type. This is XC, not showjumping. For a reason, the fences don’t come down.
This isn’t just about MJ there were other riders who received the same bum luck, just he was the most notable position wise.
Surely though, I am much more bothered by the continuous use of a fence that needs pins instead of changing it up.
The course was basically ALL skinnies and corners. We need some new challenges. I liked the related line on the top of the big hill. Challenging but not super dangerous.
5 Likes
If you’re asking me – someone far removed from an eventing expert – I’d say the famous answer, “It depends on the fence type”…
A solid obstacle that a clever horse can bank like a wide table? Sure, in certain situations. But an airy, open hanging log or open table? No. I don’t think a horse should be rubbing or hitting those fences. There’s too much risk of rotational falls or serious injury.
I may be in the minority and maybe I don’t understand because I have never ridden at that level, but absent brushes and the occasional banking, I really don’t hold the personal opinion that a horse should touch a fence. To me that means the fences have gotten too big or too trying, if a reasonably athletic and sound horse can’t make it by without scraping them.
15 Likes
Most of the 5* and championship horses are hitting some of the fences, obviously not all, but one or two here or there.
2 Likes
Frangibles fences were invented as a safety feature.
It was subsequently decided, by the powers that be, to penalize an activated safety feature, a.k.a. a broken frangible. This is to stop riders taking stupid risks because they know the fence will fall and therefore they can take stupid risks.
As it is currently impossible to adequately detect the cumulative effect of repeated taps and knocks on the frangible device then someone, inevitably, will be penalised for an activated safety feature that was possibly, even probably, not totally their fault. It is fundamentally unfair.
To get round this problem, stop penalizing the activation of a safety device.
A non-frangible fence on a course can be totally demolished but, so long as the pair remain on their feet and pass between the flags, they are not penalised for this destruction.
8 Likes
I felt awful for that horse. It clearly was struggling. I was wondering how it made out after its run.
1 Like
While I didn’t mind that the rules allowed more riding and thus more experience, I minded very greatly that horses that didn’t run XC were in the SJ. Even if the scoring keeps them out of the medals. What is it supposed to prove?
I did not like the 3-rider team with no drop score. Much prefer 4 riders with a drop score. I think riders AND team managers make better decisions for the horses that way. There is so much at stake to gain more support for the sport after the Olympics, prepping for the next Olympics, it is just natural that people will push the limits of the 3-rider no-drop-score scenario.
However I did like it that E’s & R’s without a horse fall were allowed to show jump. It didn’t affect the standings, and it made the most of their trip. They were able to get more seasoning at this elite level of sport.
Absolutely. It’s the whole point of the sport.
Even back to the military roots. This is the horse & rider you sent out on the day. Now they must make the most of it. Handling the messy parts is what eventing is. Cleaning it up with a substitution is what eventing is not.
6 Likes
I agree. But as I understand it, it would require a change to a hard-and-fast blanket Olympic rule that the same score can’t be used for both team and individual results. It means that all sports that have team & individual medals have to contest twice, once for team scores, once for individual scores.
If you think about it, this rule creates more contests, more to watch and promote. The entire Olympics becomes double the show that it might have been if they used just one set of scores for team & individual. As it is, most sports have to do everything twice, once for team scores and once for individual scores. I don’t know how common that is when the same sports are at a non-Olympic meet.
So, a big hurdle to making the change. But I agree that there should be an exception for the horses. I don’t think it’s fair to the horses to make them jump again.
It cost him a gold medal, and dropped Germany out of the medals, too. Germany finished in team 4th by just 2 points. In addition to loosing Olympic medals, that can affect their support between the games. This is not a matter of loosing one weekend’s ribbons.
In that one case, it wasn’t a case of “get MIM penalties or else horse and/or rider die”. Just for that one particular jump by Jung & Chipmunk, nothing would have gone wrong for horse or rider had the MIM not given way. The MIM was an entirely unnecessary complication - just that one unlucky time.
The MIM probably did save at least one other horse fall, though. So glad to have it on the course. But not glad for the unnecessary penalties.
Right. This is what needs to be solved re a knockdown that could have caused a fall without the MIM, and a knockdown due to a harmless tap. But, don’t know what the answer should be.
But would rather live with the MIM than live without it, regardless.
3 Likes
Look at the team results:
Can you tell me how 114.20 minus 11 would earn them a team medal?
I feel for him losing gold. I really do. But this is not the first time an athlete has had an unlucky break that cost them a medal.
8 Likes
The following was said by an FEI Tribunal member who was in Tokyo:
“This was reviewed several times by the ground jury after the Germans protested. There are cameras right at the jumps that the general public don’t have access to. The ground jury upheld its field of play decision. The Germans dropped their protest after reviewing the video. The FEI Tribunal was on standby late that night to deal with any potential appeal by the Germans even though the Tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction over field of play decisions. Many hours were spent dealing with this issue.”
So it looks like the Germans got their chance to protest - and once they saw the video, they dropped it.
18 Likes
They (Germany) said there was no point in arguing with the FEI because the rule is if the fence is lowered or what not…the penalty stands. They know the FEI is a stalwart for wordings on rules, no matter how much they didn’t anticipate this as an outcome (not sure why they wouldn’t have something planned for this honestly)
1 Like
On another note - as exciting as it is to have another name to add to the incredibly short list of horses and riders who have ever FOD’d at the Olympics (MJ and Sam, MJ and Sam, and Andrew and Vassily - and I’ve heard conflicting reports that Andrew may actually have done it at Seoul as well?) - the teams that managed to add nothing across all three riders in a given phase are hugely impressive to me. GB on cross country, Germany in show jumping. Australia and France were both close in each phase. The jumping is still very much the critical piece, and the cream rises to the top.
Things shook out more or less as they should have this time around, IMO. As I said above, I’m surprised how much I like three-to-a-team. None of this betting on superstar dressage horses, hoping they get around xc, and knowing you can drop them if they make a mistake. You must all be excellent to take home Olympic hardware.
7 Likes
I think we can all live with the all-or-nothing rule of 11 penalties because the MIM clips are there for a reason. Frustrating for Jung, but it is a would-have that is subjective, and the way the rule is currently written, that’s the way it is.
The problem with suppressing footage is that if, in the future, we want to make the most informed decisions regarding whether or not to change the rule or even study the technology as a whole, we need the best information–and that means reviewing the footage of ALL the riders at that fence–who knocked it down and with what type and angle of hit. We all know it saved Romeike and didn’t need to fall for Jung or likely Watson, but that isn’t really useful information for the future of the sport. Did riders hit it without triggering the MIM? Did anyone else barely tap it, and on which side/at which angle, to cause it to fall?
Again, it isn’t about Jung (or Watson et al) per se. The results are well within the rules as written, and in general I think we all, Jung included, would rather err on the side of safety; but we should be making informed decisions, and I hope the FEI will petition the IOC for the footage of that fence–and indeed all of the footage–for the opportunity to improve the safety of course design. That is my big concern–that we make informed decisions.
That said, I would also add that catastrophic ligament failure is something about which there is little information in terms of causes, prevention, and the relationship to things like course design, equipment such as boots or studs, temperature, preexisting conditions, etc. While we all know this type of injury can happen in a pasture or in a hunter derby, we also know that high speed sports like racing SEEM to have a higher percentage of such injuries. So we need data. And here again I would hope that the IOC will release the footage that likely exists at least to the FEI, if not to the public.
I get the broadcast rights element, but it isn’t about that per se. And releasing it to the FEI with a contract to prevent public release or something would be an option. I just favour information over working in the dark or on hearsay.
14 Likes
Stay.
If that is the case they should allow riders to compete exclusively in one or the other event.
