WTF Are We Doing?

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Beam Me Up;8167726]
This data does have type of fence and level, though it doesn’t split out rotational (it does have “serious” vs “non-serious” injury).
http://useventing.com/sites/default/files/cross_country_safety_stats.pdf

From the data I’ve seen, I don’t get the sense that accidents are increasing. Just that our view of acceptable risk is changing. As people noted upthread, rides that were at the time considered heroic (in the era of catch that horse and remount) would be considered poor horsemanship today. The idea that a fall necessarily means a preparation deficiency is fairly new.

Because we are talking about the sport today, our goal should be for it to meet our safety/risk tolerance today, not 1912 or 1944 or 1993 standards.[/QUOTE]

I do think serious injury and death has increased though…at least from the 80s/90s.

[omare]

Sorry–FWIW I also found this about the speed on course (an isolated fact from someone who actually did collect data.
“I the speed spectra (profiles) we can tell EVERY fence jumped by the dip on speed. we have yet in over 150 rides to see any place where a fence was jumped “on the fly.” We also compare the spectra to the course layouts. Again using Bruce Davidson or William Fox-Pitt, they NEVER took one fence faster than 400mpm at Rolex this year. They did plenty SLOWER, but none faster.”

Of course this also goes to the point that there is a lot of slowing and speeding up going on.

(Again sorry for the grumpies…not sure why I am at all invested in this except the few horses I have raised seem to want to be eventers!)

[Jealoushe]

Really? Nothing over 400 mpm? That seems strange. I just watched helmet cams from New Zealand that showed the mpm and many jumped out of stride at 540 mpm. Find that hard to believe no one did at Rolex.

https://www.facebook.com/EquestrianLiveNZ/videos/963103953710142/?fref=nf

[omare]

well maybe its the course? it is from one of the folks on this board who actually collected data and has a related degree to process it. I forgot to observe what year it was from.

[quietann]

I am also a professional data weenie and would LOVE to see more and better data on “incidents” in all levels of eventing. When I see competition results with a lot of Mandatory Retirements (and voluntary ones), Horse Falls, Rider Falls, Elimination etc. there is nothing else reported. Sometimes if you go back fence by fence, you will see refusals and run-outs, but at the very least, if a horse can no longer participate in a competition because of an issue on X/C, I’d like to know the following:

– the level of the course
– the rated speed and if possible the estimated speed
– the type of fence and its dimensions – with photos showing the terrain, footing etc.
– any evidence that the horse and/or rider were having trouble earlier on the course … refusals, run-outs, what else?
– something about the horse’s prior competition schedule (e.g. has the horse run in the past month and how did it do?) and the rider’s, especially whether the rider is competing on more than one horse, and if so, which horse of the day (first, second, third etc.) had the incident
– narrative and eyewitness data (jump judge, steward, TD, maybe even spectators).

What else?

[Jealoushe]

The video I posted above it 2 star…are you sure that is correct?

[Beam_Me_Up]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8167776]
I do think serious injury and death has increased though…at least from the 80s/90s.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think that?
I’m seriously curious, I’ve never seen data that far back (would love to if it’s out there).
My guess would have been the reverse, but that is just based on personal experience, not having seen data.

[kdow]

[QUOTE=quietann;8167803]
I am also a professional data weenie and would LOVE to see more and better data on “incidents” in all levels of eventing. When I see competition results with a lot of Mandatory Retirements (and voluntary ones), Horse Falls, Rider Falls, Elimination etc. there is nothing else reported. Sometimes if you go back fence by fence, you will see refusals and run-outs, but at the very least, if a horse can no longer participate in a competition because of an issue on X/C, I’d like to know the following:

– the level of the course
– the rated speed and if possible the estimated speed
– the type of fence and its dimensions – with photos showing the terrain, footing etc.
– any evidence that the horse and/or rider were having trouble earlier on the course … refusals, run-outs, what else?
– something about the horse’s prior competition schedule (e.g. has the horse run in the past month and how did it do?) and the rider’s, especially whether the rider is competing on more than one horse, and if so, which horse of the day (first, second, third etc.) had the incident
– narrative and eyewitness data (jump judge, steward, TD, maybe even spectators).

What else?[/QUOTE]

Injury history for both if known?

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8167776]
I do think serious injury and death has increased though…at least from the 80s/90s.[/QUOTE]

On what basis do you think this?

So there are data there but it is not as extensive as the data we wish were there. But no where is there evidence noted that substantiates claims that there are more serious injuries now compared to back when we had the LF and did not use frangible pins.

I truly believe that there has been an increase in concern about and criticism of eventing that has given rise to a belief that there are more serious accidents, percentage wise (not absolute numbers, of course), over the past five years in comparison to previously.

[fooler]

RE - XC fences that fall down or are deformable.

Horses are clever creatures. They learn to read brush fences and jump the solid height and go through the 4"+ of brush above. They know to jump into water on XC and over water in SJ. They learn the fences in SJ fall down while the fences on XC stay up.

Then we build “some”, not all, XC fences with pins or use deformable logs.

IMO - We are lying to our horses. What happens when the horse triggers a pin or “slides” over a deformable log.
The horse’s experience is the log will fall out of the way if I hit it or the log will deform possibly making it easier to get to the other side.
Now we have a horse who expects the fences to “fall or deform” on every XC course. But not every fence is pinned and not all logs are deformable.

Never, ever a good thing to lie to your horse.

[SinMiedo]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8166981]
I like that idea quite a bit. You could penalize each way for time over/under a certain amount. Limit the combinations for sure, especially those that are the same over and over. Add some BIG hills…woods, something to make the terrain more challenging. Hell even a natural creek thats not too wide to jump would be super.[/QUOTE]

Y’know, I’ve been having these crazy dreams about turning my folks’ pasture land into an XC course… It’s in the Ozarks in the middle of East Jesus Nowhere, MO, and the hills are insane enough to be formidable even sans fences.
(Their horses stay relatively fit just by being turned out-- grazing takes work! lol)

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=fooler;8167944]
RE - XC fences that fall down or are deformable.

Horses are clever creatures. They learn to read brush fences and jump the solid height and go through the 4"+ of brush above. They know to jump into water on XC and over water in SJ. They learn the fences in SJ fall down while the fences on XC stay up.

Then we build “some”, not all, XC fences with pins or use deformable logs.

IMO - We are lying to our horses. What happens when the horse triggers a pin or “slides” over a deformable log.
The horse’s experience is the log will fall out of the way if I hit it or the log will deform possibly making it easier to get to the other side.
Now we have a horse who expects the fences to “fall or deform” on every XC course. But not every fence is pinned and not all logs are deformable.

Never, ever a good thing to lie to your horse.[/QUOTE]

Not so sure about this. How often has any given horse triggered a frangible pin? I have yet to have a fall that did this. So I truly do not think that any horse is going to “learn” that a xc fence will move and if they do have the rare experience of triggering a frangible pin, it will not be a simple strike to the jump, it will likely be falling, and horses will not learn that falling is just fine just because the fence gives out underneath the impact.

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Winding Down;8167831]
On what basis do you think this?

So there are data there but it is not as extensive as the data we wish were there. But no where is there evidence noted that substantiates claims that there are more serious injuries now compared to back when we had the LF and did not use frangible pins.

I truly believe that there has been an increase in concern about and criticism of eventing that has given rise to a belief that there are more serious accidents, percentage wise (not absolute numbers, of course), over the past five years in comparison to previously.[/QUOTE]

It’s just from personal observation. I have followed eventing religiously since I was a kid. Read every magazine, book, autobio (which give a lot of insight to personal lives) and watched every VHS from back in the day from all the UL events in the UK…you would be surprised what you can learn just from the commentary about riders. Obviously this is not fact and just my opinion, but the same could be said for those who think there is just more awareness now. There is no proof this is true, and it just seems like another way to brush things aside.

There is no denying a lot has changed in eventing - do we think it is without consequence?

[shea_smom]

When did deformable get to be a word?

[vineyridge]

Well, we used to teach horses that banking jumps on XC was acceptable; that it didn’t matter where it put its feet as long as it got over the jump. Is a hard hit with the hind feet on the top of a frangible jump still the functional equivalent of banking. If we build collapsible tables, can horses still bank them? Do riders even teach banking jumps any more? Instead of jumping tables, maybe horses should be taught to bank them, although I have no idea how that would be done or even if it could be done.

I admit I don’t fully understand banking and don’t know if the front feet have to come down on the surface in order to bank with the hind feet.

[Manahmanah]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8167776]
I do think serious injury and death has increased though…at least from the 80s/90s.[/QUOTE]

This is the problem with trying to analyze data from memories. We THINK the injuries have increased, we don’t REMEMBER it being this bad.

Is there a greater instance of injury since the 80s/90s? Probably, yes. I bet your memory is serving you correctly.

Does your memory account for the increased popularity of the sport? The statistics linked earlier from Eventing Nation / FEI data safety reports indicate there are nearly twice as many FEI level events as compared to 2004. If there are twice as many events, one can expect to see twice as many serious injuries. If there are 4 or 5 times as many events now as in the 80s, one can expect to see 4 or times as many serious injuries.

This does not mean the sport is getting less safe for rider or horse.

Just looking at a few data points as examples from the 2014 report - in 2004 there were 235 horse falls for a 2.02% rate of injury. Looking at 2014, there were 315. Without looking further at the data (or if you do this from memory or feelings) it would look like a huge increase. However, compared to the number of starters even though there was an increase in the instance of horse falls, the rate has actually decreased from 2.02% to 1.64%.
The rate and instance of rotational falls has decreased significantly over the same time frame.

Everything from the FEI report suggests there is no increase in the rate of injury, contrary to the opinions of a lot of people in this thread. There is an increase in the instance of injuries that is consistent with the increasing popularity of the sport.

Speaking of popularity for a minute, isn’t this what we want? More horse trials, more participants. More spectators. This is not going to happen if we insist on poisoning the well from within. It is really important that you look at real data in an analytical and unemotional way before standing at the podium and decrying how dangerous this sport is becoming. It’s really not. The data supports this.

[fooler]

[QUOTE=Winding Down;8167998]
Not so sure about this. How often has any given horse triggered a frangible pin? I have yet to have a fall that did this. So I truly do not think that any horse is going to “learn” that a xc fence will move and if they do have the rare experience of triggering a frangible pin, it will not be a simple strike to the jump, it will likely be falling, and horses will not learn that falling is just fine just because the fence gives out underneath the impact.[/QUOTE]

Agreed that we really don’t know. However there was a video posted under COTH Eventing thread in late Feb/early March that showed a horse triggering the frangible pinned fence. The horse’s reaction is what caused me to come up with this theory.

[fooler]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8168145]
Well, we used to teach horses that banking jumps on XC was acceptable; that it didn’t matter where it put its feet as long as it got over the jump. Is a hard hit with the hind feet on the top of a frangible jump still the functional equivalent of banking. If we build collapsible tables, can horses still bank them? Do riders even teach banking jumps any more? Instead of jumping tables, maybe horses should be taught to bank them, although I have no idea how that would be done or even if it could be done.

I admit I don’t fully understand banking and don’t know if the front feet have to come down on the surface in order to bank with the hind feet.[/QUOTE]

Same thought has crossed my mind Viney. What will the clever horses who learn to bank fences do when they attempt to bank a fence that is designed to “fall/fail” when specific pressure is applied?
Like you it has been awhile since I saw a horse bank a fence. So can’t remember how most place front and hind feet or if it is front or hind feet.

[Jealoushe]

But the rate of death in rotational fall is 1/5…not the greatest odds.

[fooler]

[QUOTE=shea’smom;8168143]
When did deformable get to be a word?[/QUOTE]

Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of deform and the verb deformable.