WTF Are We Doing?

[RAyers]

[QUOTE=Jazzy Lady;8156341]
I also don’t think that “0” is happening or that there is a culture of indifference. Lots has happened. People started wearing helmets in dressage. Frangible pin technology has evolved. They tried the styrofoam logs for a bit, but those fizzled. There are the wonderful collapsible (I can’t think of the name) technology that was used at rolex in areas that pins weren’t used. People are investing in safety equipment like air vests (even if untested, people are investing in them because they believe they increase safety). Things are evolving, significantly. Just because the world isn’t turned upside down in the span of a weekend doesn’t mean that there’s an attitude of indifference at all.
…[/QUOTE]

I think you describe a great example of a culture of indifference. The only reason safety equipment is being used is because the consumer is doing it. It is not being driven by the entity who actually has ownership and control. It is similar to the 70s when seatbelts were an optional equipment when you bought a car. OR back in the 1920s when foundries simply looked at employees and expendable supplies. It didn’t matter if your buddy fell in the furnace or was immolated upon cracking the flask. They didn’t need to put up chains or supply safety gear and if a person had said gear, they were considered “weak.”

There is actually enough information out there to make wisely considered decisions (rule changes, fence design changes, course design changes) that USEF and FEI could follow in creating a better safety environment. It is the ignorance of this information/data and/or the lack of motivation to gather this data that the culture/environment of indifference exists.

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8156424]

Since her injury is one of the ones that sparked this thread… this fence that Jessica fell at has been on course for years without incident (though, if it’s the one I am thinking of it’s a scary fence!!!). Is it the fence’s fault the horse fell? The course designers? This horse fell in October in Ocala, whose fault was it then? If there was no problem with the Ocala fence from any other horse/rider combination either, at what point do we raise the uncomfortable question as to whether the horse is a fit for this type of career? Is the rider making bad decisions by continuing to campaign it or under too much pressure from the owners? Just a string of (really really) bad luck? Why would the course designers be the ones thrown under the bus for this? Why do we ALWAYS blame the courses? I know she’s a fan favorite and I like her too… but it’s important to remain objective. Everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. It’s not being questioned because you are not allowed to question BNRs choices even if they seem not the greatest on CoTH without being savaged lol

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8156424]

Since her injury is one of the ones that sparked this thread… this fence that Jessica fell at has been on course for years without incident (though, if it’s the one I am thinking of it’s a scary fence!!!). Is it the fence’s fault the horse fell? The course designers? This horse fell in October in Ocala, whose fault was it then? If there was no problem with the Ocala fence from any other horse/rider combination either, at what point do we raise the uncomfortable question as to whether the horse is a fit for this type of career? Is the rider making bad decisions by continuing to campaign it or under too much pressure from the owners? Just a string of (really really) bad luck? Why would the course designers be the ones thrown under the bus for this? Why do we ALWAYS blame the courses? I know she’s a fan favorite and I like her too… but it’s important to remain objective. Everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. It’s not being questioned because you are not allowed to question BNRs choices even if they seem not the greatest on CoTH without being savaged lol

[Jazzy_Lady]

[QUOTE=RAyers;8156437]
I think you describe a great example of a culture of indifference. The only reason safety equipment is being used is because the consumer is doing it. It is not being driven by the entity who actually has ownership and control. It is similar to the 70s when seatbelts were an optional equipment when you bought a car. OR back in the 1920s when foundries simply looked at employees and expendable supplies. It didn’t matter if your buddy fell in the furnace or was immolated upon cracking the flask. They didn’t need to put up chains or supply safety gear and if a person had said gear, they were considered “weak.”

There is actually enough information out there to make wisely considered decisions (rule changes, fence design changes, course design changes) that USEF and FEI could follow in creating a better safety environment. It is the ignorance of this information/data and/or the lack of motivation to gather this data that the culture/environment of indifference exists.[/QUOTE]

Interesting about the consumer. Do you think that way about the frangible technology aswell? Is it because the course builders are choosing to use it instead of the federations pushing for it that you feel this way? I mean, personal safety equipment I can see, as there’s not really any change at the UL in terms of that.

[JP60]

A captain of a ship is sailing along, quite happy with his progress. One day another boat comes by and says “Captain, you boat looks low in the water, maybe you should do something about it”. The captain smiles, and says, don’t worry, it is just the nature of boats.

Sometime later another boat comes along and again says “Captain, you boat looks even lower in the water, maybe something is wrong”. The Captain smiles at the little boat and says, you don’t understand how boats really work, some leak, I’ll consider a study to see if it is bad.

One day the Captain looks down at his feet for he feels something is wrong. Turns out that while he waited to get a study done the boat leaks reached the point where the crew left, the rats left, and all he had was his feet in the water.

Just because this boat has been leaking a long long time at a steady pace does not mean its okay or that nothing should be done. One could go back through this very forum and find comments from a few years back saying such similar thoughts of “A study needs to be done”, yet the studies never seem to be done and the leak continues.

In regards to safety, while we have wrapped our frail human bodies in all but bubble wrap, we have but done one thing for the horse and even in that, it was meant more for the safety of the human. So when we talk about safety please put it into the context of “for humans” for I would be very curious to learn what safety we have put in place for the horse. Please do not say frangible pins, because that was put in place to change the force that tossed a rider such that the horse did not land on top of them. Safety for the rider.

What I would prefer is that the sane people who enjoy this sport and have compassion for their horses be able to build a better boat and let the folks that don’t care to or want to stop the leaks to sail on, sink or float, it is your choice.

[RacetrackReject]

[QUOTE=mademoiselle;8156216]
I think the issue is that we breed more and more athletic horses, people are becoming better and better riders, we have access to better care and ways to keep our horses more comfortable and sound. So overall the sport is becoming more and more competitive. People have been complaining that dressage is more and more important and so in order to counter balance the weight of the dressage in the final results, XC courses have become more and more technical.
We do not call them jumps anymore, we call them questions. The speed have been staying the same, but the jumps require horses and riders to adjust more and to be more focused, the littlest mistakes have big consequences. So we have reduced the margin of error.
So I think that as the sport evolves and keeps going in the same direction, there will be more traps being built in order to trick the horses or to test the riders’ ability and the flip side of that is that the ones that don’t solve the questions flawlessly will pay the price by getting hurt or killed.
If you look at the courses from 30 years ago or even 20 years ago, this is not the same sport.
Now to be honest, I do not know what the answer is to fix it…[/QUOTE]

I believe it was Reed who posted something on a different thread that ties in here. He said, and this is just paraphrased on how I read it, that basically the horse is at it’s peak. We keep making things tougher and harder on XC, but the horse has nowhere to go because it is already at the limits of it’s ability.

Short of an evolutionary step, there is not much more a horse can do. It has to get smarter, to read “questions” better, or it has to evolve the ability to stop being a galloping flight animal and become an animal that jumps and corners like it’s on rails, if it wants to survive the ever increasing difficulties of future XC courses. That’s not going to happen anytime soon.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

While I agree that things should be done and continue to be done…I’m also not going to be screaming nothing is being done. The sport does continue to improve and there are many who are looking at the issues. When I actually examined the factors pulled together from statistics…it isn’t as bad as some here would make us think. Yes there is risk (although I would say the perception of risk is much higher than the actual risk as shown by the statistics)…and more needs to be done to minimize the risk…but I’d rather work with real facts and issues then speculations fed by online social media.

http://www.fei.org/system/files/FINAL%20StatisticsReport%202004%20-%202014.pdf

Here were the stats posted through 2014. I’m sure they will be updated for this year. EVERY fall is closely examined at the national level as well and the USEA also has statistics for all levels.

As far as one poster claiming about horses being destroyed that we don’t hear about…well for better or worse, that just doesn’t happen much. Facebook and social media now…almost too much information is out there.

And while I do not put my head in the sand…100% of the injuries to my horses over the many years have all been pasture accidents–and one was caste in her stall. I’ve yet to have a horse hurt in a competition…it may happen in the future but considering my sizable vet bills…I know most of my injuries happen at home. I lost a favorite horse to a kick (spiral fractured his leg)…and have one of my current competition horses on stall rest from a kick to his knee. I’m MUCH more concerned and know it is statistically much more likely for my horse to get hurt at home (and yes, I own a UL horse…and while I worry about him getting hurt, all his past injuries…and most of his future ones will come from him self farting around in the field.)

Screaming threads saying nothing is being done are not constructive. Discussing some of the current programs (many are outlined on the USEA web site) or thinking of solutions is constructive. Should more be done…always, but you also have to be practical and look at the numbers and statistics.

ETA: Current summary of initiatives: http://useventing.com/sites/default/files/usea_usef_eventingsafetydocument.pdf

[redalter]

I still wonder, how much increasing the technicality of the courses while not reducing speed impacts things in a negative way.

I get it, the courses are not going back towards the galloping, flowing courses with single fences and maybe one to three combinations.
The courses now are pretty much half related distance questions with combinations and combinations of technical questions - a skinny in the water a turning question to a skinny, in the water to another skinny. A corner in the water.
Not just max spread questions but max spreads that are now jumped on angles that seem to get sharper and sharper.
Without ever changing the speeds.
I was taught that “every time you take a tug, it is a second”. I just can’t understand that is not somehow related - but better minds than mine must have already factored this into the equation - is there somewhere to look at that info? I am going just by perception and what I see on courses.

[JER]

We need an ‘Eventing Death List’ sticky at the top of this forum.

I will start a thread asking for one. We’ll see what happens. I prefer not to use watered-down (like ‘In Memoriam’) or euphemistic language here; plain language is what this topic deserves, just as it deserves to be kept front and center in the eventing community.

Wish me luck.

[Manahmanah]

[QUOTE=JER;8156520]
We need an ‘Eventing Death List’ sticky at the top of this forum.

I will start a thread asking for one. We’ll see what happens. I prefer not to use watered-down (like ‘In Memoriam’) or euphemistic language here; plain language is what this topic deserves, just as it deserves to be kept front and center in the eventing community.

Wish me luck. :)[/QUOTE]

This is the sort of henny penny business we really do not need.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8156539]
This is the sort of henny penny business we really do not need.[/QUOTE]
Because?

[JER]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8156539]
This is the sort of henny penny business we really do not need.[/QUOTE]

Hello, Culture of Indifference.

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8156487]

ETA: Current summary of initiatives: http://useventing.com/sites/default/files/usea_usef_eventingsafetydocument.pdf[/QUOTE]

What has come from the initiatives?

Is any governing body actually taking down points for statistical research and analysis of falls?

[RAyers]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8156487]
…it isn’t as bad as some here would make us think. Yes there is risk (although I would say the perception of risk is much higher than the actual risk as shown by the statistics) [/QUOTE]

OK, then now let’s really dive into the numbers:

1. You have a 1 in 5 shot of s SERIOUS injury if you have a rotational fall, a 1 in 20 for nonrotational and a 1 in 50 for simply falling off.

2. You have a 1 in 10,000 shot of dying for every start and a 1 in 500 shot at a serious injury for every start.

In other words, at least one person for every horse trial with more than 500 entries will go home in an ambulance.

Would you take this odds with you car? Your cell phone? How about your doctor or surgeon?

Is that acceptable? How about if it was your turn? Your kid’s turn?

Do you think this rate works in other sports? Would you enjoy NASCAR, NHRA, NFL, NBA, NHL, even MMA etc. with those statistics?

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8156487]…Screaming threads saying nothing is being done are not constructive. Discussing some of the current programs (many are outlined on the USEA web site) or thinking of solutions is constructive. Should more be done…always, but you also have to be practical and look at the numbers and statistics.

ETA: Current summary of initiatives: http://useventing.com/sites/default/files/usea_usef_eventingsafetydocument.pdf[/QUOTE]

Coming from a research hospital POV as well as one who works with high risk manufacturing, I think this falls in the D grade range in terms of level of effort. Why, do you ask?

We have a reported 1% infection rate in the OR (1 in 100 shot of having an infection develop as the result of surgery), do you know how many studies we are doing to work out how to get this to 1 in 10,000? And this is not even for high risk patients or those that include fatalities.

It’s about QUALITY. If this sport wants to grow, then they need a quality product.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=RAyers;8156592]
OK, then now let’s really dive into the numbers:

1. You have a 1 in 5 shot of s SERIOUS injury if you have a rotational fall, a 1 in 20 for nonrotational and a 1 in 50 for simply falling off.

2. You have a 1 in 10,000 shot of dying for every start and a 1 in 500 shot at a serious injury for every start.

In other words, at least one person for every horse trial with more than 500 entries will go home in an ambulance.

Would you take this odds with you car? Your cell phone? How about your doctor or surgeon?

Is that acceptable? How about if it was your turn? Your kid’s turn?

Coming from a research hospital POV as well as one who works with high risk manufacturing, I think this falls in the D grade range in terms of level of effort. Why, do you ask?

We have a reported 1% infection rate in the OR (1 in 100 shot of having an infection develop as the result of surgery), do you know how many studies we are doing to work out how to get this to 1 in 10,000? And this is not even for high risk patients or those that include fatalities.

It’s about QUALITY. If this sport wants to grow, then they need a quality product.[/QUOTE]
+1, indeed.

[Manahmanah]

Just wondering… do we have any similar statistics from hunter or jumperland?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8156554]
What has come from the initiatives?

Is any governing body actually taking down points for statistical research and analysis of falls?[/QUOTE]

I know some rule changes have come about from the statistical research as well as some of the training in CD and fence designs have changed.

There are certainly changes that should be made and more global initiatives taken. For example, in the US…fence are required to be staked at Rec. Events. I do not think this is a global requirement and at least one fatality this year (not in the US) supposedly was a result of an un-staked portable fence rolling. That is unacceptable.

The US does require that certain fences need to have a frangible pin (a result of 2008 and the statistics from falls). I’d love to see them used more often and more fundraising done to off set the costs to organizers to use those type of fences and pins. As it is now, most are only used at larger venues and events that have more sponsors. There is technology available but it isn’t always cost effective.

[4Martini]

I think perhaps part of the problem with fixing the sport is without the military and the endurance tests of the past it is not even really clear what the point of the sport is…

Show jumping and dressage are pretty clear - but, what are we testing? Is it a physical test? Is it a mental test? Of whom? Horse or rider? It’s hard to even define what we’re testing for.

At the lower level I still believe it’s the best way to develop strong, secure riders with a diverse background to be able to handle lots of situations.

I’m just not sure what the upper level is trying to do. I think the lost identiy makes it hard to optimize the sport. Is our goal simply to create a spectator friendly Olympic sport to keep horses in the public eye? And if we don’t agree on what the point is, how can we agree on an acceptable risk level?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8156606]
Just wondering… do we have any similar statistics from hunter or jumperland?[/QUOTE]

There was for a while…and it was bad until the rules were changed to require the safety cups on all spread jumps. When I was in jumper land…pre rule change…I witnessed more falls of horses, including rotational falls, then I have ever seen in eventing. But the safety cups have significantly reduced that risk.

[Jealoushe]

The stadium test basically lost it’s purpose too except at CCIs. So now we have dressage, showjumping, and modified endurance xc which is more like jumping on a grass track.