WTF Are We Doing?

[redalter]

[QUOTE=MNEventer;8663695]
Here’s my confusion: why do the courses have to keep getting tougher? It seems like there are a lot of course designers who have to make the questions harder and harder for horse and rider to figure out safely, and where the consequences of getting it wrong means maiming horse and rider, in the best case scenario. But why? Why is this a thing? In dressage, the movements of the levels have been the same for a long time, and somehow the sport survives. No one has proposed making horses canter backwards or do airs above the ground in dressage competition, but it feels like the equivalent is being asked of event horses on x-c.

Why does it have to be so hard? There are so many things that will make it not a dressage competition, so why make x-c a live version of the Saw movies? I just don’t understand it.[/QUOTE]

Bumping up this OUTSTANDING post.

[Blugal]

[QUOTE=subk;8664998]
I agree with most of what LAZ is saying here.

BUT, whether it is research, technologically advanced safety equipment, or review commissions of catastrophic events much of what is being discussed here is very, very expensive and will make this sport cost prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. For example: carbon fiber vests sound great–raise your hand if you are willing/able to pay a couple grand for one. [/QUOTE]

Absolutely - that seems like a huge chunk of money. But there could be ways of dealing with it. After all, it is several thousand a year to feed/shoe a horse; several thousand to do clinics and shows; etc. Several thousand in exchange for your life?

I was thinking if they are that expensive, then let’s make them mandatory and figure out 15 sizes that would fit everyone. Then have some kind of pool where everyone contributes $300 and there are now 30 vests at each event that can be shared around.

If there’s a will, there’s a way…

[JenJ]

[QUOTE=LadyB;8664859]
Her rotational was on Exultation, a gelding, her fall was at Rolex on A Little Romance.[/QUOTE]

Is Exultation still in JP’s string and/or competing at all?

Is there any database of the long term prospects for horses’ with rotational falls? I wonder if they continue to compete or have lost the heart, or if the rider chooses to sell or offer the horse a different career.

I personally would not ever be able to jump said horse again, but then I’m happily a lower level weenie. I probably would be done with XC altogether, if my horse fell at all, let alone rotational.

[LadyB]

[QUOTE=JenJ;8665062]
Is Exultation still in JP’s string and/or competing at all?

Is there any database of the long term prospects for horses’ with rotational falls? I wonder if they continue to compete or have lost the heart, or if the rider chooses to sell or offer the horse a different career.

I personally would not ever be able to jump said horse again, but then I’m happily a lower level weenie. I probably would be done with XC altogether, if my horse fell at all, let alone rotational.[/QUOTE]

He was sold last fall to a young rider. They are doing great, went Training level last weekend with him.

[RAyers]

[QUOTE=subk;8664998]
I agree with most of what LAZ is saying here.

BUT, whether it is research, technologically advanced safety equipment, or review commissions of catastrophic events much of what is being discussed here is very, very expensive and will make this sport cost prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. For example: carbon fiber vests sound great–raise your hand if you are willing/able to pay a couple grand for one.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for figuring out how to make things safer and have made donations in the past to some of these things, but there is a sobering reality to financing the whole big picture that most people seem to ignore.[/QUOTE]

I agree that funding is daunting. It is a large chunk of money until some family or other person files a full on law suit.

We have absolutely wealthy egoists who want eventing to pay all sort of things for their own glory. Why not have them really put their money where their mouth is? Have them verify each fence on a “Showcase” is as safe as possible? Hey, they can use the TV revenue or their VIP tent fees to fund this.

[JER]

[QUOTE=riderboy;8664850]
I remember looking at one, but the sizing for me was an issue at 6’2" 170#. I vaguely remember Reed having to customize/modify one to fit him in his metal lab, but I could be wrong about that. As far as the weight, I suppose in those teeter-totter moments it might be unbalancing, but it would sure beat having a horse land on top of you.[/QUOTE]

If eventers had supported the EXO by buying it, there would have been more sizes available, upgrades, new features, etc, as with any other consumer product.

Yes, it ‘rides up’ on your shoulders. But this is the design – the cage is held away from your body. There is a second set of straps underneath, closer to your body.

The weight issue is nonsense. If you don’t have the strength or balance to wear the EXO, you shouldn’t be going XC. I’m a very narrow person, about half the width of a normal human. I’m 5’7" and weigh less than 110 lbs. A stick figure. I have an A3, which says something about how small the sizing is, because it’s an ‘average’ size and I’m not very average.

But the sad truth is that eventers did not support the one product that could prevent death by blunt force trauma or massive crush.

(Also, as the design was patented, the other body protector companies were very against BE promoting it. Thank you, eventing vest makers, now we know how much you really want to protect us.)

[HLMom]

[QUOTE=redalter;8665023]
Bumping up this OUTSTANDING post.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with the quoted post! As a spectator and a mom, I want to see all the horses get through safely and happily. I have no interest in a survival of the fittest competition that leaves carnage in its wake. I don’t know where course designers get the idea that their job is to design tricky, frightening obstacles that will weed out the good and great horses from the truly extraordinary (or perhaps lucky). That shouldn’t be the goal.

[goodmorning]

[QUOTE=RAyers;8665147]
I agree that funding is daunting. It is a large chunk of money until some family or other person files a full on law suit.

We have absolutely wealthy egoists who want eventing to pay all sort of things for their own glory. Why not have them really put their money where their mouth is? Have them verify each fence on a “Showcase” is as safe as possible? Hey, they can use the TV revenue or their VIP tent fees to fund this.[/QUOTE]

Same reason the event wasn’t cancelled at Jersey Fresh; because it interferes with Eventing & Big(-ish) Business. Notice how the age of Philippa’s daughter Millie was left out of formal Press Releases? She was 6mo old USEA.

[snowrider]

A group of real experts, engineering, horse physiology, scientists, Trainers, even psychologists that have the ability to investigate can begin to build a database on real events, similar to how forensics builds on real, past events to determine better an actual cause. The statement

Eh. I used to mine big datasets for a living and I doubt this approach will tell you anything meaningful. I wouldn’t waste money on it. There are too any variables, none of which are recorded uniformly and really the biggest factor is that the horse doesn’t clear the fence with its front end. We know the proximate cause of these falls, I think money is better spent on how to prevent them given a horse not clearing a jump with both front legs.

I grew up in the midst of eventing, hunting, chasing country. There was not a weekend that 8 or 10 of us kids weren’t out hacking all over and jumping all the event, hunt and point to point jumps we could find on a motley crew of ponies and aged chasers. Know what we didn’t ever jump? Metal gates. We knew metal gates would flip you over if your horse hit it. To me, a lot of xcountry courses are made of nothing but fences that’ll flip you over of you hit them. I admire people who are skilled enough to jump around but I quit 20 years ago when the courses started giving me the willies.

[FatDinah]

[QUOTE=subk;8664998]
I agree with most of what LAZ is saying here.

BUT, whether it is research, technologically advanced safety equipment, or review commissions of catastrophic events much of what is being discussed here is very, very expensive and will make this sport cost prohibitive for all but the very wealthy. For example: carbon fiber vests sound great–raise your hand if you are willing/able to pay a couple grand for one.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for figuring out how to make things safer and have made donations in the past to some of these things, but there is a sobering reality to financing the whole big picture that most people seem to ignore.[/QUOTE]

Many, many people don’t blink at that much money or more for a saddle, isn’t a potentially lifesaving vest as equally important?

[snowrider]

The vests make a ton of sense to me too, right now that’s all there is and rotational falls seem to be a numbers game. Very low likelihood but high consequences.

Gnep and RAyers- did you also test the air vests like the Point Two? There is video on YouTube of Coral Keens fall and it does seem to protect her.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=snowrider;8665384]
Eh. I used to mine big datasets for a living and I doubt this approach will tell you anything meaningful. I wouldn’t waste money on it. There are too any variables, none of which are recorded uniformly and really the biggest factor is that the horse doesn’t clear the fence with its front end. We know the proximate cause of these falls, I think money is better spent on how to prevent them given a horse not clearing a jump with both front legs.

I grew up in the midst of eventing, hunting, chasing country. There was not a weekend that 8 or 10 of us kids weren’t out hacking all over and jumping all the event, hunt and point to point jumps we could find on a motley crew of ponies and aged chasers. We used to sneak into the local event courses. We’d gallop along all in a row jumping our fences, usually till we got back to the road or someone fell off. Hedges, ditches, banks, post and rail, coops and stone walls. Know what we didn’t ever jump? Metal gates. We knew metal gates would flip you over if your horse hit it. To me, a lot of xcountry courses are made of nothing but fences that’ll flip you over of you hit them. I admire people who are skilled enough to jump around but I quit 20 years ago when the courses started giving me the willies.[/QUOTE]
My point is to ask the question, which ones? When the NTSB goes out and investigates an accident, be it plane, train, ship they certainly understand that there are many factors the lead up to the accident. They also would agree that no two incidents are exactly the same. Their job is not to make policy, but to discovers facts that led to the moment of failure. At the end of the day they try to say “this is how and why this happened” (causation) without comments on policy, leaving that up to the governing body to take forward. Anecdotal evidence, “metal fences make kids and horses fly” is not enough to truly understand the issue or how to correct the problem. Perhaps it boils down to “Metal gates without breakable pins may lead to rotational falls” is the conclusion and in going forward, all metals gates get breakable pins.

[snowrider]

Yes there should be a detailed investigation. That would be valuable. But creating a big database and looking for trends I think would be a waste of time. It’s very difficult and you need a LOT of quality data collected in a uniform manner and also it’s not a good way to look at episodic or rare events or to tease out secondary variables. Like I said I used to solely sit and analyze change in datasets for a living and design data collection methods. I still do a fair bit of it and I still build and design databases with the idea of analyzing the data in the future. I think case studies are the way to go here.

I’d favour spending money the way the NTSB does which is intensive investigation of individual accidents. Not trying to show trend data or doing regression analysis. I believe all it will show is that the main factor in falling is not jumping high enough.

I understand the desire to find an answer that allows a few simple modifications to fence design that would prevent deaths but I very much doubt the data will ever support that outcome. There simply isn’t enough. Modeling would help, as you can run many more scenarios. A change in the course to make xc more of an endurance test and move the difficult jumping to show jumping as suggested elsewhere might but I know no one wants that.

The metal gates example was simply an example of people changijgm behavior due to observed danger. We knew as kids because everyone knew because it had happened many times. Our local hunt didn’t allow jumping them at all probably since the early 70s. Once people stopped jumping them people and horses stopped getting hurt. (Remember they had only been in common use for 30 years or so when I was a kid and jumping wooden gates was very commonly done). Behavior modification based on observations = change in outcome.

[JP60]

@snowrider

The metal gates example was simply an example of people changijgm behavior due to observed danger. We knew as kids because everyone knew because it had happened many times. Our local hunt didn’t allow jumping them at all probably since the early 70s. Once people stopped jumping them people and horses stopped getting hurt. (Remember they had only been in common use for 30 years or so when I was a kid and jumping wooden gates was very commonly done). Behavior modification based on observations = change in outcome.

A valid point. The difference here is that we are talking about recognized events with set rules, standards, and guidelines that dictate outcome. If we applied your logic then tables would have been gone a while ago, but it seems the young kids are a lot smarter than “wise” adults.

(s)
Because, you know, if we removed Tables, or altered the shape of the table and lock it into a rule then, OMG, we’ve made it too easy. It’s just a starter course for god’s sake.
(/s)

[snowrider]

In fairness we did tons of idiotic stuff and only stuck to the rules because we knew it meant instant death if we didn’t. No cattle grates, no metal fences, close gates, no jumping outside the trimmed areas on hedges. We knew very well the consequences as they were described in graphic detail.

Like any other humans we didn’t tend to predict consequences well without that experience. I had a friend who would ride her pony down to meet the bus in a halter then just let him go and he’d go a half mile home by himself. Her very expensive show pony. Her mother nearly had a seizure when she found out.

[Lori_T]

I just re-read the list of rider and horse deaths.
54 riders dead since 1997
54!
And 75 horses dead since just 2005.
This is nothing short of numbing.

[Ready_To_Riot]

Little bit of a side track, but is there anywhere that you can find exactly where all the money the USEA receives actually goes? Membership fees, donations, etc?

[subk]

[QUOTE=FatDinah;8665386]
Many, many people don’t blink at that much money or more for a saddle, isn’t a potentially lifesaving vest as equally important?[/QUOTE]
It isn’t a question as to whether it’s important or not! It’s just an example that people are talking about possible solutions that are potentially very expensive and no one seems to be thinking about how to finance them or how those expenses will ultimately affect the sport.

Sure, people don’t bat an eye at spending big bucks for saddles, but would they have been willing to spend that money on equipment BEFORE they ever rode in their first event?

I have zero doubt that the main reason these issues don’t seem to have been addressed is money and cost.

[vineyridge]

54 in 18.5 years works out to slightly less than 3 per year. That’s still too many, but it’s also not quite the end of the world. Especially since the number of starts has increased dramatically.

BTW, OP, would you be able to break down the lists by year?

[Manahmanah]

Viney I did that last year, it showed the instance of Injury (injuries and deaths / starts) going down each year since 2005 if I remember correctly. It’s in one of these threads somewhere. It is consistent with the information released in the safety report but more detailed.