^They send out a survey, but I don’t believe it is mandatory and of course the answers are subjective.
I don’t think much more is done. At least, when I’ve jump judged and been the only witness to falls nobody has asked for details beyond confirming horse/rider are ok.
[QUOTE=Beam Me Up;8884730]
^They send out a survey, but I don’t believe it is mandatory and of course the answers are subjective.
I don’t think much more is done. At least, when I’ve jump judged and been the only witness to falls nobody has asked for details beyond confirming horse/rider are ok.[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
IMO it should be mandatory, and somewhat detailed. Yes, it would be a bit of a PITA, but it would be worth it to keep our horses and ourselves safer. Things such as level of experience of horse and rider could be pulled from the results database, as well, to make it easier for events to comply.
The NTSB investigates all plane crashes, not just the fatal ones. There’s a very good reason for that.
Did I miss the report? Was it due to the fall, or was the fall due to a heart attack, etc., in the horse’s part? That would be “passed away”.
[QUOTE=Beam Me Up;8884730]
^They send out a survey, but I don’t believe it is mandatory and of course the answers are subjective.
I don’t think much more is done. At least, when I’ve jump judged and been the only witness to falls nobody has asked for details beyond confirming horse/rider are ok.[/QUOTE]
At FEI events you (as a jj) have to fill out a report with some detail. For example they ask whether rider error was involved, which can be hard to evaluate things happen so quickly.
I remember one fall where the rider got up and asked me if the horse had hung a leg. I said yes, and she said something along the lines of “damn, I hate that he does that”. Well, you might consider not competing a horse at the 2* level that does that on a regular basis!
[QUOTE=Velvet;8884779]
Did I miss the report? Was it due to the fall, or was the fall due to a heart attack, etc., in the horse’s part? That would be “passed away”.[/QUOTE]
I was wondering the same thing. “passed away” is an awfully weird way to describe a horse being euthanized due to a rotational fall (if that is in fact what happened?). My trainer was there competing this weekend, but I didn’t want to appear insensitive by asking about what happened to the horse who died :-/
For those of you asking about the fence - it was a large table that has been on the course for years. It’s imposing to look at but rides brilliantly. It has a sloped face and a ground line. Until the fall, her ride was textbook beautiful, which is more than I can say for some of the other rides. I saw it happen.
[QUOTE=Rnichols;8885073]
I was wondering the same thing. “passed away” is an awfully weird way to describe a horse being euthanized due to a rotational fall (if that is in fact what happened?). My trainer was there competing this weekend, but I didn’t want to appear insensitive by asking about what happened to the horse who died :-/[/QUOTE]
From what I’ve read there is a necropsy being done. Sounds like they believe it was a heart attack or some other cardiac failure.
Falls are always reported
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8884722]
Does anyone happen to know how much data collection is done on falls in competition that don’t result in serious injury or horse/rider fatality?
I would argue that as much information should be collected as possible any time there’s a MR, or at the very least a rotational fall… Level, horse/rider experience, type of obstacle, weather/ground conditions, etc. That would result in a much larger cohort of data and therefore much more statistical significance to any trends than if only data from actual catastrophic accidents is analyzed.
I honestly don’t know what if any information is collected now, but if this was done over a few seasons I’d bet some clear trends would arise that could help guide safer course design. It should be straightforward enough to have an official fill out a form with the pertinent information when a MR happens and send it in.[/QUOTE]
There are forms that must be filled out by the TD whenever there is a fall. If it’s a fall resulting in an injury to either horse or rider, there is a special form that is completed. At the end of the competition, the TD sends a report of xc penalties, which fences the penalties occurred and if the penalty is a fall, the type of fence.
The safety report that was commissioned by the FEI and released this summer made several very detailed recommendations for better data collection.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8882736]
Thanks, caevent.
That makes me think again about the comments by a course designer that were linked earlier on this thread about tables … [paraphrasing] how most modern courses have very upright-faced tables as a “safety feature” because making the fences less forgiving will make riders set up for them more and therefore make horses jump them better/more safely. I don’t think that logic works, and I think a lot of the bad accidents that have happened in the last several years are evidence that it doesn’t.
I do realize course designers are in a tough position especially with the loss of the old long format … the courses need to be a challenge, and if everyone gets around without issue then people bitch that it’s a dressage show … but they still need to keep safety a priority. I don’t think that these courses that have upright-faced max width table after upright-faced max width table are making things safer in any way. I wouldn’t even necessarily say wide, upright tables need to be done away with altogether … but maybe have 1 or 2 such fences on a course instead of 40% of the total obstacles.
Was the change over to upright-faced jumps from the more sloping ones of the 90s - early 2000s based on actual evidence that they were causing more accidents by encouraging careless riding? Also, riders should be discouraged from being too careless by receiving a DR when appropriate.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for this post.
After reading the excerpts from the course designers last week that mentioned putting hose upright type tables to make us respect them more, I wondered, did they take into account a tired horse? Or deep footing? Or errors?
I just for the life of me cannot understand the reasoning here. More square flat tables and now these ridiculous square open oxers.
It is like the designers are engaging in some type of “magical thinking”. If we wish it to be so, then it will be so.
Competed this weekend at N. TWO open wide- for- the- level oxers and the second to last fence was a big max square table.
On XC, for the most part, the fences are solid. So why oh why do we need to increase the difficulty?
What exactly is the benefit of SO many skinnies at the uls? To prove one must force a tired horse, after numerous skinnies and accuracy questions, to be accurate again? And again?
At some point it is simply not fair to the horses. There is NO valid reason to make the courses so ridiculously technical. None.
Yet it continues to happen, and I am no expert, but I cannot imagine that the unrelenting technicality of these courses takes a mental as well as a physical toll on horses that the collective seems unwilling to admit.
Just because course designers are no longer using concrete pipes for jumps does not necessarily mean all the current courses are better.
They are just a different kind of bad judgement in many cases.
I’ve often worried that as I grew older I would move away from this sport. Unfortunately, it seems that the sport has taken care of that, and is moving away from me.
I always felt that eventing was the perfect example of the beauty of the partnership between horse and human - trust, bravery, and that almost mystical bond that we share with horses.
Now I feel that it is no longer the end goal.
I look at these courses, the UL ones, and as it trickles down, and do wonder what are we hoping to achieve here?
:no:
Where was this?
I thought the issue with open oxers was at the ULs where they were wide enough to be mistaken for bounces. That shouldn’t be an issue at N-P.
At an event I went to last weekend (Oct 10) there was a horse that died on cross country in the 3* division due to a rotational fall. It broke its neck and died before the horse ambulance made it over.
At a show (at the same place actually) another horse almost died in the training division. The horse also managed to flip over a jump and was hurt very badly. It wouldn’t get up so a vet was brought in to put it down but it stood up at the last second and they were able to save it.
In both situations riders walked away fine but they could have very easily not have. Something should be done about it. I think there should be more strict rules on what riders and horse combinations can move up levels. I think it would also be a good idea to eliminate people who have too many dangerous jumps on course. After the death this weekend I looked up videos of the horse and rider and lets just say it was very clear they were not ready to be going that level and had many scary moments on course. If someone had stopped them on course because of the unsafe riding the horse would still be alive. I think it should be possible to force someone to move down a level if they repeatedly show that they are not prepared for that level.
I also noticed many jumps on the cross country courses at my last show with clips that would cause the jump to collapse if hit hard enough. We should work on making more jumps like that as I believe it could save a couple lives too.
I think there are many ways to limit the amount of deaths in eventing and I think if more precautions like the ones suggested above are taken the fatality rate will drop. However, eventing is a very dangerous sport and I do not think there is ever going to be a way to eliminate fatalities all together.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;8887450]
I thought the issue with open oxers was at the ULs where they were wide enough to be mistaken for bounces. That shouldn’t be an issue at N-P.[/QUOTE]
It could easily at Training or Prelim I think if it was wide enough.
[QUOTE=Highflyer;8887450]
I thought the issue with open oxers was at the ULs where they were wide enough to be mistaken for bounces. That shouldn’t be an issue at N-P.[/QUOTE]
I think at Training and Prelim, it can certainly be a problem.
[QUOTE=Rachael5517;8887660]
At an event I went to last weekend (Oct 10) there was a horse that died on cross country in the 3* division due to a rotational fall. It broke its neck and died before the horse ambulance made it over. [/QUOTE]
You must know more than the rest of us, since this hasn’t been reported as the cause of death.
Is it your contention that the horse that died, died due to having many dangerous jumps on course? Other reports of the round say (on this thread, even) say that they were having a great round prior to the fall.
Second, you say there should be more strict rules on what combinations can move up levels. So it’s your contention that this pair shouldn’t have moved up? A review of their record shows a pretty standard move-up pattern in 2016.
In your opinion they were not ready to go this level. Yet, not once were they pulled up on course, nor awarded dangerous riding penalties. They had one competition this year with 20 penalties on XC and one retirement.
You state “it should be possible to force someone to move down a level if they repeatedly show they are not prepared for that level.” Your knowledge is lacking, as there are rules that cover this very situation. This pair’s record did not trigger a forced move-down.
You state they should have been pulled up, on the day the horse died, due to unsafe riding. Did you watch the round? What unsafe riding on that day are you alleging? How are you qualified to make this statement? There have been no reports, other than yours, that the round was unsafe until the fatal jump. In fact there have been reports that perhaps the horse suffered a fatal heart incident which might have caused the fall. The necropsy should give some answers on that account.
If you are going to villify a rider publicly and blame her for her horse’s death on XC, then please state your basis for doing so, facts to back up your claims, and your credentials and qualifications for passing judgment.
There have been scientific studies done to prove this technology, and it’s been around for many years now. I agree that more jumps should incorporate it.
[QUOTE=Rachael5517;8887660]
In both situations riders walked away fine but they could have very easily not have. Something should be done about it. I think there should be more strict rules on what riders and horse combinations can move up levels. I think it would also be a good idea to eliminate people who have too many dangerous jumps on course. After the death this weekend I looked up videos of the horse and rider and lets just say it was very clear they were not ready to be going that level and had many scary moments on course. If someone had stopped them on course because of the unsafe riding the horse would still be alive. I think it should be possible to force someone to move down a level if they repeatedly show that they are not prepared for that level…[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I think that one of the notable things about most of the fatalities this year is that they were NOT horses or riders that were poorly prepared for the level or having sketchy rounds prior to their accident.
All the reports I’ve read have said that the horse that died at Woodside was having a nice round up until he fell … as was Phillippa Humphreys … and HHS Cooley. None of these horses or riders had records suggesting they shouldn’t be competing at the level they were at.
To me, that says that stiffening qualification requirements or trying to “legislate” better riding will be ineffective at preventing these accidents or reducing the severity of their outcome.
Good riders on good horses make mistakes. That is a given. IMO the first and foremost way to reduce fatalities and serious injuries is to keep mistakes from resulting in rotational falls. Whether it’s course design, fence technologies, etc.
I did not see the round prior to the death of the horse, but I was able to watch some of the previous rounds and there were no actual falls or refusals there were just a couple sketchy looking jumps in there (not riders fault at all we all have bad jumps and we don’t know how the horse was behaving that day). You can go look them up on rideonvideo.com. I did not see the round that day nor the fall because I was too far away. I also do not blame the rider at all because I know everyone makes mistakes and she must already be so horrified. I apologize to everyone here and the rider that it came off that way. As I am still an amateur I have no right to come to conclusions like that. I feel horrible and send my love and apologies to their family and hope they can recover from their loss.
I also do not think all of those suggestions above will completely solve the issue but they could get us couple steps closer. I was unaware it was possible to force a move down so thank you for correcting me. The more you know.
Rachael, FWIW I read the bulk of your comments as a more general questioning of the mechanisms for recognizing and flagging dangerous riding and for considering the appropriateness of the criteria for qualifying and re-qualifying for a level. I did not see your comments as a personal attack on the rider at all, even if you were raising questions about skills and criteria for levels.
[QUOTE=Rallycairn;8888229]
Rachael, FWIW I read the bulk of your comments as a more general questioning of the mechanisms for recognizing and flagging dangerous riding and for considering the appropriateness of the criteria for qualifying and re-qualifying for a level. I did not see your comments as a personal attack on the rider at all, even if you were raising questions about skills and criteria for levels.[/QUOTE]
Thank you that makes me feel a little better. I didn’t know that everyone already knew of this incident knew who the rider was so I did not mean to publicly shame her at all.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
