WTF Are We Doing?

[JER]

[QUOTE=Littleluck55;8889136]
How does cancelling an event because a horse had a heart attack between fences make the sport safer?[/QUOTE]

If a horse dies on course for any reason, it deserves a thorough investigation, which should begin immediately after the death.

If a horse collapses and dies on course, between fences as you suggest, you still need to do some investigating before you decide on the cause of death. While horses don’t exactly have ‘heart attacks’ in the human sense, it does take some time to figure out what happened, which would include a preliminary vet examination, witness statements, etc. It’s also flawed thinking to automatically assume that such a death is unrelated to conditions or to the stresses of going XC.

What I’m suggesting in this little thought experiment is this: what if eventing adopted a zero tolerance policy to fatalities. The reason I included a fatality anywhere on the competition grounds is so that this policy would be (1) clear cut and not discretionary and (2) extend to horses that make it back to stabling but then suffer some fatal event. Zero tolerance has to be zero tolerance.

The responses have been revelatory. gardenie posited the what-if of dying in her chair at a horse trials, which is really not going to happen. Highflyer didn’t want to see competitions cancelled if a horse was killed in a trailer incident. Littleluck said if a horse dies of a ‘heart attack’ between fences, it’s not a serious enough incident to warrant abandoning the competition.

No one addressed the actual issue of adopting a zero tolerance policy for fatalities in eventing. It’s all sidebars and zany hypotheticals.

Very early in this thread, Reed Ayers, a man who really does know what he’s talking about when it comes to safety, mentioned the ‘culture of indifference’ in eventing. It’s like Caol Ila posted a few pages back about the rider in Scotland shrugging and saying ‘That’s the sport.’ It’s not that we don’t care about fatalities in the sport, it’s just that we’re accepting of a certain level of death and too complacent to take action.

This is why we’re still eventing like it’s 1999.

Also in this thread (and many times over the two decades I’ve been posting here), I’ve given examples from two sports - Formula 1 and fencing – that adopted a zero tolerance policy toward fatalities and by doing so, made their sports much safer. Why hasn’t this happened in eventing? Why hasn’t any governing body stood up and said ‘No more.’ Why is it okay to have an average of three rider deaths and many times that horse deaths each year in a relatively small sport?

In my other sport, modern pentathlon, a single fatal shooting incident (in training, just a tragic no-fault accident) was enough to make the entire sport switch from shooting .22s to tiny-pellet air pistols (which might sting, but that’s it), and from there the sport adopted super-safe laser pistols.

Safety happens when communities and organizations want it to happen and have the guts to make it happen. The initial results and changes might not be exactly what you want, but you adjust as you move forward. A little discomfort is always preferable to more deaths, isn’t it?

[HorsesinHaiti]

Trailering, stabling, and show fees outside area II generally run what, $800 that can’t be refunded? If I were showing, I could totally see risking $800 that I’d enter and not getting to show, if the sport itself created or potentially created a fatality that I would also then be at risk of suffering.

But risking $800 on the bet that no Darwinian type would do something stupid in trailering or tying their horse? When trailering is universal to most horse activities and has its own safety ‘set’ independent of eventing safety? Too much risked on someone else’s stupidity that would not not connected with the sport itself, and much less connected with what might happen to me and my horse in participating if I’m being careful and safe. I’d find another sport before I’d risk $800 on no one having a major accident from that (since zero-tolerance includes major injury and not just deaths).

So yes, I’d be open to zero tolerance for eventing deaths - but there has to be a clear connection to EVENTING. Give an investigative team time and space to do a thorough job of investigating all on course or potentially course-related deaths? Sure, that can require shutting down the course to do it right. Go all plane crash investigation mode on that.

Even the NTSB doesn’t automatically shutter a whole airport if a plane crashes off site and there isn’t a clear and immediate reason to suspect the airport or conditions itself caused the crash. If riders on a budget feel their scrimped funds are too dependent on someone else’s general stupidity they’ll go clinic instead, or do discipline shows, and there will be no more eventing in some areas for reasons that don’t have much to do with eventing.

But targeted zero tolerance, I would want to support.

[CSU92]

Joining in the “thought experiment”

What would be the process of implementing this plan? Can the captain of the starship USEA/FEI/USEF say “make it so”?

What about horses with breakdown injuries that owners elect to euthanize either “on the grounds” or even off the grounds.

What about riders airlifted out before they actually die?

What about incidents where a horse or rider should have died?

I’m feeling ill typing in these non-zany hypotheticals…

[vineyridge]

You know, the shutting down of the horse trials would be quite doable from a financial standpoint if the organizers/USEF/USEA/FEI were required to carry insurance against a death shutting down the horse trial. That would provide enough money to cover the costs of competitor reimbursement and the competition’s expenses.

Interruption of business insurance is common.

And if the cost of such insurance was really high, it might make the sport take safety seriously.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=HorsesinHaiti;8889402]
Trailering, stabling, and show fees outside area II generally run what, $800 that can’t be refunded? If I were showing, I could totally see risking $800 that I’d enter and not getting to show, if the sport itself created or potentially created a fatality that I would also then be at risk of suffering.

But risking $800 on the bet that no Darwinian type would do something stupid in trailering or tying their horse? When trailering is universal to most horse activities and has its own safety ‘set’ independent of eventing safety? Too much risked on someone else’s stupidity that would not not connected with the sport itself, and much less connected with what might happen to me and my horse in participating if I’m being careful and safe. I’d find another sport before I’d risk $800 on no one having a major accident from that (since zero-tolerance includes major injury and not just deaths).

So yes, I’d be open to zero tolerance for eventing deaths - but there has to be a clear connection to EVENTING. Give an investigative team time and space to do a thorough job of investigating all on course or potentially course-related deaths? Sure, that can require shutting down the course to do it right. Go all plane crash investigation mode on that.

Even the NTSB doesn’t automatically shutter a whole airport if a plane crashes off site and there isn’t a clear and immediate reason to suspect the airport or conditions itself caused the crash. If riders on a budget feel their scrimped funds are too dependent on someone else’s general stupidity they’ll go clinic instead, or do discipline shows, and there will be no more eventing in some areas for reasons that don’t have much to do with eventing.

But targeted zero tolerance, I would want to support.[/QUOTE]
While you are correct that when an incident happens off field the NTSB does not shut down the entire airspace, when one happens on an airfield that runway or runways are shut down till the investigation is complete.

Part of what I get from JERs thought experiment is that at the moment, we have no real accountability when something happens to either rider or horse. 1999? Some want to ride like its 1978 and we just get tossed back up on the horse if the rider and the horse seem okay. There was no real accountability then and it carries on to today. Horse dies, put up the tarps, load it on the trailer and let’s go game on again.

I’ll adjust her thought experiment slightly, when there is a serious incident, be it injured horse and/or rider or death, the show is postponed until an initial investigation can take place, examinations occurs of both the fence, if it occurred there and horse/human and the show does not continue till an official report indicates they have collected enough data to continue. Witness interviewed, fence approach/departure inspected, pictures taken.

People may be out show fees, but then that is always the chance the moment we pay and haul out. Horse goes lame, human gets hurt or sick…

Accountability.

A TD, when approached by a group of riders to talk about at the least postponing a class blows them off with “It’s english footing”, not one rider crosses the finish line.

A Course Designer practically boasts about designing a course to put fear in a rider so they “respect” the fence, with seemingly no concern for the horse. Horses and riders have died or had serous falls on those courses.

A professional Eventing Jockey throws a leg over a catch horse or one barely ridden before, the fifth of the day and does not consider how that ride may effect the horse, because…it’s now a job

A professional Rider takes an unfit horse out on course and plows it into the ground halfway around the course, because it could barely get over a fence

The lack of accountability in this sport these days is staggering. On point, JERs “Shut it all down”, to me, is to shine a light on the fact that at the end of the day, at some level, we’ve still not learned to truly put the welfare of the horse first.

[JER]

[QUOTE=CSU92;8889692]
What would be the process of implementing this plan? Can the captain of the starship USEA/FEI/USEF say “make it so”?[/QUOTE]

It’s called a ‘rule change’. There’s a protocol with this for every organization. BTW, USEF not USEA is the rule-making body for eventing in the US. If you’re interested in how these changes are made in USEF, this section of the website explains it.

(It surprises me that someone who considers themselves an eventer doesn’t even know how rules are adopted and adapted in the sport.)

@CSU92;8889692

What about horses with breakdown injuries that owners elect to euthanize either “on the grounds” or even off the grounds.

A death from injury on course is an eventing death. The competition would be abandoned.

@CSU92;8889692

What about riders airlifted out before they actually die?

Any rule change could incorporate language for serious injury, if this is what is determined to be more desirable. However, this is actually a legal consideration in some countries, like Italy, and did play a part in the prosecution of the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola.

@CSU92;8889692

What about incidents where a horse or rider should have died?

This is zany. What exactly is ‘should have died’ and how would you judge that? How would you incorporate ‘should have died’ into a rule change? Who would be the arbiter of the ‘should have’ part?

@CSU92;8889692

I’m feeling ill typing in these non-zany hypotheticals…

Why are you feeling ill? It’s nice of you to join in the thought experiment, except there’s very little evidence of actual thought – with sarcastic language like ‘captain of the starship’ and ignorance of how rules are made – in your response.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=Blugal;8888853]
Current Equestrian Canada proposed rule changes contain proposed changes to decrease the maximum length of XC at the Advanced, Intermediate, and Prelim levels. This is accompanied by an increase in the minimum number of jumping efforts at the Advanced level. I think this is a very poor change and I have made a comment to EC about it.

Anyone else who would like to comment on this must do so before October 28th, 2016:[/QUOTE]
Cue USEF rule changes in 3…2…1

You see it makes sense in a lucre induced way. Shorter courses means more horses ridden by one rider. More elements at Advanced means more Spectacular viewing for the public. Come watch the thrills and spills at Advanced.

Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money :mad:

Hey y’all…like the direction of Professional Eventing now?

[Sticky_Situation]

Well, if we’re doing this “thought experiment” … if we were serious about traffic safety, we would shut down all the roads in a county any time there was a fatal accident.

Lots of people might lose their jobs or go hungry, but then maybe something would be done about traffic safety.

[redalter]

[QUOTE=beowulf;8887962]
I think at Training and Prelim, it can certainly be a problem.

A square table with no visible ascension/curvature is also a problem.

Anyway, I don’t really see why a wide/max table belongs at Novice? Maybe that’s just me? I guess it depends on what the table looks like… but still… that is level-creep in action right there.[/QUOTE]

This. The tables and oxer were not wider than they should have been per the rules, but it was an illustration of MORE course creep.
Which to me, just goes along the same lines of “oh well, it is what it is”, and after all it’s only N, or T or whatever, so what difference does it make?

Thank you for your post which did a better job than I did of explaining my point!

[Marigold]

[QUOTE=JP60;8889756]
Accountability.

A TD, when approached by a group of riders to talk about at the least postponing a class blows them off with “It’s english footing”, not one rider crosses the finish line.

A Course Designer practically boasts about designing a course to put fear in a rider so they “respect” the fence, with seemingly no concern for the horse. Horses and riders have died or had serous falls on those courses.

A professional Eventing Jockey throws a leg over a catch horse or one barely ridden before, the fifth of the day and does not consider how that ride may effect the horse, because…it’s now a job

A professional Rider takes an unfit horse out on course and plows it into the ground halfway around the course, because it could barely get over a fence[/QUOTE]

The majority of the examples above certainly highlight some specific instances where accountability has been lacking in our sport recently, but could you clarify the bolded statement? Was that a specific instance where we know a pro didn’t consider the effects of their ride on their (catch-ridden or otherwise) horse? I know that the rest of your statements reference a certain circumstance, which certainly prove your point. But I would argue that I’ve never seen a pro completely disregard how their riding affects a horse, catch ride or otherwise.

For instance, Chris Burton’s catch ride of TS Jamaimo to win Adelaide in 2013 would be one of the more famous catch rides of all time, and there are so many incredible moments from that partnership that speak to how much Chris cared about that horse, right from the beginning. Chris would also be one of those pros that has a stable full of horses on his active competition roster, but I would never use that fact alone to argue that he doesn’t care about his rides, or more to your point, that he is not accountable for the outcome each and every time he puts his foot in the stirrup.

I really liked your list, and it certainly highlights the pervasiveness of the lack of accountability in our sport. I guess I’m just trying to figure out if I’ve missed a scandal on this topic or if this made the list of otherwise specific instances due to a general resistance to professionals with big strings.

[FrittSkritt]

On the subject of fence safety… I just watched the FHI course preview. Wide, airy, two open oxers (seen at 1:24, 4:00, and 4:28) and an open corner (2:18) on both the 2* and 3* courses.

http://eventingnation.com/wednesday-video-from-kentucky-performance-products-fair-hill-cci3-course-preview/

I’m sure they’re pinned, but I really hope someone doesn’t try to bounce any of them. :sigh:

[JP60]

@marigold

The majority of the examples above certainly highlight some specific instances where accountability has been lacking in our sport recently, but could you clarify the bolded statement? Was that a specific instance where we know a pro didn’t consider the effects of their ride on their (catch-ridden or otherwise) horse? I know that the rest of your statements reference a certain circumstance, which certainly prove your point. But I would argue that I’ve never seen a pro completely disregard how their riding affects a horse, catch ride or otherwise
…
if this made the list of otherwise specific instances due to a general resistance to professionals with big strings.

More the latter.

Jimmie Wofford would be embarrassed at me using his words from day’s gone by, but in the video on American Eventing he talks about looking at the spirit or a horse, does it have a fire in its eye before he takes it cross country. Yes, it was long format, but it spoke to a sense of seeing the horse as a partner, not just a catchride. Always there can be instances found where some experienced rider can make a strange horse look good. I watched this once in show jumping when horses are swapped and one amazing ride occurred between strange rider and horse. The rest…not so amazing.

As fit as ULRs are, they can and do tire out and it is in those moments that focus is lost, mistakes made that can not only effect the horse, but hurt the rider. Two incidents come to mind, Boyd Martin falling and breaking a collar bone riding a Novice horse, Kyle Carter riding a training horse and the horse died on course, having been put down. Since we don’t investigate and report, I have no more information to go on than this, two very experienced riders who tend to ride strings at shows, both had falls at a level that should have been nothing but success.

Did they look into the eye of that horse that day, or did they throw a leg over after it was tacked up by the groom, give it a warm up then going out on course? Most times it works, till it does not, then who suffers.

I had a top level groom once tell me that when I am uncertain, look your horse in the eye and ask, can I trust you? That is the partnership I thought Eventing was about. Chris, Kyle, Boyd, Phillip…what they now trust first is their skill, but maybe, just maybe the horse speaks up at the wrong time and says “I don’t trust you”.

I’ll admit, I’m no fan of strings and catch rides, and jockeys in this sport, but then I am not a professional trying to make money. The issue I have is we are not talking about vehicles with fours legs, we are talking about independent minded prey animals that we are in charge of caring for. As always, my thoughts lie first with the horse since without it, we don’t have a sport.

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8889824]
Well, if we’re doing this “thought experiment” … if we were serious about traffic safety, we would shut down all the roads in a county any time there was a fatal accident.

Lots of people might lose their jobs or go hungry, but then maybe something would be done about traffic safety.[/QUOTE]

Terrible analogy.

LOTS has been done for traffic safety. And sorry but the amount of people driving is like what, 500000 times higher than the number of times people go out eventing?

I think it’s extreme but it certainly deserves a look.

No Badminton winner in some years, no Rolex winner in some years…no Indoor eventing winner in some years…it would certainly make the sponsors and the PTB take a good hard look at the sport.

And blugal that rule about the XC shorter and more jumps?? head desk

[Sticky_Situation]

Has it ever been shown, with actual numbers to back it up, that the occurrence rate of fatalities is worse now than it used to be in the “good old days”? Or are we simply looking at wider awareness of the ones that do happen due to the Information Age?

Not a rhetorical question.

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Blugal;8888853]
Current Equestrian Canada proposed rule changes contain proposed changes to decrease the maximum length of XC at the Advanced, Intermediate, and Prelim levels. This is accompanied by an increase in the minimum number of jumping efforts at the Advanced level. I think this is a very poor change and I have made a comment to EC about it.

Anyone else who would like to comment on this must do so before October 28th, 2016:[/QUOTE]

emailed…

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8890064]
Has it ever been shown, with actual numbers to back it up, that the occurrence rate of fatalities is worse now than it used to be in the “good old days”? Or are we simply looking at wider awareness of the ones that do happen due to the Information Age?

Not a rhetorical question.[/QUOTE]

Look at the first page…it has all the stats you need to know.

[Sticky_Situation]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8890048]
Terrible analogy.

LOTS has been done for traffic safety. And sorry but the amount of people driving is like what, 500000 times higher than the number of times people go out eventing?

I think it’s extreme but it certainly deserves a look.

No Badminton winner in some years, no Rolex winner in some years…no Indoor eventing winner in some years…it would certainly make the sponsors and the PTB take a good hard look at the sport.

And blugal that rule about the XC shorter and more jumps?? head desk[/QUOTE]

So the current frequency of traffic fatalities is acceptable? Since some action was taken, we don’t need to encourage more? Reductio as absurdism, yes, but the analogy stands.

And no, “sending thoughts and prayers” isn’t enough … definite action needs to be taken.

But IMO, nullifying an entire event, and therefore preventing, say, an amateur BN competitor on their 20-year-old horse from being able to earn their AEC qualification because someone else’s horse had a trailering accident is ridiculous … and such extreme suggestions may even discourage the “PTB” further from considering any of the more reasonable suggestions that have been put forth.

[CSU92]

[QUOTE=JER;8889765]
It’s called a ‘rule change’. There’s a protocol with this for every organization. BTW, USEF not USEA is the rule-making body for eventing in the US. If you’re interested in how these changes are made in USEF, this section of the website explains it.

(It surprises me that someone who considers themselves an eventer doesn’t even know how rules are adopted and adapted in the sport.)

A death from injury on course is an eventing death. The competition would be abandoned.

Any rule change could incorporate language for serious injury, if this is what is determined to be more desirable. However, this is actually a legal consideration in some countries, like Italy, and did play a part in the prosecution of the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola.

This is zany. What exactly is ‘should have died’ and how would you judge that? How would you incorporate ‘should have died’ into a rule change? Who would be the arbiter of the ‘should have’ part?

Why are you feeling ill? It’s nice of you to join in the thought experiment, except there’s very little evidence of actual thought – with sarcastic language like ‘captain of the starship’ and ignorance of how rules are made – in your response.

:)[/QUOTE]

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and know that you won’t include the editorial commentary when answering devil’s advocate questions from the very people you need to persuade during the rule change process.

I’m generally aware of the complicated rule change process happening once per year. I was feeding off the mood of this thread that something should be done immediately if not sooner. My “starship” language wasn’t intended as sarcasm. I’ll admit to not knowing the powers that the leaders of the FEI or USEF may or may not have with regards to instituting a drastic rule change in the face of a crisis.

I’ll agree the “Should have died” isn’t really germaine to your rule change proposal. It grew out of the frustration that little is done to analyze “near misses”, " horse just hung a leg", “just got popped out of the tack” etc. Any time a horse falls should trigger much analysis. I think an event at which there are non-fatal rotational falls is more worthy of nullification than one where a horse slips on a gallop turn and breaks his neck. (not hypothetical )

I felt ill because I was thinking of actual scenarios which required clarifications from you on how they would be handled under your proposed rule change. The horse breaking down at Rolex, euthanized off show grounds at Rood and Riddle. The superb young lady rotating at Fair Hill, dying some time later.

Ill to think of large competitions skirting around your rule by delaying a euthanasia until after the competition or keeping someone on life support until the end of an Olympic games, for example. (The latter is probably a bit irrational)

Is any of this evidence of actual thought?

[Sticky_Situation]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8890070]
Look at the first page…it has all the stats you need to know.[/QUOTE]

I see the list of names since the late '90s or so, which looks like the overall number of deaths per year hasn’t changed greatly since then. But I’m talking about an actual statistic such as the rate of rider fatalities per 10,000 starts (maybe by level, or at Prelim and above or the like, so that today’s large number of lower level competitors doesn’t skew the stats), from the sport’s earlier days until the present.

I’m certainly not disputing that we have too many; however, trending the actual rate per x number of starts would make it easier to correlate changes in the sport and safety features with any effect they had.

Maybe also trend the number of MR’s per start regardless of the outcome of the fall, too.

If such statistics are in the thread, can someone please point me in the right direction?

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8890111]
So the current frequency of traffic fatalities is acceptable? Since some action was taken, we don’t need to encourage more? Reductio as absurdism, yes, but the analogy stands.

And no, “sending thoughts and prayers” isn’t enough … definite action needs to be taken.

But IMO, nullifying an entire event, and therefore preventing, say, an amateur BN competitor on their 20-year-old horse from being able to earn their AEC qualification because someone else’s horse had a trailering accident is ridiculous … and such extreme suggestions may even discourage the “PTB” further from considering any of the more reasonable suggestions that have been put forth.[/QUOTE]

But they are continuing to add new traffic safety measures every year. Crash tests are done every year on new vehicles…laws and roads change…its never ending. So no, it’s not like they changed one thing and left it at that.

It’s not actually that ridiculous. The Ammie with the 20yr BN horse who cant qualify will remember for a long time that event that caused that and how a HORSE OR RIDER DIED. Sorry, its WAY more important than showing at the AECs. No more “thats the sport” or “not my problem because I show low level” mentality allowed.

We ALL share the sport. There shouldn’t be a divide. Either we ALL want change or we watch our sport deteriorate into nothing but a deadly hunter derby.

Does it really matter if the number has gone up or down? I mean…there are still FAR too many deaths every year.