[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8890217]
Does it really matter if the number has gone up or down? I mean…there are still FAR too many deaths every year.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does matter.
For example, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but what if the rate of MR’s per X number of starts was shown to be steadily decreasing as frangible technology was increasingly used? Correlation does not automatically equal causation, but it would be an indication that maybe the frangible devices are working and we should continue to include them on as many jumps as possible.
Conversely, if there was no change in the rate of MR’s, or it got worse, it would indicate that maybe the current technology wasn’t doing its job in the real world and it’s time for a major redesign.
The “all or nothing” mentality only stalls out any small amounts of progress that have been made by saying they don’t matter.
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]
AFAIK, eventing is not afflicted by an epidemic of horses dying in trailers at competitions. There is, however, the very real problem of horse and rider fatalities in XC, which you seem to avoid talking about in your responses.
Moreover, if there’s an accident anywhere on the premises which results in a horse and/or rider fatality, the investigation and resolution of that incident should always take precedence over a competitor’s desire to qualify for AECs. That goes for all levels.
“It’s just the sport” should be the excuse used for why one didn’t qualify for AECs (someone died so they cancelled the qualifying event), rather than the excuse used for someone dying.
The poster a while back who said they were not willing to sacrifice an $800 entry for the possibility the event would be cancelled really struck a chord with me. I don’t want to risk an $800 entry for whatever statistical chance there is that I or my horse will die at that event. So maybe it’s time to change this sport to reduce that risk, to the point where a fatality is so rare that (a) nobody is really risking their life or their horse’s life, or (b) their entry fee.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8890270]
Yes, it does matter.
For example, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but what if the rate of MR’s per X number of starts was shown to be steadily decreasing as frangible technology was increasingly used? Correlation does not automatically equal causation, but it would be an indication that maybe the frangible devices are working and we should continue to include them on as many jumps as possible.
Conversely, if there was no change in the rate of MR’s, or it got worse, it would indicate that maybe the current technology wasn’t doing its job in the real world and it’s time for a major redesign.
The “all or nothing” mentality only stalls out any small amounts of progress that have been made by saying they don’t matter.[/QUOTE]
You’re comment sparked a thought, frangible pins are a lousy solution to a safety issue.
First the simple point, if a team breaks a pin, not by averting a rotation, but just hitting it hard a certain way…bang, 60 points and the show at that point. I almost get the whole “it’s not fair” argument on the penalties.
Second, the technology is not consistent or well proven to work. We seen moments were the pins worked, stopped a rotation, horse and rider safe. We’ve seen situations where pins didn’t work, horses injured, riders injured. Do we really want to trust our lives and horses lives on a technology that cannot be reliably ascertained to work?
The best safety solution would be to remove fences that require such a pin. Open oxers, open corners at the least. Maybe that would not stop all rotationals, but its a start.
We hear talk of collapsable tables, but the same thought applies. We hope the technology works, but what it does is hide poor fence design under that hope…do we want to trust our lives with a hope it works?
If a CD replaced an Open Oxer with say a two huge logs (makes it an imposing solid fence) or replaced an open corner with a closed one, built a better defined table, the team still have to jump something. If the team needs to be tested, the test should have an out that does not end in death.
I don’t think I would throw out the baby with the bathwater. If frangible pin technology isn’t working, then fix it. It’s not rocket science. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t work 100% of the time.
I know at the Plantation CIC, there were several pins tripped, and some were associated with rider falls. But no rotational falls. And that is their major role.
As far as bouncing open oxers, that is a general jump design problem, and there have been several simple proposals on how to fix them after the recent horse death. It’s discouraging that we are still seeing them.
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 … 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. [/QUOTE]
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify, thank you! I think my opinion does vary from yours on this one, at least as an inherently negative aspect of the sport. Do I agree that a knowledgeable (including horse-specific knowledge), capable, and trustworthy rider is an essential component of the sport? Absolutely. Do I think that pros with a large string are inherently missing this component? No.
For him to do what he did that day, he exhibited knowledge of the horse, it’s comfort zone, it’s physical abilities, and it’s limits. He demonstrated a willingness to put the horse and it’s learning before results and before financial incentives. In return, The Apprentice kept jumping, and showed his trust in Buck and the partnership that they have. Their Badminton experience was safe and educational, and exactly what people on this thread would like to see from our riders. Buck undoubtedly sees that horse, and every other, as a partner.
Are there some riders with big strings who manage them poorly, or use it as an excuse to treat the horse as disposable? Maybe. But I’m not willing to condemn all riders with many rides, like Buck, for that reason alone.
Absolutely this is a concern that can create problems on course, but this is a separate issue. A rider who is not fit enough to do the job is a problem, regardless of whether they have one ride at the event or fifteen. There may be a rider fit enough to ride fifteen horses properly, at which point I have no problem with them doing so. There may be a rider who is not fit enough to ride even one horse properly. IMO, they have no business on course.
I think this is also a separate issue. I see no issue with someone having a groom at a show to tack up the horse - I don’t think it means the rider has to be oblivious to what is underneath them. Just because the rider hasn’t put the saddle on and done up the girth doesn’t mean that the rider isn’t looking the horse over before swinging into the tack, evaluating the feel of the horse underneath them as they warm up, and considering what is reasonable to ask of the horse on the day. It is the rider’s responsibility to do those things each and every time they ride - but I don’t believe every rider who uses a groom has failed in their obligations in this way.
Yes. 100%. I would never, ever disagree with you on this one.
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. [/QUOTE]
Rule changes are usually considered once per year but when circumstances warrant it, the Executive Committee of USEF (and also of FEI) can make extraordinary rule changes to be effective immediately.
One example of this was in 1999, when FEI eventing adopted a bizarre scoring system that resulted in massive penalties for time faults and consequently, the showjumping phase was merely a formality. Horses would finish XC with 12 rails in hand. The scoring system was scrapped after a few months and it returned to its old system.
[QUOTE=Blugal;8890310]
“It’s just the sport” should be the excuse used for why one didn’t qualify for AECs (someone died so they cancelled the qualifying event), rather than the excuse used for someone dying.
The poster a while back who said they were not willing to sacrifice an $800 entry for the possibility the event would be cancelled really struck a chord with me. I don’t want to risk an $800 entry for whatever statistical chance there is that I or my horse will die at that event. So maybe it’s time to change this sport to reduce that risk, to the point where a fatality is so rare that (a) nobody is really risking their life or their horse’s life, or (b) their entry fee.[/QUOTE]
I assume you don’t compete now since there is a statistical chance of an accident on course.
Without looking at the 63 pages in this thread, does anyone know how many deaths have been attributed to Preliminary and below?
I guess I don’t understand if everyone is so up in arms about safety and disgusted with what is going on, why are we still supporting the associations and still showing up to compete if there is a chance we or our horses could die?
The best safety solution would be to remove fences that require such a pin. Open oxers, open corners at the least. Maybe that would not stop all rotationals, but its a start. [/QUOTE]
But is it really? IIRC, the limited data that’s available suggests that fatal accidents are most likely to happen at tables, which typically aren’t frangible.
That’s why I said I would like to see numbers … you can test frangible devices all day long in the lab, but only real-world data will truly tell us if they’re preventing fatalities.
I guess I don’t understand if everyone is so up in arms about safety and disgusted with what is going on, why are we still supporting the associations and still showing up to compete if there is a chance we or our horses could die?[/QUOTE]
We are addicted
Some of us have changed our goals…mine was always “Rolex”. Now its"maybe" Prelim.
I don’t want myself or my horse to die.
FWIW my Rolex goal started when there was still a Long format…and long before this thread.
I know a handful of people in my region alone, going Prelim who had bad falls after their horses hit the fences…and they got off lucky. All the horses are now retired (lame).
Perhaps better qualifications are needed for Prelim and above.
I sense our differences may lie in the details or in the idea of either experience (lack of mine) or application.
Just this, for every Buck, there are many more Not Bucks. Regulations or rules are not meant for Bucks, but to reduce the impact by Not Bucks. If everyone was good, we’d need no rules, but everyone is not good so we need to figure out what works for the many to stop negative effects.
The main reason we see ULRs today with strings is to make money. The larger the string, the better opportunities to make money. You can see how that can then be abused at the expense of the horse. Chris Burton or Buck may be the best catch riders around, but some 20’s something kid trying to make a name may not be and there are more of them out there.
Money corrupts and while it is needed to grease the wheels, too much and the wheels get messy, the gears clog and eventually the wheel breaks down. I’ve said before that the best safety act for this sport today is to officially split out professionals from amateurs, split out the rules, split out the venues and allow an all professional equine sport develop that may resemble Eventing, but is something different. Remove amateurs from these types of issues and equations (like the EC proposal) and establish it more as it was, a sport based on precision, endurance, and stamina.
We have spent 63 pages talking about safety and death in this sport as it relates to less than 10% of the participants. LittleLuck55 makes a valid point and I have to say I am not happy that USEA disproportionality spends more effort on UL anything then the majority of its membership base. Still, what I do at Novice (perhaps Training) has little to do with supporting some string or syndicate at the upper reaches of the sport. Were it to split tomorrow, I would barely care what Pros decide to do. They live in a different world. I will care what happens in mine, because here, I have a stronger voice.
Simply put, if they want to play in my sandbox, they play by my rules and that may include reduction in number of multiple horse entries and dealing with less technical courses to suit leveling up training. then Pros can clamour about safety as it relates to how they make money and Ammies can discuss safety as it relates to growing the sport as a whole.
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8890435]
But is it really? IIRC, the limited data that’s available suggests that fatal accidents are most likely to happen at tables, which typically aren’t frangible.
That’s why I said I would like to see numbers … you can test frangible devices all day long in the lab, but only real-world data will truly tell us if they’re preventing fatalities.[/QUOTE]
This is a major part of the problem, doesnt seem like there is data available about the falls and fences without serious digging. It was discussed earlier in this thread…
[QUOTE=Littleluck55;8890415]
I assume you don’t compete now since there is a statistical chance of an accident on course.
Without looking at the 63 pages in this thread, does anyone know how many deaths have been attributed to Preliminary and below?
I guess I don’t understand if everyone is so up in arms about safety and disgusted with what is going on, why are we still supporting the associations and still showing up to compete if there is a chance we or our horses could die?[/QUOTE]
I want to reduce risk, but I am not of the opinion it can be eliminated. I am trying to make positive changes by joining my provincial organization’s safety committee, reading and critiquing the safety materials provided by the FEI and other organizations, and discussing changes that can be made at a grassroots level.
It is going to take more than just posting on a BB to sort this out - I hope everybody is doing more than just posting here.
[QUOTE=JP60;8890507]
I sense our differences may lie in the details or in the idea of either experience (lack of mine) or application.
Just this, for every Buck, there are many more Not Bucks. Regulations or rules are not meant for Bucks, but to reduce the impact by Not Bucks. If everyone was good, we’d need no rules, but everyone is not good so we need to figure out what works for the many to stop negative effects. [/QUOTE]
Ah yes. I think you are right. I totally agree with what you have said here! But continuing along that line of thinking, I would like to see Buck be able to keep doing what he’s doing, because I think he is doing it well and responsibly. Just as I’d like to see hypothetical rider Susie, who devotes her entire riding career to competing her one true love Dobbin at Rolex, to be able to continue to do that against the greats of our sport, like Buck. That is the beauty of eventing.
I guess my conclusion is I would definitely like our rules to prohibit the negative side effects of big strings from having catastrophic impacts on horses or riders. But I do not want to prevent people like Buck, who can manage it well, from having those big strings for the sake of it.
To punish something that sometimes leads to the behaviour we want to avoid runs the risk of not punishing everyone who exhibits that behaviour (ex. ML only has three active event horses right now, hardly a big string, but I’m sure we wouldn’t want her exempt from these rules we’re discussing), while punishing someone who has the string, but does not exhibit the behaviour (ex. Buck).
[QUOTE=Marigold;8890586]
Ah yes. I think you are right. I totally agree with what you have said here! But continuing along that line of thinking, I would like to see Buck be able to keep doing what he’s doing, because I think he is doing it well and responsibly. Just as I’d like to see hypothetical rider Susie, who devotes her entire riding career to competing her one true love Dobbin at Rolex, to be able to continue to do that against the greats of our sport, like Buck. That is the beauty of eventing.
I guess my conclusion is I would definitely like our rules to prohibit the negative side effects of big strings from having catastrophic impacts on horses or riders. But I do not want to prevent people like Buck, who can manage it well, from having those big strings for the sake of it.
To punish something that sometimes leads to the behaviour we want to avoid runs the risk of not punishing everyone who exhibits that behaviour (ex. ML only has three active event horses right now, hardly a big string, but I’m sure we wouldn’t want her exempt from these rules we’re discussing), while punishing someone who has the string, but does not exhibit the behaviour (ex. Buck).[/QUOTE]
I get that. The devil is in the details of course. There is no absolute, but I’d err on the side of caution or conservative approach as we are not just dealing with the individual, but the silent partner as well. Good back and forth. I truly appreciated your thoughts.
Afterthought, I don’t see that a split in the sport would stop Susie from riding at Rolex for by the time she got there she earned the ability to compete against the Titans of Eventing. As I said, Pros could do what they want, duke it out on number of horses in strings et al. But to dip a foot into the Ammie dominated pool, they still play by those rules and the basic of which might be, limited number of rides per day. This has the added factor of opening more slots for the Johns and Janes with their one horse wonders.
[QUOTE=FrittSkritt;8889981]
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.
I’m sure they’re pinned, but I really hope someone doesn’t try to bounce any of them. :sigh:[/QUOTE]
In the drone flight I honestly couldn’t tell if the overs were, in fact, oxers or were bounces. Yikes. Also, as someone who spends a lot of time in a hospital I think the coffin is rather poorly/ironically named after a sponsee “DNR hollow”
Every one of these things is being done now, and has been standard practice for over ten years. Each year we get a bit more sophisticated in gathering information, e.g. we now commonly review video whereas once it was very difficult to obtain.
Every horse that dies at a Licensed Competition is subject to fluid testing for clues to the possibility of foreign substances. The owner of every horse that dies in competition (or as the result of competition) at an Event is encouraged to have a necropsy performed, the Federation and the USEA offset the cost. There is currently a rule change proposal to make this required practice at ALL USEF licensed competitions.
Every rider or equine death at an Eventing (National and FEI) competition is investigated onsite by a prearranged panel, not connected to the competition. They review eyewitness statements, video and anything else that might help identify the cause. At the National level those types of incidents are also reviewed at the Federation level. Earlier, I said for over ten years, in fact, as long as I have been involved with FEI competitions (36 years), that has been the required procedure.
The USEA Design Safety Task Force also reviews fatalities and is engaged in sponsoring studies at the University of Kentucky to help us better understand the nature of fall and the role of obstacle profile and construction.
The USEF and USEA put forward rule changes on a regular, frequently annual basis to try to keep pace with changes in the sport and to address new conditions that have come to our attention. Most if not all of these accident review practices are embedded in the rules if you know where to look for them.
Since 2008 there has been 1 human fatality in the United States as the result of a fall on cross-country. Compare that to the statistics for the preceding 8 years. I do not say that this 1 death is acceptable, but it is an improvement, and improvement is how get as close to zero as is possible.
On a final note, I have seen the video of the horse fatality at Woodside, it was NOT a rotational fall. As the investigation is ongoing and we do not yet have access to the necropsy report there has not been a National level review and I will not disclose anything else.
I appreciate your passion, but am saddened to learn how so much of the work that is done seems to occur unnoticed.
Malcolm
I didn’t see the fall, I was shooting photos of Stadium on Saturday. I am told the fall happened at the big table in the far corner, furthest down the hill and furthest to the right, as viewed from the big oak tree viewing area.
I shot photos of this fence when working for the show photographer (Carol Mingst) in 2014. This was not a CIC show, I have photos of Advanced, Intermediate, and Prelim jumping their respective fences at this location. I shot with two cameras, taking photos at the same time, one with the camera using a wide angle, close to the jump, and one with a telephoto, further back (standard horseshow photo). See:
