Insurance, my dear, insurance. If there has only been one human death in all of the competitions in the US since 2008, the insurance rates should be affordable until the second death.
[QUOTE=Velvet;8920193]
Just wondering. If JER is pointing to cancelling an event after a bad accident. If that happens, do riders expect to be reimbursed? If it was one accident, maybe due to poor riding and not bad conditions? Did I misunderstand?[/QUOTE]
Iâm trying to think of ways to affect actual change in this sport. It is 2016, horses and riders are still dying on XC. This year has been the deadliest since 2008. Even though certain types of obstacles have been identified as problematic wrt death and serious injuries and horse falls, these types of obstacles are still being included on XC courses. Various governing bodies create safety committees which are composed of insiders with no expertise in safety.
If a rider died at a competition I was at, the last thing on my mind would be getting reimbursed for the entry fees.
But abandoning an event due to a death might give the governing bodies a genuine interest in making real changes in the name of real safety.
I just responded to the Eventing Nation article about Rob Stevensonâs appointment to the Canadian Eventing Committee. If you agree with me I hope you will like and post as well:
http://eventingnation.com/dr-rob-stevenson-appointed-eventing-high-performance-chair-for-canada/
[QUOTE=clivers;8952888]
I just responded to the Eventing Nation article about Rob Stevensonâs appointment to the Canadian Eventing Committee. If you agree with me I hope you will like and post as well:
http://eventingnation.com/dr-rob-stevenson-appointed-eventing-high-performance-chair-for-canada/[/QUOTE]
That is a really great point you made. I canât comment since I deactivated my FB but I hope you email them as well.
I canât read the EN comments. Would you mind quoting yourself here?
[QUOTE=clivers;8952888]
I just responded to the Eventing Nation article about Rob Stevensonâs appointment to the Canadian Eventing Committee. If you agree with me I hope you will like and post as well:
http://eventingnation.com/dr-rob-stevenson-appointed-eventing-high-performance-chair-for-canada/[/QUOTE]
If that is the post and quote from it, Iâd have to say that is not a good way to start off when talking about safety. Given the current track record, Iâd say they may be even missing the âsafe enoughâ bench mark.
It is not that the quote is incorrect, all sports have risk, true, but the risk reward varies tremendously between sports as well. Floating around FB has been a picture of a waterfall water question. A vertical fence with basically a waterfall over top. Rider and horse have to jump through the fall.
Now, my guess is even if you put that on a 4* course with the softest fence type, youâd get penalty points, but without increasing risk. Creative minds could find other ways to explore the courage of a team without maximizing risk with open oxers, flat tables, and/or multiple skinnies.
If the purpose of cross country is to eliminate teams, by all means attempt to kill them with exceedingly more technical and dangerous fences. However, if the purpose of cross country is to explore the endurance and courage of a team, then a good safety team should be able to make recommendations that minimize physical risk while still meeting the purpose.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;8952965]
I canât read the EN comments. Would you mind quoting yourself here?[/QUOTE]
As a physician and Canadian eventing competitor, owner and sponsor I would feel a LOT more confident about this choice if he had not opened his recent editorial on safety with these remarks:
âwithout risk, there is no sport. And secondly, no sport can ever be âsafe.â We endeavor to maintain a sport that is âsafe enough,â an obsession with an acceptable level of risk.â
This was a comment that I found offensive and ignorant in the context of the devastating losses in our sport. I hope very much that this was a one-time misstep and that he will prove to be a forward thinking and positive influence on not only the sport in Canada but internationally, rather than the yay-saying puppet of the establishment that he appeared to be in his recent piece.
Well done, clivers. And he is part of the former Olympic riders who are composing the FEI Risk Management committee. Same old, same old. Nothing will change because they donât know what they donât know.
[QUOTE=clivers;8953458]
This was a comment that I found offensive and ignorant in the context of the devastating losses in our sport. [/QUOTE]
Well said, clivers.
Formula 1 didnât take that view when it hired Prof Sid to overhaul safety. The international fencing federation (FIE) didnât take that view after the death of Vladimir Smirnov. The pentathlon federation didnât take that view after an accidental shooting death. They made bold, sweeping changes and the sports continued to thrive.
Clivers, thank you for your response to Stevensonâs comments. JER and Viney, I have to agree that they donât know what they are not even close to understanding when it comes to risk mitigation and safety.
JP60, I have to disagree about that waterfall fence. While Iâm sure itâs eye catching, IMHO it bears no relationship to anything a horse can really understand. Unless of course you want to teach your horse to take a shower. 
[QUOTE=frugalannie;8953582]
JP60, I have to disagree about that waterfall fence. While Iâm sure itâs eye catching, IMHO it bears no relationship to anything a horse can really understand. Unless of course you want to teach your horse to take a shower. ;)[/QUOTE]
I agree, I didnât like it either.
Well the waterfall fence might not be appropriate, but the idea is sound. Why have fences and courses that are so dangerous that horse and human can be killed. Eventing can still be risky, not risky to life and limb, but risky in the sense that you may not finish. Tricky but not death defying jumps, long gallops that require a fit horse, etc. Find ways to make eventing tough, not deadly.
[QUOTE=Gestalt;8954195]
Well the waterfall fence might not be appropriate, but the idea is sound. Why have fences and courses that are so dangerous that horse and human can be killed. Eventing can still be risky, not risky to life and limb, but risky in the sense that you may not finish. Tricky but not death defying jumps, long gallops that require a fit horse, etc. Find ways to make eventing tough, not deadly.[/QUOTE]
Yes! That was more my point. Just the reaction from kcmel and FA show that were it on course, it would be a rider problem and who knows if the horse would balk or not. In concept it is no different that looking at a Weldonâs wall for the first time.
I took a trail ride on Thanksgiving and the start has us cross over a wooden bridge. My brave brave horseâs hood hit that bridge and the sound it made had him stop to evaluate WTH was that. Why not bridges on course that change the sound of the hoof beats. I remember seeing a picture from an old cross country course where teams had to go into the water, under a dock, almost swimming and back out. Even just having horses have to go in to belly deep water might cause refusals without harming the team, yet that is still a test of courage. How about bank steps down into water, striding between dependent on level.
Cross Country, even at the 4* level need not be all about jumping to test the team. If we looked back at the roots, it was about getting the message back to the general, charging across the field in chaos. Key element, getting there.
Combined driving uses bridges all the time, they always have one to drive over on their cones course. Not at all bad idea.
IIRC combined driving did away with deep water crossings after a team drowned, so maybe not so much that.
We could design lots of spooky, non-lethal obstacles. Dangling pool noodles come to mind. But stuff like that isnât what our sport is supposed to be about, is it? We are supposed to be about types of obstacles that could reasonably be encountered when having to gallop XC. Admittedly, carved ducks donât fit into that category, but the horse probably doesnât perceive it as a duck but rather a strangely shaped obstacle and a large tree down in water is entirely possible naturally. But this is definitely a digression. Sorry!
A bridge is fine (in fact thereâs one on the MD HT course, not flagged, but does occasionally cause time faults for spooky horses). But a wooden bridge can be slick as hell in wet weather.
Thereâs a covered bridge at Catalpa in Iowa - you donât have to go through it until Training & Prelim but the option is there so you can school it earlier - I donât think there are many issues with it, they do put chat down - you still get the sound and of course the lighting change but itâs not slippery. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203130574399401&set=a.10203130571879338.1073741833.1058139188&type=3&theater
For many âOlympicâ sports, the risk is inherent and frankly part of the sportsâ appeal. Bobsled, ski jumping, downhill and freestyle skiing, gymnastics etc. are just a few others from which the risk can never be completely eliminated. Competitors in entering agree to assume that risk of their own free will.
The only difference with equestrian events is the inclusion of an animal who is unable to consent to assuming the risk of death or catastrophic injury; the question becomes whether or not, and to what subjective degree, that is ethical.
In the past, horses were engines of war and strictly considered property. Today, that view has changed greatly to where most of the public consider them more in the category of âpetsâ to whom we owe protection from abuse.
Which brings the question down to whether or not an employment in sport which puts them at risk of death or catastrophic injury constitutes âabuse.â
The sport is going to be grappling with this whether anyone likes it or not as long as showcasing it to the general public (via TV) continutes to be a priority.
Another question is whether anyone should be making a living doing it, which can greatly influence the decision to start a given horse and at what level. We need to face it that the vast majority of the riders at the upper levels are professionals. I have long maintained that the recreational level and the upper levels are for all practical purposes two different sports.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8955334]
For many âOlympicâ sports, the risk is inherent and frankly part of the sportsâ appeal. Bobsled, ski jumping, downhill and freestyle skiing, gymnastics etc. are just a few others from which the risk can never be completely eliminated. Competitors in entering agree to assume that risk of their own free will.
The only difference with equestrian events is the inclusion of an animal who is unable to consent to assuming the risk of death or catastrophic injury; the question becomes whether or not, and to what subjective degree, that is ethical.
In the past, horses were engines of war and strictly considered property. Today, that view has changed greatly to where most of the public consider them more in the category of âpetsâ to whom we owe protection from abuse.
Which brings the question down to whether or not an employment in sport which puts them at risk of death or catastrophic injury constitutes âabuse.â
The sport is going to be grappling with this whether anyone likes it or not as long as showcasing it to the general public (via TV) continutes to be a priority.
Another question is whether anyone should be making a living doing it, which can greatly influence the decision to start a given horse and at what level. We need to face it that the vast majority of the riders at the upper levels are professionals. I have long maintained that the recreational level and the upper levels are for all practical purposes two different sports.[/QUOTE]
And to finish that thoughtâŠand they need to be split out.
Good thoughts on the horse view. Life is a risk, but we do what we can to limit that risk turning into a life or death situation. Sports like some of the ones you list have increased risk, because they underlying purpose was who can go the fastest. As speed increases, so to risk, but as you point out, when the trigger is pulled, only the human body is abused. It strikes me that given Eventings root of getting across cross country, not as the fastest, but as the most able and fit, the general direction of the sport today has been actually away from that purpose.
You point about the duck is valid, but how many skinnies and corners are needed to test accuracy? Should the sport be testing true endurance more since that is what got the message home. Look at MLs ride at Rolex and we see the future of this sport; a horse under prepared, out of shape, and in the end, put into the crosshairs of serious injury by a rider whose focus has been first on making money, even a small step before the welfare of the horse.
Why on Godâs Green Earth would you think that this ride is the future of our sport? Heck, I would say that we all witnessed what NOT to do, and NOT our goals for the future.
And Miss Sunshine here thought that the good rides by rising talents were the future of the sport. Excuse moiâŠ
And last I checked, ML is not struggling financially.
