They knew exactly what they were doing.
I’m not minimizing this topic, but equestrians are such a small percentage of the general population that it’s a topic virtually no one cared about.
Yet as @sherian said, has that flammable combination of elitist sport + injustice.
Yes, exactly.
I’m part of veterinarian mom diversity group and fb and this article was brought up. In my mind this is definitely an issue but only one of many larger barriers to horse sports for POC.
That’s the thing. It is an issue, one of many, and one which we as an industry have made steps to shed light on and give air to. And then here comes the NYT, basically race & class baiting the entire internet with our sport and inviting comment from those that have no concept of hunter hair and think we’re all riding in $40 buckets we picked up at Dicks Sporting Goods. It’s absolutely gross.
Have we really made very many steps though? It kind of seems like we’ve done the absolute minimum and congratulated ourselves on that. It’s not like we have either a $40 bucket option or a $450 custom option that will work.
Fully agree we are far from making a lot of tangible progress, but also know several people personally working hard to bring awareness to the issues and I want to be sure they are acknowledged. Which I wouldn’t do anywhere near that NYT article because it’s wholly toxic not likely to add anything positive to their efforts.
Well, it might have made that one guy at Back on Track think a lot harder about his position on the subject. Or at least about his public position, if nothing else.
Maybe that will provide a little incentive for him to get his act together if he gets enough feedback over it. Ditto for the other helmet companies.
Perhaps. But right now he’s butthurt & on the defensive, accusing NYT of twisting his words. So he’ll either see the light, or fall to the ego and dig in harder.
We know which way that usually goes but alas, I will hope for the best alongside you.
However it turns out for him, I’m guessing that the people in charge at the other helmet companies are probably watching and taking notes.
So maybe there will be a net gain, even if not for him.
I guess I’m really jaded. Am I the only one who believes most of these helmet companies exist in a vacuum? I don’t have high hopes of anyone learning from this.
These aren’t multi-million dollar corporations. They are glorified small businesses. For most of them there are no HR departments, no PR teams, no one “taking note.”
LinkedIn says Back on Track has 2-10 employees. Tipperary (Phoenix Performance) is in the 11-50 range. Charles Owen is the largest in the 51-200 category, which makes sense when they have been around the longest with the most international presence.
Speak for yourself. Mine cost about that, and I still don’t know what “hunter hair” is. Pretty sure it’s not mandatory in order to ride a horse.
Is Kask the only one that is a player in helmets for other sports?
Caitlyn Gooch was interviewed, and she’s been a big advocate for inclusivity in the horse world. She does outreach to underserved communities through Saddle Up and Read which combines literacy and horses to get kids interested in books and nature.
Who did you feel was left out? I didn’t feel the article was toxic at all. I mean, it is a general publication, so it’s not going to be COTH, for sure, but COTH has occasionally published some big equestrians making gaffes.
https://www.theblackcowgirl.com/about
Yes know of Caitlyn’s hard work. I’m not saying anyone was left out of the article; was trying to acknowledge to another poster that some progress has been made around the issue, even if as a whole it isn’t real tangible (yet).
I actually quite liked the article, hence why I commented on the twitter thread pointing out where the racial biases could lie (especially in the competitive sports) and my notifications haven’t been the same since. Just this morning I was accused of suggesting that black people were incapable of cutting their hair 
I think it’s an article that absolutely belongs in COTH (I think actually there’s maybe been one? Or maybe TPH?), where the people that will discuss it possess the basic facts around the sport, the helmet options, and the dwindling accessibility of it all. The general public likely has only ever bought bicycle helmets & couldn’t give two hoots about fancy sport pets. So in struggling to identify who the NYT was trying to speak to here and what they expected the outcome to be, I landed on the jaded side of things (apparently alongside @Texarkana lol)
Weirdly or not, it was shared by quite a few people in my feed! A number of sports have fallen afoul of this conflict in different ways, from not allowing Muslim women on teams to cover their hair, to forcing Black players to cut dreads wrestling, as well as helmet-related safety issues in other sports. So it does appear to be on people’s collective mindset.
When I say I’m jaded, I’m jaded about the response of helmet companies.
Is a NYT article really going to pressure them to change their products? Unlikely.
They are a niche market. They sell a critical piece of safety equipment. The entire world can come at them with torches and pitchforks on social media, but at the end of the day, equestrians are the ones supporting the businesses and will continue to do so because we need helmets.
Someone like me can choose not to patronize BOT because of their dismissive attitude; there are plenty of businesses (equestrian or not) I will or won’t support because of their ideologies. But I don’t expect to effect a change in the company with my avoidance. Most people will continue to support them because they are one of the few players in the market.
But, I think these conversations are important. Until this article, I never thought about a helmet being racially exclusive. Not many people did, including the helmet manufacturers. The more we recognize these issues, the more likely they will be corrected some day. Just not on account of a single article.
What are you talking about? A quick google search shows Charles Owen does about $18.8 mil in revenue, Troxel $12.1 mil, Back on Track (admittedly smaller) at $1-3 mil.
I should have phrased that differently. They are very small companies that sell high dollar products to a niche market.
Several people have said that they are surprised BOT’s PR people haven’t stopped Mr. Ruder from speaking publicly. The company is reported as having 10 or less employees; he probably is PR.
CO and Troxel are probably the biggest players in the game, worldwide, and both have under 200 employees.
I see what you’re saying - that makes sense. I would guess CO probably does have a PR person, but agree that BOT likely does not. I thought your comment went towards their ability to finically absorb the cost of trying to accommodate a wider variety of hair types and hairstyles. And while a BOT may be less able to, a CO certainly can (and from the article, it sounds like they are actively trying to!)
I totally agree CO likely has an actual PR person/team— you could just tell from their response. Though I’m dubious how “actively” they are working on it. I’m not insinuating anything nefarious on their part. It’s just smart PR to say, and I’m paraphrasing badly, “yes it’s a problem and we are working on a solution.” Maybe it’s at the top of their priority list, or maybe not. They were professional and knew how to not put their foot in their mouth on a hot button topic.
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
