I can’t imagine a lead horse that doesn’t jump gives her any help regarding potential stops or run outs. As far as losing the way or jumping the wrong fence- sighted people have flags and numbered fences. In order for someone to jump the wrong fence, they need to ignore the colored number stuck on the jump (not a dig, I’ve gone off course before!). Presumably, she cannot see the flags, so the guide horse is a substitute. Personally, I think numbers would be easier to follow, especially given that is fully sighted competitors have the additional visual cues like landmarks, other fences, etc.
I am all for making eventing more accessible. She is apparently appropriately mounted and has learned to ride in a way that accommodates her abilities. There will always be people that cry “no fair” when they see someone getting something they’re not- even if that thing is a meager substitute for something they take for granted. I believe the organizational bodies should step up and allow reasonable accommodations that allow safe participation.
When we see what other extreme sports para-athletes do and the success they achieve, one has to think that all of these people had a courageous first timer - Mt everest, marathons, skiing. Sports evolve as in anything.
Wish I knew who had made the complaint - if you are a COTHer please chime in and give your reasons as I will assume you truly believed you should speak up, but why exactly?
I have no problems with this rider competing in regular divisions so long as the field is level, on both sides.
The attitude that everyone who asks a question is just a big ole meanyhead is the very problem that will stop her chances to compete alongside everyone else. I strongly suggest another approach to answering the questions and satisfying those who ask them that everything is level and fair, on both sides.
Think about this.
Competitors must always have the right to ask questions if the rules are not truly the same for every competitor. Denying them that right serves to make the both that competition and this rider less credible, which is not what anyone wants.
Those questions aren’t needless or pointless complaining in any way. It is about fairness, and that is always a legitimate subject.
Working through that process, offering examples and explanations, is the opportunity to legitimize the special aids used by one rider but not the others. To make those aids appear not as an advantage, but merely as aids.
For the rider to get the respect she deserves, that has to be addressed up front. Not just airily dismissed later, which does the rider no favors. To try to evade the questions actually makes the special aids look less fair, equitable and legitimate. No one should want a broad feeling that one rider did not deserve what they earned, so the work has to be done to satisfy the others in the sport that her special aids are still fair to everyone else.
Sorry but that’s disingenuous from anyone in this sport. Giving a lead is a classic method of getting a horse to jump more willingly.
One of the rules of eventing is that two competitors can’t follow each other so closely that one is effectively giving the other a lead around the course.
Appearances matter, and helping this rider establish the credibility she deserves means that appearances should not look as if she has an advantage that would benefit others if they had the same advantage.
And sometimes sighted competitors miss those flags, or just don’t know the way for all sorts of reasons, and they suffer the consequences.
Part of the sport is that every competitor has the opportunity make those mistakes - or they should. It’s integral to cross-country. I don’t have a problem with special aids for non-sighted riders, but not such that they have an advantage that the others don’t have.
I would be happier if there was another way of giving her cues that would not offer the advantage of a leading horse. Sighted riders do get visual aids, but per the rules they don’t get a horse lead. Something to help guide her other than a horse lead, whatever that is.
As a volunteer at the finish line, myself and another volunteer called back a first-timer in a speed-bump starter division who finished all the course jumps but then rode off without going through the finish flags. We made sure she did come back through the flags so that by correcting her mistake, she would be less likely to make the same mistake in future in a recognized competition.
I did not call it in for an E (since only the volunteer intervention got her through the flags) so she got her completion. But had it been a recognized division, after all of her work and time and money to complete that horse trials, she would have an E for the weekend for missing those finish flags.
I’ve got two E’s on my record for jumping the wrong jump on XC due to my own failings. One, I just didn’t pay close enough attention to the numbers and jumped the next level up without realizing it. The other, I didn’t check a course change as carefully I should have, and missed a jump. I was the only one who made that mistake that day in each division, so 100% on me.
I’m happy to have her or any rider in the division, so long as the requirements are the same for everyone. Some accommodations are fine, that keep the competition fair for everyone. But I just wonder if the guiding process is really the same challenge for everyone. If she gets a guide to make sure she does not go off course, then shouldn’t every rider?
The last thing she or anyone wants is a lack of credibility for her accomplishments. So any accommodation that raises that question has to be addressed. OK as is, just needs to be understood? Or is there another, better way?
[B]When those who support such a deserving rider decide to just wave away the questions and blame the questioners, they do their special rider no favors at all. It opens the door to just what happened to this rider - a complaint gets her E’d, or else she doesn’t get to compete at all.
The questions must be addressed, the accommodations that make it possible for her to compete must be adjusted, tweaked or explained, and the sport public must be shown that this rider is competing on the same footing as everyone else, for her to have the credibility she deserves, as well as the opportunity to compete on the same field as everyone else. That’s just fair, for her as well as for the other riders.[/B]
This angle really points out the crux of the problem. The primary focus of able-bodied participants on equal participation by disabled equestrians over equitable participation.
Its not the same thing and its causing serious problems. In Kyra’s case, its a guide horse not a lead horse. The language matters. The guide horse gives her a visual cue between fences until she can see the fence sufficiently to decide how to ride over the fence. The guide horse does not jump the fence but goes past. Arguably, herd instinct would lead Kyra’s horse to choose to follow a similar path as the guide horse and not jump. To argue she has an advantage attributes her success to the use of a guide horse, not her considerable skill.
Most of the time, no one really complains about ‘equal’ and ‘fair’ until the disabled participant is successful. Then? Its ‘we can’t use it so they shouldn’t either’, even though its demonstrably less safe and often impossible for the disabled rider to participate with out those aids. In Kyra’s case, she was welcomed to participate without the guide horse. She was welcomed to ride blind.
At least in the Canadian rule books, the requirement for equal applies between para-riders in para-specific classes of same Classification level. Equal isn’t a rule book requirement for disabled riders in able-bodied divisions because the able bodied riders already have the advantage. They don’t have the disability, the added equipment expense, the extra cost to have their equipment approved at Silver level and above (Canada), the challenge of finding a professional that will even work with them.
None of that even includes the horse itself.
We need to let go of ‘equal’ and ‘fair’ in the conversation about disabled riders. In a sport where I’ve seen people ride imported jumpers in the lowest of jumper classes, new competitors ride babysitter schoolmasters in divisions of 1 or 2 and then fb brag about all their 1st place ribbons and so on? Equal and fair are rarely part of the mix, demanding it of disabled riders is pretty tough for me to stomach. Especially since every compensating aid exacts a cost for its benefit, whether those on the outside can see it or not.
I don’t get the impression that anyone is “blaming questioners” or dismissing concerns. Rather, I think people are concerned that sour grapes may have caused this young competitor her opportunity to participate. I am not an expert on para riding, and I won’t claim to be qualified to judge what sort of accommodations a rider might need. I would hope the governing organizations would employ qualified people to examine and approve aids for disabled riders. However, I think if you look hard enough, you can find some sort of advantage to any sort of accommodation, even if the recipient is still operating at an overall disadvantage.
I think calling for a perfectly level playing field in a sport like eventing is disingenuous. We have kids on saintly packers riding against kids on barely broke greenies. Any rider can make a mistake, perfectly abled or not; I understand that her guide is not allowed to
correct her mistakes or call out to keep her from going off course. I sustained a brain injury in my early 20s that impacted my memory, so I fully understand how someone can get lost or jump the wrong fence even with the visual aids- heck, I’ve been eliminated in the dressage because I can’t.freaking.remember. But if you took away the numbers, flags, and my ability to see the surrounding landscape and fences, and instead gave me a guide to show me the general direction (but not lead me over the fences) I can guarantee that I would be much worse off. It’s not perfect, but it might just be the most practical trade-off. We can’t account for every single inequality, but I believe we can (and should) do our best to help the ones we can.
I would be interested to see what happens if they gave a sighted rider the same supports and modified something so they had the same visual challenges (glasses? those wicked eye drops when you get your eyes checked) had them run through a course.
Downhill blind para skiers compete following other skiers…
Equity - it’s not pie. The idea is that people get what they need to succeed. Not everyone gets the same piece.
That jumped out at me too - I just assumed it was a “lost in translation” moment for a non-horse journalist. I think they meant to say she’s competed in Eventing before?
Yes, Kyra competed in eventing in 2018 as Hor Concours (not scored for placing). Also, the Equestrian Canada reversal to allow her to participate HC came days after mom formally hired as lawyer.
“Not quite, she got some XC time penalties. Her dressage & SJ was competitive.”
Oh, Gee, I looked backwards and only registered her dressage/sj scores, even though I obviously saw the x/c time penalties!
Honest, I only had 1 glass of wine last night with dinner!!
You did Well!! Wait, did I read the horse’s name right? As in JER’s filly? That is so awesome!! Congrats both of you!!
