A Question Nobody Wants To Answer

[LisaB]

Okay, back to Canterlope's situation. It's got me thinking :eek:
So, I've ridden plenty of solid tables in my life. The only ones where I've had trouble (including an almost flip) are ones that don't go all the way to the ground. It's open like a true table that you sit at. It's mean at best, like those blasted hay feeders that I was happy see go.
So, her table in question rides well because it's placed well and probably is constructed well that it doesn't surprise the horse with the width as they are in mid-air.
I still think the table question is valid on x-c. I just think it needs to be in a stricter accordance with design aspects that we have not defined.

[silver2]

How about living to tell about it?? Seems like a powerful incentive.
Living to tell appears not to motivate horse folk very well as anyone who has watched the Level 3 jumpers can tell you. Offer a $150K prize for the HOY at Prelim and Intermediate but not Advanced and I guarantee you people will stop moving up so fast, lol. That is motivation to perfect the lower levels!

Seriously: you need goals and then you figure out how to make it attractive for people to meet those goals (hint: cash is always good). If your goals, as an organization, are to keep people from killing themselves you offer awards to courses that have no serious accidents, to TDs and course designers that have a good safety record, to riders that have completed X numbers of competitions with no faults. If you knew that 10 fault-free competitions in a row within 1 minute of the Optimum Time and in the top 50% in dressage would net you $500 you'd make it a priority to ride that way. We'd all be awesome at it in about 5 minutes in fact.

Punishments are only effective if they really hurt. The racing boards can put the fear of god into jockeys easily enough. If everyone knew that there was a Board of Inquiry that was required to ban competitors, for life, who were found to have recklessly killed a horse in competition, people would ride very differently. But that will never happen in the US and the current punishments are a) a joke and b) not applied fairly.

[Carol Ames]

what was the final verdict?; was i tthe:( fences/courses horses/riders which caused the fatalities?

[KayBee]

Riverpol…How could anyone argue that "far improved" anything is a bad thing? I'm a bit confused on the riding in the arena vs. riding out argument that keeps popping up. No one is suggesting that you spend all your time in the ring as opposed to riding out.

During these ongoing discussions, a few observations have been repeatedly made. Basically, there isn't one single problem that can be identified; rather it's a nasty confluence of several issues:

1. Loss of land for schooling XC (at my barn, I'm lucky that I have access to a 1/4 mile sand track and a grassy area outside the rings. Many barns don't even have that)
2. Lack of cross-training in other disciplines that allow for galloping in open spaces (ie, fox hunting/hunter paces)
3. More people entering the sport
4. More trainers not highly experienced in the sport training those entering the sport

Even WITHOUT the increased technicality of the courses/(possible) decrease in emphasis on conditioning brought on by the switch from the long to short formats, the 4 factors listed above mean it's likely that there will be inexperienced <b>XC</b> riders out on the XC course, howsoever experienced they may be in the dressage or stadium rings.

Now, for those who aren't going out to WIN and are entering HTs (recognized or not) so that they GET experience, that's one thing. But for people whose objective is to win and move up the levels, it becomes an iffy thing.

What the critics are saying is that, potentially, by increasing the difficulty of the dressage and stadium elements relative to XC, you also increase the likelihood that people will CONCENTRATE on those elements to the detriment of XC, when XC training is, for some of the eventing population (wannabe or otherwise), already suffering.

You assume that people have the opportunity to "ride out." It's not always the case. And, even at barns like mine, I'm only able to ride outside a ring on my own because I've graduated to the point where I get to exercise some of the school horses. For fear of lawsuits, VERY few students at the barn get this opportunity unless they own or lease a horse of their own. For those without, you're basically on the horse, in the ring, under the eye of an instructor, or you're not on a horse at all.

In urban and suburban environments, most people have access to a ring. They're ALREADY more likely to be there rather than riding out. If they want to school outside of it, it requires an additional time and money comittment to do so. And, with the prices of gas, the $$ aspect is going up. In the name of safe XC rounds, the last thing you want to do is give them more reasons to STAY in the ring.

[Vuma]

During these ongoing discussions, a few observations have been repeatedly made. Basically, there isn't one single problem that can be identified; rather it's a nasty confluence of several issues:

1. Loss of land for schooling XC (at my barn, I'm lucky that I have access to a 1/4 mile sand track and a grassy area outside the rings. Many barns don't even have that)
2. Lack of cross-training in other disciplines that allow for galloping in open spaces (ie, fox hunting/hunter paces)
3. More people entering the sport
4. More trainers not highly experienced in the sport training those entering the sport

Even WITHOUT the increased technicality of the courses/(possible) decrease in emphasis on conditioning brought on by the switch from the long to short formats, the 4 factors listed above mean it's likely that there will be inexperienced <b>XC</b> riders out on the XC course, howsoever experienced they may be in the dressage or stadium rings.

Now, for those who aren't going out to WIN and are entering HTs (recognized or not) so that they GET experience, that's one thing. But for people whose objective is to win and move up the levels, it becomes an iffy thing.

What the critics are saying is that, potentially, by increasing the difficulty of the dressage and stadium elements relative to XC, you also increase the likelihood that people will CONCENTRATE on those elements to the detriment of XC, when XC training is, for some of the eventing population (wannabe or otherwise), already suffering.

You assume that people have the opportunity to "ride out." It's not always the case. And, even at barns like mine, I'm only able to ride outside a ring on my own because I've graduated to the point where I get to exercise some of the school horses. For fear of lawsuits, VERY few students at the barn get this opportunity unless they own or lease a horse of their own. For those without, you're basically on the horse, in the ring, under the eye of an instructor, or you're not on a horse at all.

In urban and suburban environments, most people have access to a ring. They're ALREADY more likely to be there rather than riding out. If they want to school outside of it, it requires an additional time and money comittment to do so. And, with the prices of gas, the $$ aspect is going up. In the name of safe XC rounds, the last thing you want to do is give them more reasons to STAY in the ring.

We're not really talking about "making" the D and SJ tests any harder than they already are if XC were to becomes easier. We're talking about the "competition becoming stiffer" in SJ and D if XC were to become easier. There are plenty of riders out there that aren't looking to win or even place in their division. They just want to get through it and meet their own personal goals. For them, nothing changes. For those who want to be competitive they might need to incorporate some extra schooling into their sets and hacks. The two Olympians I have worked for in the past did this on a regular basis DURING the long format era. There was no "down" time in the saddle. Even if a horse is coming off an injury and has to be walked, work on the free walk or tune up the reactions to the weight aids, legs yields, shoulder fore...whatever, but make it an educational outing for the horse and build skills to help be more competitive in the SJ & D IF that is your goal.

As for not having access to getting out of the ring, while I can symphathize with the plight, I just don't buy the excuses people are making. I was stuck on an 20 acre farm for 6 months last year and only 13 were rideable. This was like the worst case of claustrophobia I could have ever experienced after never having boarded on/lived on a farm of less than 100 acres. (Three of the farms were over 2000 acres.) I had to get creative. I "rode out" 2-3 of my 5-6 rides each week. I got board out of my mind doing trot sets/canter sets and even gallops (where appropriate/good footing) between paddocks and in paddocks when empty, but made a pattern that flowed and was effective. I did hill work up and down the same 100 yard section of pecan trees...when the trees weren't dripping the little stone bruise makers to the ground...until I was blue in the face. At least 3x/month I loaded up and went for gallops &/or schooled xc. It CAN be done. And if it can't, it might be time to find a new barn or a new sport. No offense, but you can't ride cutting horses without the cows, you can't ride race horses without the track. Maybe it's time to realize one can't/or shouldn't ride xc if you're not able (or willing) to get out of the ring.

[fooler]

We're not really talking about "making" the D and SJ tests any harder than they already are if XC were to becomes easier. We're talking about the "competition becoming stiffer" in SJ and D if XC were to become easier. There are plenty of riders out there that aren't looking to win or even place in their division. They just want to get through it and meet their own personal goals. For them, nothing changes. For those who want to be competitive they might need to incorporate some extra schooling into their sets and hacks. The two Olympians I have worked for in the past did this on a regular basis DURING the long format era. There was no "down" time in the saddle. Even if a horse is coming off an injury and has to be walked, work on the free walk or tune up the reactions to the weight aids, legs yields, shoulder fore...whatever, but make it an educational outing for the horse and build skills to help be more competitive in the SJ & D IF that is your goal.

As for not having access to getting out of the ring, while I can symphathize with the plight, I just don't buy the excuses people are making. I was stuck on an 20 acre farm for 6 months last year and only 13 were rideable. This was like the worst case of claustrophobia I could have ever experienced after never having boarded on/lived on a farm of less than 100 acres. (Three of the farms were over 2000 acres.) I had to get creative. I "rode out" 2-3 of my 5-6 rides each week. I got board out of my mind doing trot sets/canter sets and even gallops (where appropriate/good footing) between paddocks and in paddocks when empty, but made a pattern that flowed and was effective. I did hill work up and down the same 100 yard section of pecan trees...when the trees weren't dripping the little stone bruise makers to the ground...until I was blue in the face. At least 3x/month I loaded up and went for gallops &/or schooled xc. It CAN be done. And if it can't, it might be time to find a new barn or a new sport. No offense, but you can't ride cutting horses without the cows, you can't ride race horses without the track. Maybe it's time to realize one can't/or shouldn't ride xc if you're not able (or willing) to get out of the ring.

Finally! Your last sentence is the KEY!
You are looking at eventing through the eyes of one with a long history in the sport. We are in large part speaking of those who joined the sport within the past 10 or fewer years.
These people and often their coaches don't always understand the importance of riding across country, even for hacking purposes. "Must not go out "there", the footing is not flat, not perfect, the horse may be injured" mindset. What we have today is a large number of competitors who spend most of their time perfecting their skills in the arena, whether dressage or SJ and very little time outside of the arena. Kaybee listed the some of the most common reasons.
I also see the 'type a personality' riders who are great with time management and seem to think that riding one hour a day before or after work/school/other activities is sufficient for them to go up the ranks.
This is not a one issue problem and we will not have a single response to correct. We have so many new folks in the sport who don't understand the idea that x-c is most important and that both horse & rider need to work outside of the arena.

I see several issues that require immediate focus:
1) Enforce current qualifications for move-up today. These need to be reviewed and IMO increased
2) X-C courses - we must get away from the extremely 'technical' (multiple abcd combos, skinny to skinny to skinny on bending lines, etc). As competitors we can speak up to officials or talk with our feet and wd. As officials we can work with the organizers & CD's to resolve. This will take awhile
3) Competitors and trainers need to get out of the arenas. Be creative, maybe partner with another barn to make use of a facility and keep the cost down.

More to say - but have to get back to work

[Saskatoonian]

Thanks, Canterlope, for your analysis of the table on that course, as well as changes on other courses. It illustrates my concerns with this current mania for change in eventing perfectly. That table, vertical or not, in context, appears to be perfectly appropriate. Yet there is some pressure, or at least consideration, to change it. Canterlope's considering the potential consequences of that change, intended and not. It's the latter that is missing from a lot of the discussions I've read recently about the state of the sport.

Any change will have unintended consequences. I don't care if the intent is to increase the difficulty of dressage and showjumping or not, simply by making them relatively more difficult by decreasing the difficulty of XC, you change the relative incentives to school those phases, and guess what? XC schooling time just went down. It doesn't matter if that wasn't the intent, it's about the most predictable consequence I've ever seen.

Years ago when the USEA really pushed to attract more people to the sport, I was one of those nay sayers who said increase my entry fees instead, I'll pay for it, just don't invite people who are not eventers into the sport We're reaping what we've sown. Was it intended to have people running XC who aren't really capable of even hacking their horses? Nope. Direct result? Yep.

When we instituted qualification requirements to go P - what is it, 3 trainings? You've got to be kidding me - I thought it was a bad idea, because it suggests to people that they are ready to move up after 3. Guess what? I've heard people interpreting it just that way, repeatedly.

Unless the problem is identified, it cannot be addressed. Change is not going to be without consequence, whatever the change is. So Denny, with all due respect, and probably with the exception of your suggestion that there be consequences for death of a horse due to rider error, I want more data before making global changes. Individual changes, fine - those white tables? Burn em. But don't throw all tables on the pyre just because - looks like a guarantee to people that you can't flip over anything out there regardless of how hopelessly you ride it.

[silver2]

No offense, but you can't ride cutting horses without the cows, you can't ride race horses without the track. Maybe it's time to realize one can't/or shouldn't ride xc if you're not able (or willing) to get out of the ring.
This is really the crux of it. If you want to event you need to have hours upon hours of time spent riding cross country, and not in a competition setting either. Just time spent out riding and dealing with terrain.

I see people hauling hours to school BN sized ditches and banks and I always wonder if they don't have any need for drainage where they live ;)

[KayBee]

We're not really talking about "making" the D and SJ tests any harder than they already are if XC were to becomes easier.

I recognize that -- what I said was "making XC easier RELATIVE TO the other elements."

As for not having access to getting out of the ring, while I can symphathize with the plight, I just don't buy the excuses people are making. I was stuck on an 20 acre farm for 6 months last year and only 13 were rideable.

And I'm talking about a barn in the 'burbs where there is MAYBE an acre (I bet it's somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4) that is not ring (dressage, 2 outdoor, indoor), paddock, or barn. And it's not as if there's farmland or something beyond -- we are bounded by road, two schools, and suburban homes.

This barn is actually lucky in that there is access to trails at a local county park, but it's down the road a piece and, again, if you don't have your own horse, you ain't leaving the property.

For those who, as fooler points out, have grown up in the sport, NOT participating without sufficient outside-the-ring experience seems a no-brainer. But people ARE doing it and are GOING to do it whether you think it's a good idea or not. And some, at least, have the excuse that they're being trained by people who don't necessarily have the experience themselves to know the potential dangers. Heck, I wouldn't know most of this stuff except for obsessive reading of this board.

As others have pointed out, you can't mandate personal responsibility.

I also refer you to Sasketoon's words:

Any change will have unintended consequences. I don't care if the intent is to increase the difficulty of dressage and showjumping or not, simply by making them relatively more difficult by decreasing the difficulty of XC, you change the relative incentives to school those phases, and guess what? XC schooling time just went down. It doesn't matter if that wasn't the intent, it's about the most predictable consequence I've ever seen.

Years ago when the USEA really pushed to attract more people to the sport, I was one of those nay sayers who said increase my entry fees instead, I'll pay for it, just don't invite people who are not eventers into the sport We're reaping what we've sown. Was it intended to have people running XC who aren't really capable of even hacking their horses? Nope. Direct result? Yep.

[Janet]

Any change will have unintended consequences. ...

Years ago when the USEA really pushed to attract more people to the sport, I was one of those nay sayers who said increase my entry fees instead, I'll pay for it, just don't invite people who are not eventers into the sport We're reaping what we've sown. Was it intended to have people running XC who aren't really capable of even hacking their horses? Nope. Direct result? Yep. I put "lets get more television coverage and more sponsorship" in the same category. Was it intended to have highly technical and photogenic clusters of jumps separated by open distances? Nope. Direct result? Yep.

[silver2]

And I'm talking about a barn in the 'burbs where there is MAYBE an acre (I bet it's somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4) that is not ring (dressage, 2 outdoor, indoor), paddock, or barn.
So build jumps into the fence lines of your paddocks and rings and have at it.

Every barn I've ever been at, be it 10 or 2000 acres, used the majority of their land for grazing and rings but we could still ride in those areas and jumping the intervening fences is sort of the genesis of the entire sport and all.......

[Saskatoonian]

I put "lets get more television coverage and more sponsorship" in the same category. Was it intended to have highly technical and photogenic clusters of jumps separated by open distances? Nope. Direct result? Yep.


You are so right.

[CBudFrggy]

How?

The Medal Program or Mastery Program--we're working on it.

[KayBee]

So build jumps into the fence lines of your paddocks and rings and have at it.

Every barn I've ever been at, be it 10 or 2000 acres, used the majority of their land for grazing and rings but we could still ride in those areas and jumping the intervening fences is sort of the genesis of the entire sport and all.......

You're kidding, right? I'm going to go to the BO and say, hey, I want to build jumps between all your paddocks and jump through them. :lol:

I can't imagine a less likely occurrence. No way, for reasons of space, safety, and insurance would the BO EVER allow this to happen. Man, just the expression on her face if I asked... Wow.

[Melliebay]

You're kidding, right? I'm going to go to the BO and say, hey, I want to build jumps between all your paddocks and jump through them. :lol:

I can't imagine a less likely occurrence. No way, for reasons of space, safety, and insurance would the BO EVER allow this to happen. Man, just the expression on her face if I asked... Wow.

I guess I'm spoiled, because most of the barns I have ridden at have had this feature.

[rivenoak]

These people and often their coaches don't always understand the importance of riding across country, even for hacking purposes. "Must not go out "there", the footing is not flat, not perfect, the horse may be injured" mindset.

I see this every hunting season when our beagle pack goes out & we have not one single student of an eventing trainer in the field. None of the trainers in Phoenix hunt, so none of the students are encouraged to do so. :(

Risk-Averse Rider brought a couple kids out once a few years ago, but they never gave it another go, which is too bad.

In Flagstaff, it's a bit different. Two pros up there hunt as do some of their students.

It *should* be a natural-fit, no-brainer for folks to come out and learn some seat of the pants riding at speed and over terrain. For cheap, too! But it isn't. :confused:

[Janet]

You're kidding, right? I'm going to go to the BO and say, hey, I want to build jumps between all your paddocks and jump through them. :lol:

I can't imagine a less likely occurrence. No way, for reasons of space, safety, and insurance would the BO EVER allow this to happen. Man, just the expression on her face if I asked... Wow.
While I wouldn't say that EVERY barn has jumps (aka panels) in the fence line, it is certainly not uncommon. Both in Northern Virginia, where I live now, and in Northern Westchester (NY) where I grew up.

While there certainly might be a fussy barn owner who doesn't want it, it is by no means an unreasonable request.

[snoopy]

I put "lets get more television coverage and more sponsorship" in the same category. Was it intended to have highly technical and photogenic clusters of jumps separated by open distances? Nope. Direct result? Yep.


agreed

[Saskatoonian]

I can see both sides of the jumps in the fence line discussion. I've boarded at places without the ability to do that, becuase of the configuration of pastures, footing, etc. Not that big a deal - it just means you have to ship out to school XC. And even with jumps around at home, you may not be able to really gallop, then rebalance as appropriate, and jump. You can school a lot of XC in an arena, but not that part, and that's a large part of the problem I see on XC. But it's not insurmountable.

It's not as if everyone has some sort of right to event, regardless of what schooling he or she is willing or able to do in between events! If one doesn't school XC outside of competition, one shouldn't be competing. No schooling available at home? Tough. I board at a dressage barn. Trust me, I have no XC jumps in the fenceline. I put the horse on the trailer, and ship to where the jumps are. There are places I pay to school over their course, places I take a lesson with someone to access their course, and places I get to school because I'm a member. Anyone without facilities at home, and unwilling to do that should consider another sport.

PS this isn't directed at anyone here, and I truly hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm just frustrated, as I know many are, at the current state of affairs. So please, if you're worried that this is directed at you, know that it's not. That's my halfhalt, in case anyone needs it.

[fooler]

While I wouldn't say that EVERY barn has jumps (aka panels) in the fence line, it is certainly not uncommon. Both in Northern Virginia, where I live now, and in Northern Westchester (NY) where I grew up.

While there certainly might be a fussy barn owner who doesn't want it, it is by no means an unreasonable request.

In some ways this reminds of the conversations in the 70's & 80's when the heart of eventing was in AreaI. The folks up there didn't understand the problems faced in other parts of the country.

Janet you are smack in the current middle of eventing, jumping & foxhunting heaven. Old traditions of jumping and land owners who are willing to allow folks to use their land.

We bought a 10 acre farmette in a 'horsey' community that backs onto some 1000+ acres of land. There are trails between land used to get to this open acreage. FYI This land was deeded to the general community for use by the local hunt and horse owners.
Two our of newest neighbors have started a process to limit our access to the trails and to the acreage behind. They have attitude of don't ride on or near my land because you get hurt & sue me. My husband and I will now incure a certain amount of legal expenses in order to confirm our understand and hopefully 'explain' to our new neighbors that we do have the right to ride on the trails and they do not have the right to block them.
Long way to state, many trainers are on smaller acreage and surrounded by areas not suitable for riding (rr tracks, subdivisions, heavily traveled roadways, etc).

My current instructor has limited space and access away from her property to hack out. Yes she could place jumps in the fenc line but you are back to what I dealt with at my old instructor's farm. Make certain the fields are empty, so you don't jump into a herd of bucking & playing horses and so the others don't follow you out or jump out of their own a accord.

[LisaB]

Uhh, how about setting up some regular jumps in a field?
Had a lesson last week where the hardest 2 exercises I did had teeny jumps.
One had 2 portable little logs on a bending line where the ground fell away on the curve. It was hard!
Then the other was going up a hill and had a low wide oxer. Try to keep the impulsion going up hill and then enough scope to get across the jump. Winston jumped and reached so much, I swear I saw his shoe size.
And this field was hmmmm, maybe 1 1/2 acre? Maybe 2?

[KayBee]

Somewhat rambly and repetitive response...

I can see both sides of the jumps in the fence line discussion. I've boarded at places without the ability to do that, becuase of the configuration of pastures, footing, etc. Not that big a deal - it just means you have to ship out to school XC. And even with jumps around at home, you may not be able to really gallop, then rebalance as appropriate, and jump. You can school a lot of XC in an arena, but not that part, and that's a large part of the problem I see on XC. But it's not insurmountable.

My point isn't that it's insurmountable. I'm only talking about (lack of) opportunities to school in relation to the question of dumbing down XC. Ie, you make XC less difficult (in relation to dressage and stadium), you cut down on the incentive to FIND opportunities to school.

It's not as if everyone has some sort of right to event, regardless of what schooling he or she is willing or able to do in between events! If one doesn't school XC outside of competition, one shouldn't be competing. No schooling available at home? Tough. I board at a dressage barn. Trust me, I have no XC jumps in the fenceline. I put the horse on the trailer, and ship to where the jumps are. There are places I pay to school over their course, places I take a lesson with someone to access their course, and places I get to school because I'm a member. Anyone without facilities at home, and unwilling to do that should consider another sport.

I don't disagree, but just as with personal responsibility, you can't mandate it. Because, seriously, I haven't been talking about "god-given rights." I've been raising the issues I'm raising because a) they've been raised by others and b) they're especially relevant to me. And, based on my experience, they're relevant to more riders than more experienced (and/or more conscientous) eventers may realize.

PS this isn't directed at anyone here, and I truly hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm just frustrated, as I know many are, at the current state of affairs. So please, if you're worried that this is directed at you, know that it's not. That's my halfhalt, in case anyone needs it.

It's not that I'm taking it personally, believe me. But what I was trying to do is illustrate that not everyone HAS immediate access to the kind of open space necessary and THEY'RE GOING TO EVENT ANYWAY (and, yes, without attempting to go and school elsewhere). So, yes, I'm a little frustrated that my attempt to generalize from the particulars of my experience has made it seem as if I'm whining about a lack of opportunities, or am unwilling to find other opportunities to school.

It's no use telling me what *I* should do because, believe me, I ain't the problem. I've been riding for 2 years and have competed in exactly 1 Elementary level non-recognized event. And, my instructor WAS an eventer, so I'm already several steps ahead of the game.

Using the (downsides of the) particulars of my experience though was intended to illustrate the potential ramifications of making XC easier relative to stadium and dressage. If all the jumps are low and easy (from the rider's point-of-view) then they are going to see even LESS of a reason to make the effort to get out into the open and school. But make the courses flowing with fences that look scary to the rider and make sense to the horse, you may decrease (though likely not eliminate) the chance of someone saying "pfft. I can do THAT." And, lo and behold, when it turns out they can (tho' it may look scary), they'll think they can get away with the same approach as they increase through the levels.

Basically, I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if a) I didn't have the instructor I DO have and b) I wasn't an avid reader of this message board. Others, more eventing-savvy than me, have pointed out the a) increase of folks attracted to eventing and b) the subsequent increase of trainers NOT eventing-experienced training those folks. Throw in a lack of EASILY available opportunity to school XC and I think dumbing down courses is more likely to create more problems down the line than it solves.

And maybe you'll feel "if you're not experienced, why are you commenting?" But consider the following:
1) I have limited riding experience (in my case, less than 2 years)
2) I'm interested in eventing (and have little experience in the sport)
3) I don't have easily available opportunities to ride out
4) I have an instructor who evented and is NOT going to let me compete willy-nilly
5) I read this board

In the absence of 4 and 5 I could potentially be a future menace -- even if I had additional riding experience in another discipline and decided to move over to eventing. And there are people out there who share factors 2 & 3. In some ways I think that my lack of experience, combined with my age (I'm 40) means that I will be cautious and find opportunities to school because I don't have any grand plans of competing at the higher levels -- hell if I get to Novice level sometime in the next 10 years I'll be thrilled to bits.

[millerra]

just a hare-brained idea that I keep coming back to after reading thread after thread about rider responsibility and how to fix eventing.

I keep coming back to the idea of adding subjective judging to xcountry. I know it would cost more, add to the hassle, etc but here's my idea:

Have one of the ground jury sitting out at a complex or in a spot where several jumps are in view.

Have the ground jury member judge: rider position and security, horse balance and control; correct riding for the complex or series of jumps, etc. Have it scored like in dressage: 10 for perfect, 0 for - well, hopefully very few zeros. Then subtract the score or percent there of from the over all score.

It would reward good riding. It would keep an "eye" on riders. It would increase the influence of xcountry (and good xcountry riding skills) on the final outcome. It could even be tied to qualifying to move up to the next level - say, for example: 2 8's are required before moving up. It could even be tied to moving "down" - where two "3s" would require you to move down a level and requalify and address the missing skills.

Of course, the judges would have to learn/be skilled in good cross country riding, etc. I don't have any idea on how the current judges and/or TDs feel about it.

But it is one idea that would promote rider responsibility and safe riding techniques...

Just my humble two cents.

[fooler]

just a hare-brained idea that I keep coming back to after reading thread after thread about rider responsibility and how to fix eventing.

I keep coming back to the idea of adding subjective judging to xcountry. I know it would cost more, add to the hassle, etc but here's my idea:

Have one of the ground jury sitting out at a complex or in a spot where several jumps are in view.

Have the ground jury member judge: rider position and security, horse balance and control; correct riding for the complex or series of jumps, etc. Have it scored like in dressage: 10 for perfect, 0 for - well, hopefully very few zeros. Then subtract the score or percent there of from the over all score.

It would reward good riding. It would keep an "eye" on riders. It would increase the influence of xcountry (and good xcountry riding skills) on the final outcome. It could even be tied to qualifying to move up to the next level - say, for example: 2 8's are required before moving up. It could even be tied to moving "down" - where two "3s" would require you to move down a level and requalify and address the missing skills.

Of course, the judges would have to learn/be skilled in good cross country riding, etc. I don't have any idea on how the current judges and/or TDs feel about it.

But it is one idea that would promote rider responsibility and safe riding techniques...

Just my humble two cents.

Sounds great in theory. However have you watched Phillip Dutton - his position is not considered ideal yet he does well, very well. And yes he falls. I was judging stadium and he fell over a BN oxer - good one at that he took the bridle with him.
I remember watching M Plumb at Rolex one year, he was not as quiet on his horse as others I watched - yet look at his record.
Finally - get a copy of "The Horse In Sport" - Eventing. Look at the sequence of Todd & Charisma on steeplechase. Still makes me cringe. They are great on the flat but look like h*** over the fences.
These are reasons why I have major reservations about equitation judging of eventers. We all know of horse/rider combo's who don't always look great yet are totally safe and others that "look good" but have problems.

[Vuma]

Originally quoted by KayBee..

..."I think dumbing down courses is more likely to create more problems down the line than it solves."

My real concern is that the problems already exists with the conditions as they are at the moment. If something doesn't change expeditiously, there may not be a "down the line."

[RunForIt]

Sounds great in theory. However have you watched Phillip Dutton - his position is not considered ideal yet he does well, very well. And yes he falls. I was judging stadium and he fell over a BN oxer - good one at that he took the bridle with him.
I remember watching M Plumb at Rolex one year, he was not as quiet on his horse as others I watched - yet look at his record.
Finally - get a copy of "The Horse In Sport" - Eventing. Look at the sequence of Todd & Charisma on steeplechase. Still makes me cringe. They are great on the flat but look like h*** over the fences.
These are reasons why I have major reservations about equitation judging of eventers. We all know of horse/rider combo's who don't always look great yet are totally safe and others that "look good" but have problems.
__________________


case in point - go to this month's Practical Horseman & read Jimmy Wofford's critique of Phillip's position over fences at Rolex (XC) - much to be wished for EXCEPT: Jimmy emphasizes that instead of watching Phillip's equitation one should watch the horse's jump - free, balanced, incredible. :yes: :cool:

[gooddirt]

Originally quoted by KayBee..

..."I think dumbing down courses is more likely to create more problems down the line than it solves."

My real concern is that the problems already exists with the conditions as they are at the moment. If something doesn't change expeditiously, there may not be a "down the line."


It's a moving target. The more we dumb down, the more dumbness we will get.

[denny]

I am all for temporarily making various aspects of xc easier, such as tinkering with slowing speeds, providing better ground lines, eradicating the square/quasi square/disguised square/ tables, etc.

Why?

Because weekend after weekend, either in the USA or somewhere, another horse or rider gets it. Sometimes dead, sometimes crippled, but bad.

How much of this do you think our sport can take?

Don`t think of this as "dumbing down". Think of this as stopping the bleeding while we grapple with longer term answers.

We can`t keep going with the "business as usual" model, I don`t think, because pressures are building that we can`t fully anticipate from those who are ready to really come down on us if we don`t start making real attempts to fix things.

[millerra]

I guess I was thinking/hoping that the judging that I proposed on xcountry would not devolve into an equitation contest - but more like dressage where the judge focuses on how the horse goes thru the complex - the rider would lose points if, for example, he/she floated the horses teeth. Imperfect idea, yes... but we can/could design the judging so it would 'fit' the spirit of eventing and not be based on a perfect position on a horse...

Again, my two cents. And yes, I realize that this type of change would 1) change the competition and 2) take a long time to implement...

Well, there are pros and cons to every idea - no matter how hare-brained...

I just was thinking of ways to impact "rider responsibility"...

[wendy]

potentially stupid question- how often do horses die while out fox-hunting? is fox-hunting a good simulation of what XC "SHOULD" be?

[Vuma]

potentially stupid question- how often do horses die while out fox-hunting? is fox-hunting a good simulation of what XC "SHOULD" be?

I know of one, underconditioned, who dropped dead between fences.

[imapepper]

just a hare-brained idea that I keep coming back to after reading thread after thread about rider responsibility and how to fix eventing.

I keep coming back to the idea of adding subjective judging to xcountry. I know it would cost more, add to the hassle, etc but here's my idea:

Have one of the ground jury sitting out at a complex or in a spot where several jumps are in view.

Have the ground jury member judge: rider position and security, horse balance and control; correct riding for the complex or series of jumps, etc. Have it scored like in dressage: 10 for perfect, 0 for - well, hopefully very few zeros. Then subtract the score or percent there of from the over all score.

It would reward good riding. It would keep an "eye" on riders. It would increase the influence of xcountry (and good xcountry riding skills) on the final outcome. It could even be tied to qualifying to move up to the next level - say, for example: 2 8's are required before moving up. It could even be tied to moving "down" - where two "3s" would require you to move down a level and requalify and address the missing skills.

Of course, the judges would have to learn/be skilled in good cross country riding, etc. I don't have any idea on how the current judges and/or TDs feel about it.

But it is one idea that would promote rider responsibility and safe riding techniques...

Just my humble two cents.

I came up with something similar and nobody has yet to comment....

My idea was, instead of judging equitation or scary factor during x-country at a HT, have some qualifying trials/skills tests that have a subjective factor. I don't think that dressage should be a factor here. I think that a QUALIFIED panel should give the go ahead on whether the person/horse combo can compete at the level that they are testing for anything above Novice. Basically it's kind of like having a license or card that states you can enter at whatever level you and the horse have qualified. I believe that they have such a system in Europe. I would think that holding one of these events every 4-6 months would give people an opportunity to move up.....or give them feedback that they might need another couple of outings to be prepared for the next level. Even better would be to have these qualifiers in the form of a clinic so that a rider/horse combo can get feedback on what they need to improve to get to the next level. I am sure that in each area, there are qualified professionals that could give such a clinic. And for professionals, there are plenty of their peers that could give them good feedback on their current performance and that of their horses at a similar type of clinic.

[2ndyrgal]

I walked the BN course at Mid South yesterday. Without a map. I have never walked a xc course before. I was supposed to compete, but that's another story. The jumps were wonderfully approachable, well placed, solid enough to look the part, and easy enough that a blind monkey could either see the distance or take a tug and trot it. Which is exactly what the book says BN is supposed to be. The seasoned BN competitors said it was pedantically easy, but I bet they all have a blast trucking around there with big grins tomorrow. Why is it so damn hard to just design a course that people can gallop and jump, and just make the fences bigger as you go up, add some combinations and place and emphasis on conditioning. Double back if you need the space, make the dressage test easier at the upper levels, BUT, put more emphasis on true quality of the dressage as opposed to who can keep their horse's head down and get through it without incident (gives the warmbloods a chance, but they still have to gallop and jump.) Then let whoever's left sort it out on show jumping day. It's not like the big UL courses are running out of land to gallop and jump on. Ok, maybe there would be a couple of big events that will not have enough land left, but if you ride at an UL, then you can probably afford to go a bit farther to compete. It worked before, when we had the long format, for a very long time. Yes there were accidents and deaths of both horse and rider, but, not the god awful every weekend that we have now. It can't really be that damn hard, really. I just finished one of Jimmy Wofford's books and looked at the ginormous stuff they jumped. On horse's with snaffles and no martigale at all. Ok, so their dressage sucked, big deal, so did everyone elses' so it didn't make any difference. I think the answer is to make dressage count 20%, Stadium 20% and XC 60% then make the distance longer and set galloping fences in there. Ones that have to be ridden in stride and in balance. Forward and balanced, not at terminal velocity. Easier at the very beginning, then fences that can be safely jumped by a horse that's still giving his all at the end, but not so easy they're "fly' fences. Make the distances distantly related based on an average horse trucking along at slightly under the max mpm, surely someone that's experienced could figure out where to place a fence on course to reward the rider with "the good canter" and be a big akward for someone going way too fast, then trying to take a tug. Denny, you could figure this out or at least explain it better.

[lduhamel]

Denny,
I totally support your thoughts placed on this tread. my answer to your question is, we must stop the bleeding and so the courses must get easier. I have written here and in letters to PTB, and spoken up at the safety summit about rider responsibility, but also agree that we can not stop the stupid. All anyone needs to do is read Laine's webpage to realize that "rider responsibility" will not save the horses from the those who will not learn, even at the expense of their "beloved" partners lives and the ruin of our sport. If you can come up with a way to take the ideas to our leaders, please put me on board!!! Petitions to the safety task force???? Find out when meetings are and go to them???? I will email any list that we can come up with, we need action and although I read this forum page about once every two weeks or so, some how we need to get involved and get Kevin, David and others to DO SOMETHING POSTIVE!!!!! I am a adult am rider from GA and just don't know what or how to make a difference!!!! I love to read the articles from you, Danny W, Jimmy W, etc, but how do we get from the printed page to action???? Is there something different we can do???
Thoughts from Area III
Laura

[denny]

Laura, if you read David O`Connor`s Between Rounds from this current Chronicle, he says all the right things.
But whether he can get the stolid, entrenched bureaucracies, and the ULR to support him enough to get ACTION, there`s thr question.

[2ndyrgal]

So I went down to the KHP for the Mid South BN. As a spectator. And guess what? Half the green horses that hadn't been out before were able to trot, make a big circle and come again and everyone made it around without injury, most with a big grin and a "wow" we did it " not a look of terror and a "thank God I survived". Can't good sense just trickle up??

[RunForIt]

Laura, if you read David O`Connor`s Between Rounds from this current Chronicle, he says all the right things.
But whether he can get the stolid, entrenched bureaucracies, and the ULR to support him enough to get ACTION, there`s thr question.

originally posted by lduhamel:
how do we get from the printed page to action???? Is there something different we can do???


David's piece is illuminating in that the reader is able to see him inch forward in understanding, grappling with the problems the ULRs, UL eventing faces...the evolution of his own responsibility is evident. It occurred to me as I read, that "rider responsibility" may be more important as we stand on the ground than once we throw a leg over our horses.

It also occurred to me - and I bet it has to David too - as I read his line about addressing horses falling - he left out a question, a critical piece of this dangerous puzzle: do fences need to be so high and wide and "tricky" that if a horse or rider makes a mistake, the horse will likely suffer?

David's correct, riders are coming into the sport with different skill sets - getting skills simply from the experience of eventing is simply no longer a safe or smart option. The sport has changed, but as that was happening, I believe the conciousness of many people regarding risking horses' lives has been changing too. As so many wise, experienced folks on this board have said over and over - fences and speed are hurting horses. Yes, irresponsible, stupid riding has done its fair share, but maybe with smaller fences, ridden at slower speeds, those horses could have survived.

Damn, look at how many riders are in Virginia, over in England, TRYING their very best, to make the Olympic team in order to ride over what will amount to what, an Intermediate course?!?

Back to having rider responsibility "on the ground"...more letters, more emails to Kevin and David asking for specific action. Some things take time - some problems require data. If the need to have all teams get around safely at the Olympics is enough justification for smaller fences, it should be enough for the upper levels of eventing in the US.

[Ajierene]

....I just finished one of Jimmy Wofford's books and looked at the ginormous stuff they jumped. On horse's with snaffles and no martigale at all. Ok, so their dressage sucked, big deal, so did everyone elses' so it didn't make any difference. I think the answer is to make dressage count 20%, Stadium 20% and XC 60% then make the distance longer and set galloping fences in there.....

Why make Cross Country count so much? Wasn't the original intent of Eventing to have everything count equally because all parts are equally important to the military? If you make cross country count more, you are going to have greater and more difficult courses to run over because people are going to concentrate more on cross country. Or even before people are able to concentrate more on cross country, the courses will become more difficult and more accidents will happen.

Make dressage worth more and more harshly scored. Once you can get your horse doing dressage better and work more on proper basics, you will see more horses without martingales and harsher bits. Yes, some horses still need these, but many horses do not and they are just used as short cuts to proper training.

Back in the 'good old days' people spent more time working on basics with their mounts. It is a phenomena across disciplines that more and more shortcuts are being used instead of proper training. At least this is the trend I see in the US.

[fooler]

Why make Cross Country count so much? Wasn't the original intent of Eventing to have everything count equally because all parts are equally important to the military? If you make cross country count more, you are going to have greater and more difficult courses to run over because people are going to concentrate more on cross country. Or even before people are able to concentrate more on cross country, the courses will become more difficult and more accidents will happen.

Make dressage worth more and more harshly scored. Once you can get your horse doing dressage better and work more on proper basics, you will see more horses without martingales and harsher bits. Yes, some horses still need these, but many horses do not and they are just used as short cuts to proper training.

Back in the 'good old days' people spent more time working on basics with their mounts. It is a phenomena across disciplines that more and more shortcuts are being used instead of proper training. At least this is the trend I see in the US.

When I 1st started in Eventing way back in the 1970's X-C was more heavily weighted than dressage & SJ. That is why we had the weird scoring to properly weight the dressage score. And yes, dressage was not equivalent to 'real' dressage - however look at all of the people who retired from old school eventing to dressage? Same for SJ, if memory serves me right, it carried more weight than dressage & less than X-C in overall scoring.

When X-C really meant more in overall scoring, folks spend more time training on X-C and 'less' on SJ & Dressage. Now that dressage carries more weight, folks spend more time on dressage & less on X-C.

Pick any eventing competition year between 1970-2000 - now compare the overal injuries and deaths (human+equine) of that year to this year-to-date. Then talk to me.

[LisaB]

You know the scariest thing of all?
Talking about scoring x-c. And then us actually discussing the pros and cons of it.
I'm seriously getting ticked off at these comments and I'll get flamed for this. If you want to get judged on your round, go to hunter land. That's not the object of the game on x-c.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Why make Cross Country count so much? Wasn't the original intent of Eventing to have everything count equally because all parts are equally important to the military?


Nope....cross country or endurance day was ALWAYS supposed to count more....not equally. All dressage was supposed to show was that your horse had enough control to be able to be kept in line in the parade for the military....and all Stadium was supposed to show was that after the huge effort of xc....your horse was still rideable and careful over the stadium jumps. The most important aspect for the military and calvery was that you had a horse with endurance and bravery to go xc. XC has always been the heart of eventing.

[Dr. Doolittle]

I am all for temporarily making various aspects of xc easier, such as tinkering with slowing speeds, providing better ground lines, eradicating the square/quasi square/disguised square/ tables, etc.

Why?

Because weekend after weekend, either in the USA or somewhere, another horse or rider gets it. Sometimes dead, sometimes crippled, but bad.

How much of this do you think our sport can take?

Don`t think of this as "dumbing down". Think of this as stopping the bleeding while we grapple with longer term answers.

We can`t keep going with the "business as usual" model, I don`t think, because pressures are building that we can`t fully anticipate from those who are ready to really come down on us if we don`t start making real attempts to fix things.


Thank you, Denny :yes:

It seems as though this discussion is veering off onto all sorts of different tangents (not that they aren't important discussion points), but it seems to me that there are some SIMPLE steps that we can take *now*; which are contained in the first sentence of the above post!

These changes would NOT be "dumbing down" the sport in any way, but would simply be removing (or tweaking) some of the things that have proved to be dangerous.

Hello, WHY do we need square tables on courses?!?!?

When I was at Surefire this past weekend, I was pleasantly surprised to see NO square tables on any of the courses: the Intermediate course did have a big table, but it had a "step" in front of it, as well as a brush groundline; I didn't see ANY tables at Prelim (I should have moved my mare up to P this weekend, since I have a "table phobia" ;)), and the table on the Training course had a slightly graduated face with a rounded front edge: I jump judged the fence right before it, and NO horses had a problem there--even those who jumped it from a less-than-perfect spot.

So kudos to Jan, and to whomever designed the courses there!

This is a simple step in the right direction; there are plenty of other ways to make X-country challenging enough to remain a "true test" of horse and rider *without* unneceassarily endangering the horses (and riders) with these unfair questions, where one small mistake can spell disaster.

(And I watched a goodly number of ULRs on X-country yesterday: I judged 177 horses...It was abundantly clear that NO ONE has an "infallible eye", and even when those UL riders attempt to balance the horse and find the stride, NO horse is 100% rideable at all times ;))

[RunForIt]

originally posted by Dr. Doolittle:
These changes would NOT be "dumbing down" the sport in any way, but would simply be removing (or tweaking) some of the things that have proved to be dangerous.

Hello, WHY do we need square tables on courses?!?!?

When I was at Surefire this past weekend, I was pleasantly surprised to see NO square tables on any of the courses: the Intermediate course did have a big table, but it had a "step" in front of it, as well as a brush groundline; I didn't see ANY tables at Prelim (I should have moved my mare up to P this weekend, since I have a "table phobia" ;)), and the table on the Training course had a slightly graduated face with a rounded front edge: I jump judged the fence right before it, and NO horses had a problem there--even those who jumped it from a less-than-perfect spot.

So kudos to Jan, and to whomever designed the courses there!

This is a simple step in the right direction; there are plenty of other ways to make X-country challenging enough to remain a "true test" of horse and rider *without* unneceassarily endangering the horses (and riders) with these unfair questions, where one small mistake can spell disaster.

(And I watched a goodly number of ULRs on X-country yesterday: I judged 177 horses...It was abundantly clear that NO ONE has an "infallible eye", and even when those UL riders attempt to balance the horse and find the stride, NO horse is 100% rideable at all times ;))
__________________


The bolded print was done by me - those are the thoughts that jumped out at me.

The big question I have, the one that troubles me in a relentless way, HOW DO WE GET THE COURSES, THE FENCES CHANGED?

[Janet]

Thank you, Denny :yes:

...

Hello, WHY do we need square tables on courses?!?!?

When I was at Surefire this past weekend, I was pleasantly surprised to see NO square tables on any of the courses: the Intermediate course did have a big table, but it had a "step" in front of it, as well as a brush groundline; I didn't see ANY tables at Prelim (I should have moved my mare up to P this weekend, since I have a "table phobia" ;)), and the table on the Training course had a slightly graduated face with a rounded front edge: I jump judged the fence right before it, and NO horses had a problem there--even those who jumped it from a less-than-perfect spot.

So kudos to Jan, and to whomever designed the courses there!
Tremaine Cooper

[Ajierene]

Nope....cross country or endurance day was ALWAYS supposed to count more....not equally. All dressage was supposed to show was that your horse had enough control to be able to be kept in line in the parade for the military....and all Stadium was supposed to show was that after the huge effort of xc....your horse was still rideable and careful over the stadium jumps. The most important aspect for the military and calvery was that you had a horse with endurance and bravery to go xc. XC has always been the heart of eventing.

That makes sense, thanks. I was thinking they needed the dressage movements at the heart of a battle also, but without the endurance to make it through a full day of fighting, dressage won't matter.

This goes back to why don't people train for the long format and ride the short format? With a lot of people here being up in arms about the loss of the long format, it seems the opinion is that a good portion of the accidents would be resolved if people ensured their horses are conditions.

Another point I thought was a good idea was to put one long format venue in each region. To get from Training to Prelim and Prelim to Int, you would have to successfully complete (not place, but finish with no refusals cross country) one long format and say two short formats of that level. This helps weed out the people that are not conditioning their horses enough and make them go back and figure out what they are doing wrong. The single venue in each region can hold two or three events a season. By having one venue and putting it in the qualifications, you are ensured entrants - which will keep the venue alive. By only having one venue you are solving many of the long format vs disappearing land issues.

By the time someone gets to Intermediate, they should understand horse conditioning and continue on to Advanced without problems. I know that it may be a long trek for some people to get to the venue - but you would be able to compete up to training without an issue. If you want to go to Preliminary, you would be setting yourself up for greater commitment anyway.

Maybe one long format to get to Preliminary and two long formats to get to Intermediate, just to ensure competitors are not just training for the one event, but consistently training. If two were required, then also put in a clause that two long formats cannot be within say a month of each other.

[Dr. Doolittle]

Tremaine Cooper

Well, nice job! :yes:

[Hannahsmom]

Maybe one long format to get to Preliminary and two long formats to get to Intermediate, just to ensure competitors are not just training for the one event, but consistently training. If two were required, then also put in a clause that two long formats cannot be within say a month of each other.

I don't think a horse and rider have to do a long format to jump Preliminary. Yes, I have done a long format in the past, but I don't think one must do that to do well at Prelim. If my goal is not to do the upper levels, I don't really want to put that wear and tear on my horse's legs of conditioning all those sets on iffy ground.

I haven't done Prelim for two years and went out and did one this past weekend on my campaigner (who I had ridden up thru Intermediate). I did do my 'schools' with my coach and did my RIDER fitness of two point work and riding without stirrups. And this was really hard for me because I'm OLD and it HURTS.

What I did on competition day to make my XC successful was just what Denny suggested, I slowed down. That simple. I made sure to balance up for the tables. And it works just fine. I had a blast. I had a few time penalties on XC which I never had in the old days, but who cares. I had a wonderful time.

[snoopy]

Nope....cross country or endurance day was ALWAYS supposed to count more....not equally. All dressage was supposed to show was that your horse had enough control to be able to be kept in line in the parade for the military....and all Stadium was supposed to show was that after the huge effort of xc....your horse was still rideable and careful over the stadium jumps. The most important aspect for the military and calvery was that you had a horse with endurance and bravery to go xc. XC has always been the heart of eventing.


Yes it used to be "ranked":

XC
dressage
stadium

in terms of "weight" for a succesful result.

[Pixie Dust]

He also did the MCTA at Shawan Downs course this year. It was very nice.

[arnika]

The big question I have, the one that troubles me in a relentless way, HOW DO WE GET THE COURSES, THE FENCES CHANGED?

Picket DOC, CMP and USEF.;)

[Jazzy Lady]

Maybe we can push for a rule change to increase the degree of slope on a table from the groundline to the top-front edge to make fence faces more friendly. Failing that, anything with a slope of say, less than a certain degree must have a substantial groundline...

[sm]

Laura, if you read David O`Connor`s Between Rounds from this current Chronicle, he says all the right things.
But whether he can get the stolid, entrenched bureaucracies, and the ULR to support him enough to get ACTION, there`s thr question.

I read it several times, I could do without the feel good platitudes. I was hoping DOC would address questions like those on posts 302 and 303. Horse falls are acknowledged by DOC as a major problem, then nothing further.

What DOES it take to slow down speeds and eliminate vertical tables as Denny suggested as a temporary solution ?

Janet, do you know?

[CentreEquestre]

So another horse has died, this time at Bromont.
I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier. Probably by slowing down the required speeds, maybe 20 mpm, for preliminary and up, by softening the faces of the verticals, with generous ground lines, by ramping up the requirements for moving up, by taking away the "ticket to ride" of those conspicuously failing at a level, and making them re-qualify at a lower level, by making all horse fatalities trigger an automatic inquiry, a la endurance, and by penalizing "dangerous riding."
BUT--- Here`s the question, the 900 pound gorilla.
"Do we want to make the cross country phase of eventing a little too easy for our best riders, or do we want to leave it too hard for our lesser riders?"
Put another way---We can make the show jumping and dressage phases more likely to influence the final results, but we will lose cross country as being the dominant factor.
But it will make things safer.
I don`t think we can have it both ways, hard xc, safety first.
So which is more critical, safe or testing?
Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.
What do others think?
Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?

Excellent post, great ideas. A lot of things I had never thought about.What about increasing the difficulty of stadium and dressage and lowering cross country?
Maybe I'm out to the dumps to, who knows...

[criss]

I'm only on page 5, so I apologize for posting now, but I see some of the same things being said over and over. I think some wrong assumptions are being made here, namely that the courses are safe for "the best" and that safer=less difficult. Also, that it is possible to design fences that cause stops but not falls.

First of all, while some of the accidents have involved less experienced riders, you can hardly say that Darren (at P, no less), Laine, Kim, etc, were not among "the best" or were not qualified to ride at those levels by any standards you could devise. If it were as simple as requiring more extensive qualifications, we could just do that. Now, doing that might HELP, it might prevent some of the accidents and near misses that involved people who weren't ready, but it WILL NOT solve the problem.

As for safe=less difficult: I think we need to substantially revise what constitutes "difficulty". I think we need to, as Denny has said, either cut out the twisty-turny crap or lower the speed. If you want to retain the galloping fitness element (and you do, because that's a serious safety concern among those less-experienced folks having issues), then you make TPR recovery rates part of the competition, so that even when everyone makes the time, you have a way of ranking how well they made the time.

All of that being said, courses don't need to be "easy" to be safe. My personal preference (well, what I think is good for the sport, though the idea doesn't fill me personally with joy, as I am a chicken) would be to keep the speed and maybe even increase the height, but eliminate all but a couple of combinations on XC and eliminate most of the tight turns. Throw some steeplechase brush fences out there, let them be 6" higher than the max height with the top 12" being something you can brush through. Heck, even just bring back the steeplechase and have it even at HTs, just as part of the XC. Then you will make it plenty difficult for everyone--riders will have to really increase their skills at rating their horses and jumping out of stride without picking, even at the ULs, from what I've seen recently of the ULs.

Finally, while I wholeheartedly support eliminating vertical faces with sharp corners at the top, I am not so sure I believe that refusals are the good alternative to falls. I think falls often happen when the horse would like to refuse but is given a just good enough ride that he doesn't stop...but not good enough to get over safely. I don't believe runouts or stops decrease the likelihood of falls.

[Janet]

Excellent post, great ideas. A lot of things I had never thought about.What about increasing the difficulty of stadium and dressage and lowering cross country? Unfortunately, you have to worry about unintended consequences. If you make dressage and show jumping harder (which HAS been done in the last 5 - 10 years), the result is that people spend more time schooling dressage and show jumping, and less time schooling cross country. Which makes cross coutry less safe.

[arnika]

My mind just keeps going back to quick, simple fixes that could be instituted instantly.

Get rid of vertical tables, double corners and blind jumps. Make a minimum distance for the horse to see the next jump or combination but make sure that the second element can be seen. The exceptions I can think of would be elements after drops, or ditches in the same jumping effort as a raised fence.

Personally I would make no other change than that unless perhaps a slight decrease in speeds. Watch 2 or 3 events at I-A and see if there is a big change in patterns. Something as simple as this might be all the sport would need. Painless, quick, perhaps instant results. Voila', no more horses or riders hurt and no more endless threads on how eventing is broken.

[Dr. Doolittle]

My mind just keeps going back to quick, simple fixes that could be instituted instantly.

Get rid of vertical tables, double corners and blind jumps. Make a minimum distance for the horse to see the next jump or combination but make sure that the second element can be seen. The exceptions I can think of would be elements after drops, or ditches in the same jumping effort as a raised fence.

Personally I would make no other change than that unless perhaps a slight decrease in speeds. Watch 2 or 3 events at I-A and see if there is a big change in patterns. Something as simple as this might be all the sport would need. Painless, quick, perhaps instant results. Voila', no more horses or riders hurt and no more endless threads on how eventing is broken.

:yes: Thank you!

Perfectly said, arnika: great solutions (which wouldn't require any major overhauling of *anything*), so why can't they/we just DO THESE THINGS?!?

It might make a big difference, it might make a small difference, but if it prevents even ONE fall of horse or rider (resulting in injury or death), wouldn't it have be well worth the effort to put these ideas into action??

[groom]

Get rid of vertical tables, double corners and blind jumps.


What are "blind jumps"? What are "double corners"? At which events have you seen "vertical" tables?

A picture is worth a thousand words...

[IFG]

I assume that all of you who are USEA members received the USEA safety survey. In the comments section, I wrote the following:

Thank you for conducting this survey.

I am very unhappy with the more restrictive rule changes that are being applied to the lower levels, especially the one fall and you are out rule in XC.

The recent spate of accidents are at the upper levels, yet it is participants at the lower levels who are feeling the brunt of these interventions.

Moreover, there is no documented evidence that the interventions recently enacted would have prevented any of the recent horse or rider deaths.

I would like to see an investigation into horse and rider falls that elicits evidence of factors associated with such falls. Rule changes should then be based on such evidence.

In the meantime, I would love to see the temporary measures suggested by Denny Emerson on the Chronicle of the Horse Bulletin Board enacted.

I hope that the USEA will read the comments and act on them if enough members express the same sentiments.

[Dr. Doolittle]

Can we cut and paste his post to an e-mail??

[IFG]

Can we cut and paste his post to an e-mail??

I would assume if Denny gives permission, it would be fine to do so.

[fooler]

I'm only on page 5, so I apologize for posting now, but I see some of the same things being said over and over. I think some wrong assumptions are being made here, namely that the courses are safe for "the best" and that safer=less difficult. Also, that it is possible to design fences that cause stops but not falls.

First of all, while some of the accidents have involved less experienced riders, you can hardly say that Darren (at P, no less), Laine, Kim, etc, were not among "the best" or were not qualified to ride at those levels by any standards you could devise. If it were as simple as requiring more extensive qualifications, we could just do that. Now, doing that might HELP, it might prevent some of the accidents and near misses that involved people who weren't ready, but it WILL NOT solve the problem.

As for safe=less difficult: I think we need to substantially revise what constitutes "difficulty". I think we need to, as Denny has said, either cut out the twisty-turny crap or lower the speed. If you want to retain the galloping fitness element (and you do, because that's a serious safety concern among those less-experienced folks having issues), then you make TPR recovery rates part of the competition, so that even when everyone makes the time, you have a way of ranking how well they made the time.

All of that being said, courses don't need to be "easy" to be safe. My personal preference (well, what I think is good for the sport, though the idea doesn't fill me personally with joy, as I am a chicken) would be to keep the speed and maybe even increase the height, but eliminate all but a couple of combinations on XC and eliminate most of the tight turns. Throw some steeplechase brush fences out there, let them be 6" higher than the max height with the top 12" being something you can brush through. Heck, even just bring back the steeplechase and have it even at HTs, just as part of the XC. Then you will make it plenty difficult for everyone--riders will have to really increase their skills at rating their horses and jumping out of stride without picking, even at the ULs, from what I've seen recently of the ULs.

Finally, while I wholeheartedly support eliminating vertical faces with sharp corners at the top, I am not so sure I believe that refusals are the good alternative to falls. I think falls often happen when the horse would like to refuse but is given a just good enough ride that he doesn't stop...but not good enough to get over safely. I don't believe runouts or stops decrease the likelihood of falls.

I agree with much that you stated.

Shall we discuss your comments regarding qualifications?
Yes Darren is more than qualified to ride P, but the horse did not have the experience needed, based on his USEA record, to understand a difficult P course. We have to remember there are 2 brains on course and 1 brain can not completely overcome the other brain's lack of understanding/knowledge. That is why folks on ULR horses have the run-outs - the horse knows how to approach & jump most fences but if not ridden properly will save both of them.
There has been alot of discussion already about Laine's and other other younger riders' 'qualifications' - there appears to be holes. My suggestion to the safety committee was that each horse/rider combo has to qualify together. That way the ULR riders can teach the horse more at lower levels, up&coming riders have more time to learn PLUS it gives everyone a block for the pushy: owner, trainer, parent, rider, etc.

[Mustang51]

Unfortunately, you have to worry about unintended consequences. If you make dressage and show jumping harder (which HAS been done in the last 5 - 10 years), the result is that people spend more time schooling dressage and show jumping, and less time schooling cross country. Which makes cross coutry less safe.

Thank you Janet. Those are exactly my thoughts too. It is the one thing here that truly makes logical sense to my mind. And unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to any quick solutions.

To those who want to remove certain types of obstacles: if we remove the 'most dangerous' jump (the definition of which seems to be a very individual opinion) from courses then what? Now the second most dangerous jump is the most dangerous. Do we remove that one next? When do we stop? When no one is scared of xc anymore? Then if no one is worried about xc anymore why will they practice the skills for it?

If there is substantial proof that a specific jump is unreasonably difficult or unfair then I would have no problem banning it. But I don't see this as a likely end all solution. All xc obstacles are dangerous and that will never change without creating a different sport...

Please don't anyone take offense at this. I don't mean this as a personal criticism of anyone's statments. I'm only trying to point out another side of the issue... Food for thought!

[Pixie Dust]

Are the optimum times are just too fast. Have they changed over the years or have they always been that fast?

[silver2]

That is why folks on ULR horses have the run-outs - the horse knows how to approach & jump most fences but if not ridden properly will save both of them
One huge change since I was a kid (not that long ago! ;) ) is that horses don't hunt anymore. It used to be that you bought a horse that had hunted for a couple seasons or done point to points for a x-country horse. It was broke as a 3 year old, did a few shows, hunted a couple seasons and then became an eventer at 5. Most every Irish horse sold to event hunted as a 4 and 5 year old and over serious country. In the US people like Bruce Davidson were starting horses at Prelim because the horses had hunted over similar fences. The horses had a well of knowledge about handling terrain and a self-preservation instinct that many of them don't today.

The first horse (as opposed to pony) I ever evented on had run the Grand National in his youth and hunted 8 seasons or more. There was no rider-error he couldn't fix, especially when his rider weighed 80lbs and he was in a snaffle.

[BAC]

Too easy for the best, or too difficult for the rest?

How about "the rest" not competing at levels they are not good enough for? Maybe its time they check their egos and leave the "hardest" levels for "the best" riders.

[SmallHerd]

Maybe this has been suggested already, but I have not been able to keep up with the entire thread. What about adding penalties for coming in too far under the optimum time? Establish a time window, and penalize any team coming in over or under that window.

[Sandy M]

I guess I'm spoiled, because most of the barns I have ridden at have had this feature.

Well, here in suburban California...

Where I board: Maybe a total of three acres (4?). LARGE pasture behind outdoor dressage court - nearly *)&# vertical and full of squirrel holes. To the left: an H/J barn with the residence bordering the vertical pasture. What isn't paved is either graveled or a SMALL, steel pipe turnout. To the right: a vineyard. Beyond far fence line: Cow pasture, NOT property belonging to BOs.

Every stall has an irregularly shaped paddock, but most are in the 17 X 30 or smaller range in size, attached to the stalls with free access. You're not gonna be JUMPING through those fence lines w/horses in their stalls/paddocks. My horse's paddock is 150 x 30 (biggest one). It does border a 3/4 acre pasture that shares a fence line with the home associated with the vineyard. Mare and foal in that pasture now. Not gonna be jumping into or out of that one either. Other small pasture/paddock 75 x 75 (?) borders a gravel driveway. Nope. Not gonna be jumping through that fenceline either.

The space between the outdoor and the driveway is occupied by a covered arena/stalls/the BOs home and lots of pavement.

Many places like this in the suburbs: There is NO place to put x-country type fences of any kind.

You want to school cross-country, you load up and trailer out for a hour or more. Sigh. Another reason (besides increasing age and chicken-ness) that I have become a trail-riding DQ. (originally evented to Prelim successfully)

[Ajierene]

I board my horse a 10 minute ride from Fair Hill, which helps - especially since they keep increasing schooling days (something I think every venue should do, especially the lower levels). At home is a different story, however. The standards are home made and do not have holes going past 2'6", and most not past 2'. The few manufactured coups and roll top like jumps do not pass 2'. I did make a jump - piece of 3'X5' hardibacker (like durock, made specifically for installing ceramic tile) with broken ceramic adhered on. The top 4 inches did not have any ceramic and the 2x4, 6 or 8 ft long piece of wood was supposed to be screwed to it to set it on standards. Well, it was deemed to dangerous for the kids....never was put up.

Even though they have the room to at least put up a few cross country jumps, due to liability and other issues, they never will. Other facitilies around where I board are the same way for lack of cross country jumps and lack of willingness to build cross country courses, no matter how small they will be.

[Hannahsmom]

What DOES it take to slow down speeds and eliminate vertical tables as Denny suggested as a temporary solution ?


The rider needs to close the leg and the hand. :) Really. For slowing down the speeds. Yes, it will cost some time penalties, but someone needs to take responsibility for running at the speed the horse and rider are safe at, and it IS the rider.

[silver2]

Fascinating article (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E05E2DE1339E433A25753C2A9679D946196D6CF&oref=slogin) on fatalities in football .... from 1910.

Changes made in 1976 (http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm) are reviewed in this 2007 paper.

[sm]

Hannahsmom, why not adjust the time before the time penalty? Why is the rider "wrong" by USEF Standards for choosing safety? Sure, have a time penalty, but adjust it.

Vertical tables, another issue...

[arnika]

by groom:
What are "blind jumps"? What are "double corners"? At which events have you seen "vertical" tables?

A picture is worth a thousand words...

A blind jump is one where the horse cannot see either the next jump or the second element of a combination in time to react without rider intervention.

A double corner is a combination (ie: 11A and 11B) that are both corners; usually as a bounce, one or two stride. They have one at the FL Horse Park (designated the Seminole corners) that is a one stride combo on a righthand bending line. It has trees as the side of the corners.

A vertical table is one with a vertical face, sometimes a solid face and sometimes an actual table with an opening underneath. They do not have any slant away from the horse and rider, sometimes they have ground lines and sometimes not. I have seen them at the FHP and other courses over the years in Area III. I watched a horse and rider flip at one last fall.

[criss]

I did make a jump - piece of 3'X5' hardibacker (like durock, made specifically for installing ceramic tile) with broken ceramic adhered on. The top 4 inches did not have any ceramic and the 2x4, 6 or 8 ft long piece of wood was supposed to be screwed to it to set it on standards. Well, it was deemed to dangerous for the kids....
Hard to argue with that logic! :lol:


But anyway...you know, if we do impose more restrictions on moving up, even supposing it does prevent horses like the one Darren was riding from competing at P, etc, one thing it will surely do is get people competing even more, which has also been held up as one of the problems with the sport. If people are already competing too much....? And of course, every jump is a dangerous jump, so you could argue that more jumps=more accidents. Not that this means restrictions are a bad idea, just that without other changes like removing certain types of fences, it could be a strategy with its own problems.

If we want eventing to go back to being more like hunting, steeplechasing, etc, I stand by my argument that what's really wanted are big, brushy fences and a score for your horse's recovery time at the end.

[lstevenson]

A blind jump is one where the horse cannot see either the next jump or the second element of a combination in time to react without rider intervention.

A double corner is a combination (ie: 11A and 11B) that are both corners; usually as a bounce, one or two stride. They have one at the FL Horse Park (designated the Seminole corners) that is a one stride combo on a righthand bending line. It has trees as the side of the corners.

A vertical table is one with a vertical face, sometimes a solid face and sometimes an actual table with an opening underneath. They do not have any slant away from the horse and rider, sometimes they have ground lines and sometimes not. I have seen them at the FHP and other courses over the years in Area III. I watched a horse and rider flip at one last fall.


I agree with you on the tables, as many are way too vertical.

But I don't agree on the other two points. I see nothing wrong with double corners. It's a good, fairly safe question if built right. And I have never seen a bounce of double corners.

And blindjumps? I can't think of a single example where the horse doesn't have enough time to figure out how to jump the next jump. It may seem that way sometimes to spectators, but horses are clever and if well ridden and well trained, they have no trouble taking care of themselves. Look at showjumpers in the jump offs, who make a rollback turn into a jump and then have about 2 strides to see the 5 foot vertical in front of them. They can handle it just fine.

[Hannahsmom]

Hannahsmom, why not adjust the time before the time penalty? Why is the rider "wrong" by USEF Standards for choosing safety? Sure, have a time penalty, but adjust it.

Vertical tables, another issue...

I should have made a smiley face on the last post. I was kind of making it as a humor post. :)

This would make it easier for everyone and I would have scored better at the last event if I hadn't had time penalties, but it *is* my responsibility as a rider to adjust my speed based on my day and that is something I am doing no matter what the optimum time is. But I'm not sure if I would appreciate lowering the speed if I were in my normal 'best' where I was often very competent at making the posted time (this was prelim level, not Advanced). I know we may have to, as Denny states, but I sure hope they would start at Advanced to make the changes, and not the lower levels. :cry:

[arnika]

And blindjumps? I can't think of a single example where the horse doesn't have enough time to figure out how to jump the next jump. It may seem that way sometimes to spectators, but horses are clever and if well ridden and well trained, they have no trouble taking care of themselves. Look at showjumpers in the jump offs, who make a rollback turn into a jump and then have about 2 strides to see the 5 foot vertical in front of them. They can handle it just fine.

lstevenson, go back and reread the Red Hills thread. Several people, most of whom rode there, were complaining about the mouse with cheese skinny that was such a problem for the horses. They were unable to see it coming in time to adjust for the jump, even though the riders knew it was there.

I don't think rollbacks in SJ is a good comparison as their fences fall down when the horses hit them (as they do very frequently). Just because showjumpers do it does not make it safe for XC. I would hate to see rollbacks appear on our courses, I don't alway think 90 degree turns between two closely strided fences are fair to ask.

PS: I don't think that you were saying to put rollbacks on XC, I was just commenting on it.

[lstevenson]

lstevenson, go back and reread the Red Hills thread. Several people, most of whom rode there, were complaining about the mouse with cheese skinny that was such a problem for the horses. They were unable to see it coming in time to adjust for the jump, even though the riders knew it was there.


I saw the fence. It was very stupid. But I don't think the biggest problem was that it was concealed. I think it was the design of the jump itself. If there had been an inviting jump at that particular spot, I think it would have jumped just fine.

[Gry2Yng]

I see nothing wrong with double corners. It's a good, fairly safe question if built right. And I have never seen a bounce of double corners.



My thought as well. I don't think I have ever seen bounce double corners, but I haven't been everywhere.

[sm]

I should have made a smiley face on the last post. I was kind of making it as a humor post. :)

This would make it easier for everyone and I would have scored better at the last event if I hadn't had time penalties, but it *is* my responsibility as a rider to adjust my speed based on my day and that is something I am doing no matter what the optimum time is. But I'm not sure if I would appreciate lowering the speed if I were in my normal 'best' where I was often very competent at making the posted time (this was prelim level, not Advanced). I know we may have to, as Denny states, but I sure hope they would start at Advanced to make the changes, and not the lower levels. :cry:

Oh, got it now. Missed the humor, I'm just frustrated to start with because I keep reading USEF statements but nothing (so far) adressed Denny's sensible temporary fix.

Yes, I understand time is supposed to separate the placements/scores/rides but maybe *time* should be relaxed, for now, as long as the jumps are so solid.

Congrats to your good ride!!

[TaskMaster<3]

what exactly happened at Bromont with A. Bugg and Task Master? And what were run ups like leading up to the event? I haven't read anything that says exactly what happened.


So I figured that I would have to talk about this at sometime.

byw I'm the owner and rider of Task Master (Mylo)

Here's in the breif. We were doing well in the beginning of the course, but then around jump 12 he started to feel a bit of, but then 13-15 he was fine, so my plan was to retire him after the 16th jump because as soon as he sees a jump he would lock onto it. I'm not exactly sure what happened, but he took a long spot and I believe we did somewhat of a rotational flip.

... If you have any questions please ask me, I'll try to get back to you

[CANTEREOIN]

So I figured that I would have to talk about this at sometime.

byw I'm the owner and rider of Task Master (Mylo)

Here's in the breif. We were doing well in the beginning of the course, but then around jump 12 he started to feel a bit of, but then 13-15 he was fine, so my plan was to retire him after the 16th jump because as soon as he sees a jump he would lock onto it. I'm not exactly sure what happened, but he took a long spot and I believe we did somewhat of a rotational flip.

... If you have any questions please ask me, I'll try to get back to you

Taskmaster... you are a very brave person. I admire your courage and my condolences to you. I can feel the sadness in your brief note and time will ease your pain.

[JER]

Welcome, TaskMaster. :)

Thanks for coming on here and offering to answer questions. You probably know that there are some people here who've been studying rotational falls with the goal of understanding how to prevent them in the future. I'd think you have a lot to contribute here.

(And I'm so sorry for your loss, been there myself and it hurts for a long time.)

[CarrieK]

Thank you for your comments, TaskMaster. I appreciate that you've stopped by here. My belated condolences.

[TaskMaster<3]

Thanks everyone

any questions please feel free to ask about it, to this day I'm not really sure what happened, but I was told that Mylo was being himself, which means that he loved his longspots... which I was told would catch up with us sometime.