A Question Nobody Wants To Answer

[denny]

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?

[BarbB]

Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely.


I used to think testing too. And I took it for granted that the "best" would be the ones being tested. The suberb horsemen, unusually gifted and brave horses, the course designers with a sixth sense for what would work and what wouldn't.

Given that those descriptions no longer really apply...anyone who can make the qualifications is liable to be out there on a course designed by the bigger is better generation.....I think we have to opt for safety.

I think is the loss of a peculiar and wonderful sport.

I will treasure until I die the videos I have of Murphy Himself and Priceless and Sunfire, and Kibar Tic Toc and Three Magic Beans and Little Tricky and all the other greats, but I don't expect to see courses built for them anymore.

[Trakehner]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.

People don't want to wait to show at classes they don't belong or can't ride. X-country shortened so the warmbloods can compete, stadium less interesting and too low, again so the warmbloods can compete. People who don't belong in the show for another year or two...who won't wait.

I showed when courses were longer and a real workout, TBs were the horses who excelled, the warmbloods couldn't compete. Hunter classes seemed to all start at 3', not almost caveletti height to make people feel good about themselves.

Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.

[FlightCheck]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with "too easy for the best" right now.

Perhaps, just perhaps, after stronger "move up" requirements, etc., then perhaps we could change to stronger XC...

But I've seen too many injuries and deaths to believe in "personal responsibility" anymore.

[fernie fox]

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?

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

[sm]

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?"


Of the question asked: safety first. I think the only jumps out there should be designed with impact in mind. The Brits are working on this now.

But I do like fernie fox's answer -- I think the xc phase needs a complete overhaul, maybe just the wrong questions are asked there. It's so unnatural for the horses, it's just the wrong concept altogether.

[BarbB]

One last comment on the 'making it too easy for the best'

Even if we want it to be difficult for the best, there have to be limits. Anyone who thinks that a course should be built to be difficult for Bruce Davidson to ride around is nuts, or living on a different planet or something...:rolleyes:

[facinated]

I am not involved in eventing so my free advice is worth exactly that. But. You people should consider a zero drug tolerance for your sport. If the horses are getting killed mostly at the upper levels them make it a zero drug policy for the preliminary level and above. Only fit healthy horses would be sound and able to start.

[deltawave]

The FEI has a "no foreign substances" mandate already. I've not seen too many unfit, unsound horses competing at Preliminary level, ever. And random drug testing is routine--I've been tested, seen them at almost every show I've been to the last couple of years.

[RunForIt]

I am not involved in eventing so my free advice is worth exactly that. But. You people should consider a zero drug tolerance for your sport. If the horses are getting killed mostly at the upper levels them make it a zero drug policy for the preliminary level and above. Only fit healthy horses would be sound and able to start.

Its not drugs that are killing horses, they are hitting fences, breaking bones and lives.

[Hidden]

Facinated.. since you are not involved with Eventing - perhaps you have not been aware of the many discussions/threads and recent National Safety meeting etc..etc. So your comment does not address the issues here and makes no sense at all.

Denny - I've got to go with safety, I really want XC to be the defining thing in Eventing - the part that sets the ribbons, but with the loss of the endurance part (long format) the dressage/show jumping are now coming more to the forefront anyway. I would rather have it be not hard enough for the best than too hard for the worst because the price you pay is way to high as we have seen. This has to be a sustainable sport, and the only way to make it so is to have it be something that does not have such a horrific injury alternative for the partnership. It should test, but not on a pass/fail basis. Failure is not an option at the upper levels. This is a demanding sport, but it has to be fun. Fun to do and fun to see.
That is what sport is about right?

[Emstah]

we must make it too hard for the rest. We cannot make the XC too easy-it would completely take away what the sport is all about- even more than has already been done. By making the XC easier, we will further reward those with the big $$ who buy the fancy moving warmbloods so they can clean up in the dressage, get around the now easy/slower/smaller/less challenging XC, and jump clean around the now massive SJ. May as well just take away XC all together and have CTs every weekend :no:

I also think that if the XC is made easier, that you will have more unsuitable riders out there at the upper levels. If the D and SJ are jacked up, people are going to spend even more time in the ring schooling their tempies and much less time in the tack galloping and jumping across the country. The XC would be on the bottom of the priority list. I see this causing many more injuries/deaths of horse and rider.

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.

So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

[silver pine]

I think Denny has hit the nail on the head. The top tiny percentage of riders make everything look easy while the "rest" of the ULR's have more difficult. It;s time to have it be less challenging for that tiny top percentage and make it safe for the rest of the ULRs.

I'm disappointed that the solutions coming out of the safety summit are all geared towards the lower levels when the accidents and horse deaths are at the higher levels.
I'm not saying that all the suggestions to improve the lower levels are not valid or necessary but it all seems to be smoke and mirrors.
"Look, are horses dying during rotational falls and the response is well look at all the bad galloping at the lower levels, if we don't change that then the deaths will not stop." Seem a little disjointed to anyone else. There is plenty of bad riding out there at the lower levels and I'm hopeful that the suggestions that came out of the sumit will help that but it still does not change or affect the issues that brought us together in the first place.
WE need to get rid of the ridiculous dangerous fences that set the horses up for failure, give real ground lines and educate everyone from teh lolwt smurf to the BNT and ULR's. Or am I alone on this one???

[facinated]

Like I said, free. In other horse sports it is common practice to compete soundish horses with the help of different drugs. It is common to have a horse which would not jog sound without bute, or would feel a nagging pain and not perform as well. Often these horses are babied along during the week so they can compete on the weekends. It is great to hear that is not the case in eventing.

[sm]

Its not drugs that are killing horses, they are hitting fences, breaking bones and lives.

And pulmonary hemorrhaging from the course design, all the bouncing around on the xc course:

"... the movement of the intestines can get out of phase with the movement of the diaphragm in such a way that the intestinal mass is swinging forward as the horse is trying to exhale. This causes the diaphragm to be slammed forward and slightly upward. The diaphragm, in turn, squeezes part of the lungs against the chest wall.

"The lungs are filled with alveoli, tiny air sacs, and capillaries, miniscule blood vessels. The alveoli and capillaries are so fine and so interconnected that oxygen from the inhaled air can pass into the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide in the blood can pass out of the blood into the lungs to be exhaled. The capillaries are at their smallest and most efficient near the rear, tapered end of the lungs where they abut the diaphragm.
It is exactly these most efficient, extremely fine capillaries which are repeatedly impacted by the forward-surging intestinal mass. As they rupture under the stress, the horse's air passages become clogged with blood." http://www.thinkythings.org/horseracing/lasixinfo.html#causes

"However, it is natural to suppose that years of [competition] might leave a fair amount of scar tissue on a horse's lungs. Therefore, it might be worthwhile to consider how well older horses will be able to breathe " http://www.thinkythings.org/horseracing/lasixinfo.html#causes

I know USEF is doing a study on this, so I'm sure there will be more info to come. We need a strong cross country, just not the one we have now.

[fernie fox]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.
__________________

I toatally agree,your wording is better than mine.

[deltawave]

Woah, hold the phone there, sm. It is massively premature to correlate EIPH with the rigors of modern XC courses. A good hypothesis, yes, but nowhere NEAR proven.
Your "source" cites no veterinary journals, no research, nothing but racing editorial pieces. Before we go "deciding", it would be prudent to have the facts.

[flyingchange]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

This is exactly what Lucinda was saying at a clinic this spring. You SHOULD fear the big rider-scarer jumps. That fear is part of what makes you determined to ride it correctly and get over it. She predicts softer courses would result in MORE catastrophic injuries and fatalities.

[denny]

I think the reason the Safety Summit didn`t really come up with enough concrete proposals is because the obvious answer---- "Make XC too easy for the best." isn`t a very palatable answer, esp. for those who consider themselves in that "best" catagory.*So they wriggle, like fish on a hook, trying to have it both ways, keeping xc seriously challenging, and yet safe.*Can they have it both ways? I doubt it, really. Maybe if engineering geniuses can create inexpensive, collapsible fences, they can get close.*But for all the "personal responsibility" we hear, there`s an enormous fallacy at work.It only works if EVERYBODY exercises it. If ONE rider doesn`t, and if that results in ONE fatality, horse or rider, that`s about all it takes, one per event, just as we`ve seen all year.*Those "ones" add up to lots, as we`ve seen, all year.

[RiverBendPol]

From Emstah....

Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.
__________________

I toatally agree,your wording is better than mine.




I agree with these 2 but would like to add.....I think our greatest loss came when the full format went away. I know, I know, it is my same old soap box but really, if you look at the history, the real trouble began when riders started spending less time in the tack. There are 1000 more details which, when added into the equation, add up to the mess in which we currently find ourselves.
I would suggest that a full format 3-day event be a requirement to moving up to the next level. If you want to go Prelim, you not only have to have 4 clean trainings, you must also have a clean Training level 3-day. To go Intermediate, 4 clean Prelims PLUS a clean CCI(*) full format, etc. and so on.
As Emstah has stated here so eloquently, please don't dumb down the courses. Make them big. Make them inviting. Ramp away the faces of the jumps. Put up more hedges. Lay down obvious ground lines. Forbid vertical faces. Allow and encourage a true gallop. Skinnys are fine with me. As are combinations but make the jumps understandable to the horses. Don't knock the times down, don't lower the jumps. Lower jumps will only cause the idjits to think they can fly them all. Make them big and scary. Scary to riders, easy for horses. It is not a difficult task, it is how it was in the olden times.

[Elghund2]

I don't like the trends of the cross country courses that I've seen lately with the overly technical combinations. I do think that XC should be kept as the defining element in eventing. An upper level course should be demanding for upper level riders. If you are riding in upper level eventing and think that the XC should be made easier then you are not an upper level rider or you are not on an upper levelhorse.

I do think the qualifications for moving up levels should be a little more critical. I also think that maybe recognized events should be asking more difficult questions then whether you can clear a certain height jump. Competitors should be working out issues at home and at schooling shows. The recognized events should be for those who are truy ready.

I can tell you from jump judging that you have a lot riders showing up at all levels that just aren't ready yet.

As an anology, the US Open in golf is open to anyone as long as you can pass the qualifications and the qualifying competitions. What would be wrong with having people win their way into upper level competitions?

[bip]

If xcty is made "too easy for the best", resulting in greater emphasis on dressage and sj - if a major factor in the equation turns out to be collection and the horse not thinking for itself, won't accidents get worse even on these "easier" courses?

And separately, but kind of relatedly, I think Emstah is onto something with her comments.

[Little Valkyrie]

I do agree that in the short-run, changing the courses so that they are a bit easier will ease the tension on the sport a bit; however, I think it goes back to the same old rider responsibility. We, as riders and trainers and most importantly, horsemen, need to take off our rose-colored shades and take a good, hard look at ourselves and our horses. I am guilty of being young and foolish and thinking "it won't happen to me, its just moving up to training" but then I realized that the lower levels are where habits are formed. Although my mare is absolutely brilliant xc, stadium and dressage are not up to training level standards, and I am glad that I did not move her up. We have all seen scary riders at every level. We have said to ourselves "gee, I hope that person has no intention of moving up" then they go and move up because maybe they don't realize how scary their rides are, and no one is willing to tell them. As infuriating as it is, I have seen many a rider come out of the ring after having a clear round, despite burying their horse at every fence and making it nearly impossible for their all too honest horses to be congratulated by friends and trainers on a "job well done". Trainers seem to be less willing to criticize these days in order to keep their clients and many are more willing to use "quick fixes" to get quick results to increase their payroll. And I think we all identify with this, becuase we all need a paycheck, and the bigger the better. Maybe (and I might need my heavy duty flame suit here) we need an equitation score for the stadium round. Something that rewards riders who help their horses and have smooth rounds, not those creeping rounds that result in lurching jumps that are unfortunatly becoming all too frequent at all levels. Since it is obvious that many trainers and riders out there believe that if you are going clear, you are sucessful, no matter what it looks like.

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

"Personally, I used to think testing. Now I don`t think our sport can survive that approach, not indefinitely."

I don't think that you were wrong Denny, that you have to change your philosophy on "testing". I personally think that "testing" isn't infinite, nor is it perfectly linear - testing, and achievement, in most forms is followed by a big, fat plateau. Ask any athlete, dieter, statistician, etc. If I could draw it on a chart it would look like stairs, not an escalator. At some point the testing in XC will outpace the breeding, athleticism, skills as the sport looks to acheive the "impossible". I believe we've hit our plateau - we can't keep acheiving more complicated tests with our current set of horses, talent, skills, etc. We've been tested as a sport to our limit. Now we know it, the costs are too great. Let's back off until our breeding, athleticism, skills, etc. catch up with where we want to take the sport and we can move the testing forward again. That's my $0.02.

[RealityCheck]

(from Emstah) "...Although I have said I don't think the XC should be "easier", that does not mean I support current course design. I agree with ferniefox in that we need to go back to "old school" XC. We need big, galloping, forgiving fences that scare the crap out of the riders when they walk the course, but ride great and are easy questions for the horses to understand and jump at a gallop.
So, IMHO, the XC should be beefed up rather than dubed down. This will (theoretically) keep riders from moving up, or at least make them damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course..."

You put it better than I could have. Cross country doesn't need to be easy, it does need to be "testing", but I think we've gotten confused as to WHAT exactly we're testing. Dressage and show jumping are the phases that test accuracy, precision, and obedience. And while cross country does need to incorporate the training built on the other 2 phases, it is not supposed to be a test of who can jump the skinniest jump at the sharpest angle. Cross country is SUPPOSED to test the bravery of horse and rider, both of their ability to gallop and jump "across country", and the fences should not put off or scare the horses but rather invite and encourage them to jump well at speed. While I am completely in support of the long format, and I dread the fact that I may not get to a one star before it has vanished completely, I understand the practical aspects of the short format. HOWEVER that does NOT mean that we can't go back to "old school" cross country- less vertical faced fences, less horridly sharp angles, less "technical" questions, and more big, forgiving, straightforward jumps that may scare the **** out of the rider but that encourage the horse to jump well. To some this may be considered "easy", but if that's what it takes to keep this sport alive at all, so be it. LET dressage and stadium test the precision and "technical" aspects, and let cross country return to true, big, galloping courses that reward the forward-going horses and riders and teach them what it feels like to gallop in an uphill balance, rather than shaking their confidence, or worse yet, injuring them.

[Windmill Blue]

I haven't competed or considered myself an eventer for longer than I care to admit, so I've refrained from commenting on the various "what should we do?" threads since I have no recent experience, but I am gratified to read that other people share my opinion that cross-country should be a galloping exercise, rather than a stadium course with a higher potential for death. I go back to my twee thinking of eventing originating from military tests, and I think "if I came across a series of narrow duck-shaped obstacles on my way to deliver a message to the front line, I'd go around the suckers, not work out the best angle for a bending line". I don't think speed or size are the issue. Rather, we've painted ourselves into the corner of asking questions that don't leave any room for error.

On a side note, with the attention paid to breeding and training now, is it possible that we're going to develop a sport that has reached the limits of the equine athlete's body? Compare to figure skating and gymnastics... I think double jumps used to win championships in the 70s, and now the men need quadruples, and the women are beginning to bring them in. But figure skating freestyle routines allow the competitors to choose what they can do and avoid what will cause them to crash to the ice. If we have courses to test the best (and the best just keep getting better and better), what happens to the rest?

[MNP]

I don't think it is a matter of making the courses "easier" or "harder," but rather they need to be seen as an endurance type of test. There isn't really a point to having cross country extremely technical, since that is what stadium is supposed to test. If a stadium course tests a horse's agility and jumping ability, what does cross country test? Currently the same thing, except with more dangerous jumps. Each phase is supposed to test a different aspect of a horse's training and ability, but now cross country is merging into a stadium type of course and straying from its original purpose which was to test endurance in addition to natural obstacles that you wouldn't face in stadium such as ditches, banks, and water. The tricky combinations and lines will be tested, just not on cross country day. Cross country is the opportunity to do obstacles that can't be implemented on a stadium course anyway, and there is no need to jump stadium like jumps on cross country since you will be doing them the next day in the ring when the jumps come down.

[grayarabpony]

Here, here, RiverBendPol.

We humans are supposed to have big brains, right, why can't we use them? Olympic courses are supposed to allow only the best of the best to win but allow all of the teams to get around. All courses should be designed that way.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Have to question the assumption that easier equals safer. Maybe it's true, but I have my doubts. Certainly perceived risk and safety have a complicated relationship.

I think it's Atlantic Monthly this month (cover story about Google iirc) which has an article questioning truisms about traffic safety. I think it's going to b e quite relevant to our issues - but I haven't read it yet so can't summarize or extrapolate.

[ezmissg]

*But for all the "personal responsibility" we hear, there`s an enormous fallacy at work.It only works if EVERYBODY exercises it. If ONE rider doesn`t, and if that results in ONE fatality, horse or rider, that`s about all it takes, one per event, just as we`ve seen all year.*Those "ones" add up to lots, as we`ve seen, all year.

So, as always, I hate to wade in, but I'm not good at containing myself....

I went to the safety summit, and although I appreciated it more than I can tell you, I was dismayed when the conversations returned to "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" because the fact remains that you can't mandate it, and PEOPLE ARE COMPETING ANYWAY. Maybe some can't "reach" superior education; maybe some are just plain stupid -- but they are out there competing REGARDLESS. :eek:

So, from the ORGANIZATIONAL level, a finely woven net must be developed that these people can't slip through. To me, it seems that the two most direct methods are qualification and course design.

There has to be a way to make the qualifications FOR THE HORSE/RIDER TEAM to move up the levels stringent enough to slow the process down. Moving up isn't a right; it should be addressed as an earned privilege.

And, there has to be a change in course design ... not necessarily to make it easier, but SIMPLER. Difficult and complex are not synonymous. The riders of Denny's era were riding TOUGH courses, but probably the questions weren't as complex as they are today. [I agree that complexity is likely better served in stadium.]

So, Denny -- I'm not even sure how to answer your original question, though I recognize the high merit of it. I absolutely believe that courses should be made easier if we have passed the limitations of equine physiology (and that may well be true). But at this point, I think it's the human brain that is failing the test.

And, Denny -- I would so love to hear your opinion of the summit. What did you hear? What feedback did you get? Have you listened to the webcast? If so, what did you take away? But, these are somewhat rhetorical musings, as I wouldn't blame you for keeping it all to yourself. :cool: :)

[Aimee Thanatogenus]

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope the smarms at the FEI READ this.

[Badger]

I think we should start with a definition of what the endurance phase is supposed to test, and then make sure those qualities ARE being tested. In addition to bravery, scope, and jumping ability, shouldn't x-c day also be testing speed, endurance, and fitness? Then tweak the test a bit: after a classic, galloping course, add a "speed sprint" phase on the flat (with separate score) and a recovery box a la endurance (with a separate score) at the end. This would help put/keep/return the overall scoring importance of the endurance day as the most important phase of eventing, spread out the riders who are clustered after dressage, etc. And it would "test" our horses and our horsemanship without endangering them over solid fences where rotational falls are a risk. So "soften" the x-c jumping phase but rachet up the overall demands of the phase by adding tests of speed, endurance, and fitness/recovery.

And yes, I am currently competing a warmblood cross and a draft cross and I know that a speed and recovery test are likely to favor TBs, especially as you move up the levels. And you know what: that is as it should be.

[LisaB]

Agree with Emstah and Fernie.
Couldn't have put it better.

[Fence2Fence]

I think the sport can still be a testing sport. The thing is, each level the rider/horse must pass a test, and right now, if they get 'failing' grades, they can choose to continue. Sorry, but if you fail kindergarten, then you need to stay there until you learn to color within the lines.

I'm all for harder qualifications and rider licensing. I think it's going to be a rough ride until we see some of the ideas from the Safety Summit implemented.

And I don't believe there is any personal responsibility in eventing anymore.

[rileyt]

So which is more critical, safe or testing?



I think there can only be one answer to this: It has to be safe.

I say that with the full knowledge and appreciation that X-C is the heart of this sport.

[fernie fox]

What do you think of this fence,design.

Does the brush at the bottom,,carry on round to the front of the fence.

May be I am wrong,but if this fence was built out of brush and rails,why not carry it all the way to the top,instead of putting in effing solid rails above the brush.

You could have kept the same materials,dimensions and symetry but reversed them and put the brush part on top.[yes like they used to].

This fence is inviting to look at ,but unfriendly if you hit it.

http://www.horseshowphotos.com/details.php?gid=109&pid=11080

I think the rider was trying to steady the horse,and the horse was arguing,saying lets get on with it.

[Badger]

There are several other photos of that pair in the show sequence, and this was not the only fence that was jumped in an unorthodox fashion.

[Maude]

Over here lurking from the Dressage Forum. I do not jump. Never was any good at it, scares me to death and I got tired of falling off over the small fences I was jumping. That said, I have been following what is happening to our horses. IMHO, I don't think it is the courses that are so much the issue, but the qualification system to ride them. If the courses weren't a challenge, people like Phillip, Bruce, etc. probably wouldn't bother with them. BUT, something needs to be done to protect the horses. Didn't we all get involved in riding because we loved horses. Seems like in the quest for our own self gratification/ego boost we are forgetting that the horse should come FIRST! If riders/trainers, etc. are not going to be personally responsible for the safety and well-being of their horses, then the governing body needs to be. Someone has to look out for these wonderful, generous, big-hearted creatures that we choose as our partners. It breaks my heart to see pictures of some of the horses recently lost. The look of trust on their faces as they gallop on and over. We know the consequences of our actions, our horses don't. I really hope that these wonderful horses recently lost (and those lost in the past) have not died in vain.

[SmallHerd]

After all is said and done, IMO, it truly boils down to RIDER RESPONSIBILITY. That said, it doesn't appear that all riders are taking their responsibility seriously, and horses are paying the ultimate price.

By making the courses easier we would merely be dumbing down the sport. In addition, I think more unprepared riders will move up too soon. It needs to be challenging at all levels, and riding SAFELY is the responsibility of the riders and their coaches. If anything were to change at the upper levels, maybe allowing more time to complete the course would impress upon the riders that it is not all about speed.

IMO, there need to be stricter qualifications to move up to certain levels. And the governing bodies need to enforce those qualifications.

[purplnurpl]

I don't think it is a matter of making the courses "easier" or "harder," but rather they need to be seen as an endurance type of test. There isn't really a point to having cross country extremely technical, since that is what stadium is supposed to test. If a stadium course tests a horse's agility and jumping ability, what does cross country test? Currently the same thing, except with more dangerous jumps. Each phase is supposed to test a different aspect of a horse's training and ability, but now cross country is merging into a stadium type of course and straying from its original purpose which was to test endurance in addition to natural obstacles that you wouldn't face in stadium such as ditches, banks, and water. The tricky combinations and lines will be tested, just not on cross country day. Cross country is the opportunity to do obstacles that can't be implemented on a stadium course anyway, and there is no need to jump stadium like jumps on cross country since you will be doing them the next day in the ring when the jumps come down.

and I still say put a bounce in SJ for P and up. Use 1/2 rolltops or something. Don't do it on the XC course. And for goodness sakes put a triple back in Training level. A one to a two or a two to a one.
What do we all do allll the time. Bouncy bouncy gymnastics.

Also, If the XC fences were changed as to what Denny suggested the times would probably not need to be lowered. We would be able to gallop. Finally.

[imapepper]

So, from the ORGANIZATIONAL level, a finely woven net must be developed that these people can't slip through. To me, it seems that the two most direct methods are qualification and course design.

There has to be a way to make the qualifications FOR THE HORSE/RIDER TEAM to move up the levels stringent enough to slow the process down. Moving up isn't a right; it should be addressed as an earned privilege.


I totally agree with the qualification idea. What if they held 2 qualifying events in each area per year? Only judging show jumping and cross country because, let's face it, dressage isn't getting anyone killed. Judge it similar to an equitation round that would penalize too much speed, unsafe positions, and uncontrolled/unorganized rounds. Make a rider earn their card for the next level. I don't think it's necessary for Training level and below but certainly to move up to Prelim and up.

[CookiePony]

So am I to assume that a rider error/ lack of preparation caused this latest fall? I haven't heard much about the chain of events that led to this latest horse fatality, only that he fell at a fence (what kind of fence?), then got up and ran a little ways, but had broken his pelvis per this press release: http://www.bromont3dayevent.com/PressRelease15June.html

So what actually happened to cause the fall?

[tja789]

Wouldn't most fatal falls be avoided if ALL fences were collapsible at ALL levels? Courses might lose the stupid lumps of cheese and the flower baskets, but who cares? It would be expensive to replace existing fences, but wouldn't it be money well spent considering the state of the sport?

[Saskatoonian]

I agree wholeheartedly with Emstah.

I'd add a couple of things.

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Making the XC easier in the hope that people will be safer is nonsense, because it will simply encourage people who want to be competitive to spend their lives - guess where? - in the arena. Back to the problem.

I think we also need to remember how we got to current course design. Seems to me that it was concern with those big old style courses and the fatalities that resulted. It's been awhile, but I recall that the current trappiness resulted from a desire to reduce falls in favor of things like run outs. The pendulum has clearly swung too far. I would hate to see the reaction to the current state of affairs swing it to the opposite end. We need balance, and we need to recognize how we got here. I'm troubled by this mania for increased regulation because it ignores all that history, and it ignores that attempts to impose safety and good riding are not necessarily going to have the desired result.

Taking off my black cloud hat now.

[event1]

Maybe I am being too simplistic but to me, the answer to making eventing safer worldwide lies in making the dressage and stadium harder and the scores count more....and make the cross country easier. (Even at the lower levels-I went and watched Spring Bay this weekend-and some of the dressage and Stadium rounds were horrifying-and those people should not even be attempting even the lower level CC stuff). Also, make the qualifications to move up to the upper levels much harder based on an individuals qualifying dressage score, score for stadium, and so many clean CC rounds. (This process of scoring would also slow down those overzealous young riders that get to the upper levels WAY TOO FAST) With this many horse dying for various reasons....it is quite clear that the current upper level cross country courses are TOO DAMN HARD/STRENUOUS and this many horse deaths is unacceptable.:mad: I realize that eventing is not a dressage and stadium "show" but let me add that most horses do not die doing either of these two phases better...and based on what I have seen at many recent horse trials-IT IS SEVERLY LACKING. Don't believe me...go watch one for yourself-it is a wonder that more people are killed! I would like to think that the ULR would rather have dressage and stadium scores count more and have it be much more difficult to move up the levels...than to arrive at Advanced and have a dead horse. It is a "sport" for pete sake but somehow it has become life and death out there which in my opinion-is absolutely ridiculous.

[Brandy76]

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?


I am bringing along an ottb, and have been out of the sport for a few years. In the process of "reminding myself" of the basics, I pulled out my old copy of the "USCTA Book of Eventing". Read the course design chapter - by Roger Haller. Amazing. Read the whole book!! It is everything Denny has been saying.

[monstrpony]

I'd like to see challenging courses for the best riders, but as long as virtually anyone can go to the top competitions, I think we're going to have to err on the side of safety.

I used to believe that riders really had to have their ducks in a row to enter something like Rolex. I've been totally gobsmacked to learn that the two horse fatalities there this year were essentially ridden by people who simply were not proven to have the experience or the personal responsibility to be riding at that level. It IS a whole different sport when proper respect for what is asked at the top levels no longer self-regulates who participates at those levels--it becomes something where safety must be the governing factor.

[Tiki]

OK, I'll play. I totally agree with Fernie Fox and Emstah, but how about this. 'Everyone' wants to see the fancy jumps, a la flower baskets and lumps of cheese, or whatever, but why not make the flower basket filled with a huge brush jump so that it may still look like a vertical, but there's no way in hell a horse can catch his knees on it and have a rotational fall? It could still be a huge, scary, attractive jump, but not a dangerous one.

I also agree with qualifications to move up. The girl who died at Galway(?) supposedly had qualified to ride at that level. How???? By paying her entry fee????? Her record was horrible, with scores in the hundreds. How on earth did she qualify??? I like the idea of a certain number of clean rounds at each level before moving up.

Make the jumps huge, but negotiable. Don't they have brush jumps in steeple chase that are 5 feet or higher? but the horse can go through the top? Still very scary to riders. There are so many ways you could 'decorate' the brush to fancy up the course - there could still be flower baskets and windows, etc, but make the courses, big, galloping courses and require qualifications to move up.

[flyingchange]

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.

For me, I think Denny's original post-Rolex thread about making the UL 3 day events INVITATION ONLY is a really, really good idea. I'd really like to see this idea turned into a true policy at the 2, 3, and 4 star levels. Hell, even the 1 star. You could still send in an application to respective events, but you would still have to be issued an invitation to come to the event at whatever level. And if the committee really wanted to send you a message, they could send you an invitation for the NEXT LEVEL DOWN from the level that you applied for in your application.

I think WAY too many parents of YRs, who pay for it all and are their kids' biggest fans, think their kids are much better qualified riders than they truely are. And you have to feel bad for the kids - because if Mom is cheering you and telling you you are the best and filling out your entry forms, etc, etc, then you could easily just go with that flow ... never really stopping and asking yourself "am I ready for this? Is my horse ready for this (with me in the irons - even though he has already done a 2 star with somebody else - is he ready to do it with ME?)?" This system would also work for the adults who just don't get it.

Besides invitation only, take away vertical faces and make the speeds line up with the courses.

[tangledweb]

I think we all know how to make eventing safer. That answer is actually quite simple.
It is to make cross country day easier.

I think you are missing an important part of human psychology. If you make cross country day easier, everybody will just move up one level. People have a level of risk that they find acceptable, and they will go faster or seek bigger fences until they reach something that scares them.

[RiverBendPol]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.

[europa]

flamesuit on....just a thought:

Correct me if I am wrong but the problem seems to be that most of the issues on XC are due to a lack of technical ability on the rider's part. So, that having been said as a ex-jumper rider and hopefully again sometime in the future (horse willing) why don't they make them have to qualify via a tough stadium course to run XC? They do this at the lower levels to same time at events now.....Why now make that a pre-req for going XC? For goodness sake if you can't ride a stadium course in an enclosed area then how are you going to negotiate things over rolling terrain and with solid fences? I know that the stadium course is the culmination and everyone loves to watch that but perhaps they should have the qualifier then the XC and then a jump off in the arena for those remaining? Ideas??????

[magnolia73]

After all is said and done, IMO, it truly boils down to RIDER RESPONSIBILITY. That said, it doesn't appear that all riders are taking their responsibility seriously, and horses are paying the ultimate price.


Yup, I agree. I think that we can make the courses harder or easier and it will be no safer. You have more people than ever trying eventing, with less experience than ever riding out. I see some scary crap done in the name of "no one cares what it looks like". I'm reading an interesting book- "Schooling and Riding the Sporthorse". It is targeted to hunter / jumpers, but sure spends a lot of time on hacking out. Every "schooling session" from the earliest stages includes hacking out- walking, trotting, riding in company from day 1 included with EVERY ride. How many people go out before hitting their first XC and really practice getting used with galloping over terrain? How many people are putting lots of effort into hacking out young event prospects such that even 50% of the rides are done out on trails and in the fields? Another great point was in evaluating horses, you need a good jump simply for SAFETY. Yet how many photos from events show horses hanging legs and jumping in very poor form?

I find it ironic that at a time that eventing is exploding, we probably have fewer riders and horses than ever for whom riding out is second nature. And to top it off, we have people trying to make "eventers" out of horses not suitable for jumping because of form errors.

And I believe it affects the upper levels in what we have coming up through the ranks as young riders. These kids (and their horses) are not getting the experience of running and jumping. And how can they really have enough time to anyway? Between dressage and stadium and everything else. I don't see how a modern rider of the age of 18 to 21 can truly be prepared to handle the rigor of the highest level of XC.

I think the only solution- draw a line where you can't "fake it" XC. Anyone who wants to get beyond that needs to get a license and approval per horse. And the decision should be objective and subjective with lots of good questions and testing. A ridden test, a horse and rider fitness evaluation, a written test on how to ride in different conditions.

[Bobthehorse]

damn sure they are confident and capable out there on course.

This is exactly what Lucinda was saying at a clinic this spring. You SHOULD fear the big rider-scarer jumps. That fear is part of what makes you determined to ride it correctly and get over it. She predicts softer courses would result in MORE catastrophic injuries and fatalities.

I agree! Its not the difficulty thats screwing people....its often people screwing themselves by barely qualifying but moving up anyway. People are fearless without responsibility, and ambition os clouding good judgment.

I agree that course design could be changed, but not to be "easier" on the people who really shouldnt be there at all. I truly believe qualifications should be beefed up, otherwise no safety measures in world are going to keep the horses safe on course when their riders are riding beyond their ability.

[LexInVA]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.

That would destroy the business model that the has been fostered for years. Probably not gonna happen unless overwhelming public opinion forces the USEF/USEA to change.

[Bobthehorse]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.

People don't want to wait to show at classes they don't belong or can't ride. X-country shortened so the warmbloods can compete, stadium less interesting and too low, again so the warmbloods can compete. People who don't belong in the show for another year or two...who won't wait.

I showed when courses were longer and a real workout, TBs were the horses who excelled, the warmbloods couldn't compete. Hunter classes seemed to all start at 3', not almost caveletti height to make people feel good about themselves.

Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.

What does this have to do with anything? Surely creating smaller classes for young horses/riders is a good thing to build their confidence before they enter the big leagues. How is more experience at smaller heights a bad thing?

And whats with the breed thing? Some WBs have excelled in eventing for decades, and some breeds have strong eventing eventing lines. Trakehners and Selle Francais especially. And its not as if Irish Sport Horses are new to the top levels of this sport. Of course, these horses were not necessarily decipherable as "WBs", as they were all still TB "types"....but blaming eventings problems on Warmbloods is ridiculous.

[NMK]

Back when I was an duathlete, we got letters of "acceptance" from USA Triathlon to compete at different levels (National, and Worlds Long Distance/ Short Distance). Those letters were your "license" and copied/sent with your entry, like our coggins. I know it would add quite a bit of administration time and postage, but if we are to implement a qualifying system then this would be a way to monitor it. It makes me quite sad that with all the problems with safety these days that people still don't get the rider responsibility issue. To save the horses, we need to implement this qualifying system like, yesterday.


And to the previous poster that said you had to do a T 3-day to move to P, or a long format CCI* to move to I, I am all for that. Those long hours in the saddle are priceless. At the T 3-day at South Farm in a few weeks they have a mounted and unmounted clinics so you learn everything from steeplechase to getting a passport. Everyone I talked with that has done this has said it was a "blast" and they learned "a ton." Education is so key these days.

And for making XC easier? Only if it's harder to get there in the first place and done for the welfare of the horse, not to appease the riders on the edge.

Nancy

[Daatje]

I am bringing along an ottb, and have been out of the sport for a few years. In the process of "reminding myself" of the basics, I pulled out my old copy of the "USCTA Book of Eventing". Read the course design chapter - by Roger Haller. Amazing. Read the whole book!! It is everything Denny has been saying.

Thanks for the suggestion! I just picked up a used copy on Amazon.com for $6.00! Sweet! Can't wait to read through it. :)

[DLee]

NO MORE being able to buy an upper level horse who is qualified for xyz level, for a rider who is also qualified for xyz level and having them be allowed to go out and compete at that level. People and horses should have to qualify TOGETHER.


I totally agree. :yes: It just seems that cross country at an upper level should not be an almost 'catch ride' situation.

[Ghazzu]

Like I said, free. In other horse sports it is common practice to compete soundish horses with the help of different drugs. It is common to have a horse which would not jog sound without bute, or would feel a nagging pain and not perform as well. Often these horses are babied along during the week so they can compete on the weekends. It is great to hear that is not the case in eventing.

I'd venture a guess that the average midlevel event horse is *significantly* fitter than most hunters, and at least as sound--and can jog sound with a lot less pharmaceutical assistance...

[Pferd51]

I was afraid that things might get to this point. I suggested on some long thread a long time ago that the only immediate way to deal with XC accidents was to reduce the jumping over immovable obstacles. XC would be preserved by making it largely an endurance phase. This, coupled with demanding dressage and stadium jumping, would be as testing as anyone could desire for a horse. As I think about it now, however, it might be harder than ever to find venues to put such competitions. How much room would you need and what kind of terrain would you need to have a decent XC endurance phase?

[fooler]

Yup, I agree. I think that we can make the courses harder or easier and it will be no safer. You have more people than ever trying eventing, with less experience than ever riding out. I see some scary crap done in the name of "no one cares what it looks like". I'm reading an interesting book- "Schooling and Riding the Sporthorse". It is targeted to hunter / jumpers, but sure spends a lot of time on hacking out. Every "schooling session" from the earliest stages includes hacking out- walking, trotting, riding in company from day 1 included with EVERY ride. How many people go out before hitting their first XC and really practice getting used with galloping over terrain? How many people are putting lots of effort into hacking out young event prospects such that even 50% of the rides are done out on trails and in the fields? Another great point was in evaluating horses, you need a good jump simply for SAFETY. Yet how many photos from events show horses hanging legs and jumping in very poor form?

I find it ironic that at a time that eventing is exploding, we probably have fewer riders and horses than ever for whom riding out is second nature. And to top it off, we have people trying to make "eventers" out of horses not suitable for jumping because of form errors.

And I believe it affects the upper levels in what we have coming up through the ranks as young riders. These kids (and their horses) are not getting the experience of running and jumping. And how can they really have enough time to anyway? Between dressage and stadium and everything else. I don't see how a modern rider of the age of 18 to 21 can truly be prepared to handle the rigor of the highest level of XC.

I think the only solution- draw a line where you can't "fake it" XC. Anyone who wants to get beyond that needs to get a license and approval per horse. And the decision should be objective and subjective with lots of good questions and testing. A ridden test, a horse and rider fitness evaluation, a written test on how to ride in different conditions.

Maggie - I agree with you up to the last paragraph. Don't know about that one yet and have to think about it.

Making x-c easier does not solve anything. Just like making golf courses harder did not stop Tiger from winning. Now they just design good challenging courses.

The answer and responsibility is in all of us: riders, coaches, officials, course designers, course builders, organizers, etc. There is no magic deed to make eventing right again or at least 'more right'.

In my letter to the safety committee, I listed my thoughts of what needed to be done at multiple levels - such as a summitt of older and current; ULR riders, coaches and course designers to develop a template of what an UL course should look like. The number of fences per number of meters, number of combinations and types, types of fences. To pull the best from today's and yesterday's courses in an effort to build a testing course that rewards the brave, honest horse without making the rider stay in their face. Then modify a current course & have several test rides for immediate response. Then modify again until we have a x-c template for x-c designers, builders, organizers and officials to use for reference.

I second or third the idea of requiring a LF to move up from T-P, P-I, I-A, 3* to 4*
And Denny's idea of 4*'s being invitation only is perfect. For the last 20 years we have only had about 20-25 4* rider/horse combinations at any given time. Please note I said 4* rider/horse combination. There are more 4* riders than 4* horses on any day.

Have to get back to work - great thread.

Jean Grizzell

[AllyCat]

Take the cross country back to the good hedges and ditches and reward the horses who are forward going.

Good solid ground lines,less of the "turn a corner and 2 strides to a stupid lump of cheese",less coming down hill into a bloody great unforgiving upright into water.

Less tight one stride solid fences where 99 % of the horses hammer their front legs making it over the fences.

"Get rid" of the ridiculous "skinny's,upright catchy slow down to show jump courses"

Bring the fun back to cross country day.;)

Save the stride counting,,,can't face the course without my trainer walking it at least 2 times so they can tell me how to ride ,stride and jump the crowd pleasing cluster***** s,

Make the stadium harder.

Can you tell,I am fed up with seeing "great horses" going cross-country having their faces torn up by purple faced riders,wobbling all over their backs,some of these horses are "uncharacteristically stopping.

I don't blame them,,,it is enough to make them lose their nerve.

I agree with fernie fox: Lets go back to the forgiving courses that reward forward riding. This showjumping over solid obstacles is not safe. Lets go for safety and watch the best clean house for awhile until we can figure out how to make this safer for everyone. (love the jumping over a stupid cheese visual because that is what this has become).

[shellesis]

This is the first year my daughter has evented although the trainer she works has evented all over the place. But from I have gathered in my little to know knowledge there does need to be some more common sense rule changes. But I am not sure making the course easier is going to be the answer. Because the horses can still get hurt or killed. But I do think there needs to be a way to guage if not only the rider but the horse is up to competing at the level they are at. Like I said I am very new to this eventing and my daughter has only done 1 event so far but will be doing at least one more maybe 2 this year.

[gooddirt]

Why keep picking on courses? I'm not buying it. We had one unfortunate aberration - Red Hills - and I'm sure it is already getting fixed. Where are the other current offenders?

Course design is like anything else. The pendulum always swings, but I'm not convinced it has swung so far that it's broken.

[Sightunseen]

I think that by making courses easier you are catering to those people who should not be riding at that level. I have seen many riders that I would pull off of course becasue I felt that for whatever reason they were not having a good day and it could go really bad, but these people just see that they are getting around with double clears so they must be doing something right. I do not think that xc should be judged as some people say, but I do think that stopping people who seem unsafe, for whatever reason be it speeding or the way the horse is jumping or whatever, would help a lot.

[Whisper]

The thing is, I feel XC *should* be challenging, and test/ask questions. However, I don't think it's a good idea to plan to make it the deciding factor in placings in general. To me, that means asking "how many horses should not be able to make time?" "How many horses should have a runout or refusal (leaving out falls of horse or rider)?"

I think the best solution is to add more options (at all levels) and/or have more courses at a variety of difficulties within a level, rather than all of them aiming for easier in the spring, and maximum difficulty in the fall.

[blackwly]

Whoever said that making courses easier will just make people move up a level was absolutely right. The problem is not the logical, reasonable riders who reflect on these things...it's the riders who don't! And those riders are just going to bump up to the level that they consider an appropriate challenge.

As for making dressage and/or stadium more challenging, well, that's exactly what we've been doing for the last 5-7 years. Where has it gotten us? Here! I agree that combinations belong in stadium courses at the lower levels (why not add a triple at novice even?) but I DON'T agree that the heights should go up. There is a big difference between being an effective SJ rider and an effective XC rider. That is why we need both phases- to ask different questions.

I'm afraid I don't have a solution...frankly, I'm not sure any of us do. But I'd hate to see the sport I love further eroded by over-simplification of the one phase that makes it uniquely challenging. If it worked to solve the safety problem then fine...but I think you'll just wind up with training riders going prelim, prelim riders going intermediate, etc.

[minniemoore]

You have to have a license to drive your car and prove that you have a basic understanding for rules of the road. If a 15-year-old can pass that test, why can't we have an appropriate test for eventers? It's obvious that we can't rely on the "personal responsibility" in a society where "it's someone else's fault" if we do something stupid. Why allow someone riding beyond their ability to destroy a sport built on horsemanship and a deep-seated desire to excel and keep the horse in the best shape possible? Let's prevent accidents rather than trying to chase down someone dangerous with a yellow flag when already on course. I agree with the "yellow flag" and "reg flag" rules, the one fall and you're done rule - but these are after something has already occurred. If you have to qualify, this is one way we can PREVENT some dangerous activity before it happens.

I also agree, that if you dumb down the courses, it only encourages people who would test the limits to begin with, and I'm doubtful it would improve safety - it could quite possibly make it worse.

I also wholeheartedly agree that we need to change the courses to be more inviting to the horse. My horse is an experienced campaigner and he is mystified when I have to pull him up mid-course for a weavy roll-back turn short-strided combination. He says "this is where we RUN and jump mom!"

The courses should be scary for the riders, NOT the horses. The courses I've seen are quite the opposite. Why in the world would you have a cut-out log with brush in it as the first fence on a BN course? Why have the first four fences on course at N be the most scary? Leave the more difficult questions for the middle of the course when the confidence is higher and a greener horse has a chance to feel good about himself before being tested.

[annikak]

Whoever said that making courses easier will just make people move up a level was absolutely right. The problem is not the logical, reasonable riders who reflect on these things...it's the riders who don't! And those riders are just going to bump up to the level that they consider an appropriate challenge. If it worked to solve the safety problem then fine...but I think you'll just wind up with training riders going prelim, prelim riders going intermediate, etc.

Totally agree-

the making of eventing easier makes me not want to do it.:no:

Part of WHY I event is because it's hard and tricky and I have to be on top of my game to do it. Do I think that having it be safer is a bad thing? Of course not, but...I do feel (and don't get me started) that a great deal of what we have seen in the past 2 years are because people made decisions to leave the the start box, and/or continue when it was not in their horses best interest. But, much like Denny said, we are FAR too PC to say so... and I get that, honestly I do.

But for Goodness sakes, look at each of the "incidents" that have happened, carefully. In some, crap happens. I feel horrible for those that it happens, but its an accepted risk in this sport. I just read that one in 10 'chaser rides results in a fall. So, yes, it's an expected risk in some horse sports. this does not take away from the horridness that happens to those good, kind riders.

But in far too many, there was a decision that was made, and it was a poor one, to jump that fence, go out on that course, with that horse on that day. Several of them took THOUGHT to do so (entries that were incorrect, horses that had soundness/medical issues before the event began, :mad:) and yet the riders/trainers still set out that day to "prove" something- be it to the selectors, or someone else, I don't give a damn. It was a poor decision. And someone said not too long ago that each and every one of them should face some sort of jury of their peers. Yes, they should. Hurt or not. And if the real story came out on a lot of them, well, guess what, we would see it's often a case of poor judgement. THAT has to be fixed and it's a huge problem. It's not new, but I think that something has changed in this world, and there are a few out there that don't think for the best of the animal. That sucks. A ribbon just ain't worth it.

Okay, back to my cave.

[Amiga]

It doesn't matter what the sport. I've seen riders competing at the upper levels who clearly did not belong at the levels in which they were competing. Just because a rider is competing at the FEI levels, that doesn't neccessarily make them "good riders" and doesn't necessarily mean that they belong there. It only means that they qualified to be there-some deserve to be there, some may have gotten there just by the skin of their teeth. Also people need to realize that not every horse is an FEI level horse or maybe the horse is not yet ready for the higher levels. We are in equestrian sports because we love horses. Do not let arrogance come before your safety and definitely not before your horse's safety. Ride within bounds.

[LookinSouth]

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Making the XC easier in the hope that people will be safer is nonsense, because it will simply encourage people who want to be competitive to spend their lives - guess where? - in the arena. Back to the problem.

.

I couldn't agree more with the first half your post! Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.
Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC. I just can't imagine it will help the problem at hand. Making stadium more difficult has nothing to do with the terrain challenges faced on XC. Many jumper riders are perfectly competent on the most technical of courses. However, that technical ability doesn't always translate to what is required at speed when going up and down hill etc....

Strict qualifying scores for moving up and invitation only for 1,2,3 and 4 star events I think would be a start IMO. The fact that any rider/horse can move up willy nilly whenever they darn well please to any given division boggles my mind. Especially given the risk and danger involved with Eventing. Yeah riding in general is dangerous...but this sport is particularly dangerous for the HORSE. We have to be the HORSE'S advocate.

[Ajierene]

From what I have seen and articles I read, at the upper levels - people who were just moving up when the long format went away - breathed a sigh of relief and said they did not have to do as much to train. The upper level riders that are numbered among the greats still train for the long format, then breeze through the short format.

So, people need to train for the long format. How do we monitor for this? Put in one or two long format venues in each region and make them part of the qualifying trials to move up. Make a successful Endurance Day or two successful ones qualifying factors - for say Prelim and up.

Put in place the red card, dangerous riding system and knock people down a level when they are dangerous, fall off, have a rotational fall, etc. When they get knocked down a level, they have to qualify to move up again, with the same rules as the first time they qualified.

[Blugal]

Cross country is a type of riding unto itself. You will not improve it by making the dressage and/or stadium more difficult. Instead, you will encourage riders to spend more and more time in the arena schooling those phases, and sacrificing the XC schooling. Not hard to figure out the result of that, is it?

Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.

Couldn't agree more. Competence across country can only be improved by practicing riding across country. Stop making the dressage & show-jumping harder, which just encourages more time in the ring.

Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC.

I'm not sure I agree with this. About 8 years ago, when I started seeing mini-Badmintons popping up at Pre-Training level, I thought the problem was that people were either a) too scared, b) incompetent, or c) riding a horse with limited scope, to move up to Training as far as jump heights (and so on for the Training/Prelim jump). So they stayed at Pre-training, but organizers, course-designers, and the competitors themselves wanted more challenging XC so that it wasn't just a dressage competition. Besides which, you couldn't just have everyone going clear!! :no: Pre-Training stopped being a training ground, and became an end in itself. Same with Training. Within a few years, Prelim was nealy becoming unattainable for the average good rider & horse.

I will no longer start a horse at Pre-Training (3'), whereas I could & did in the 90s. It's too technical.

[denny]

I think many of you are wiggling, like fish on the hook, trying to deny the reality.
Which is that at event after event, either a horse dies, sometimes 2, or a rider dies or is crippled.
Our sport is slowly dying the proverbial "death from a thousand cuts."
We need to take real steps to try to stop this weekly hemoraging, and we need to try things, and see if they work.
If they do, great. If they don`t, try something else.
Since nobody knows why this is happening, for sure, why not start experimenting with ideas that might work, that have at least some obvious hope of success?
Now call this "knee jerk" if you want, but doing nothing, is that better?
I ask again the question nobody wants to acknowledge or seemingly to answer:
"Is it better to make eventing`s xc phase somewhat too easy for the best, or somewhat too hard for the rest?"
Answer that question, because where this sport is headed right now, some real answers need to be found.

[Blugal]

Reading my above post, I will go with "too easy for the best".

If you're not challenged enough, go do some jumpers or dressage or point-to-points or sell your horse and start a new horse.

[Equestryn]

Simple answer...earn the level you show.


Better to control the lowest elements than to reduce the competition to baby levels.


I totally agree with this. I'm not an Eventer, however I don't want to see the sport that really is the biggest test of a horse and riders ability turn into Tadpole. I think maybe there should be more levels implemented. The "Lesser Riders" shouldn't show against the best. Riders should show at the appropriate level. I'm not claiming to be knowledgeable on the Eventing topics but this is coming from a Hunter/Jumpers point of view.

[BarbB]

I answered the question. Post #2 and #7.
Shorter version:
Too easy for the best.

[denny]

Or race over timber, or try to finish the Tevis Cup, or ride jumpers, whatever.
You don`t have to find all your adreniline rush in one sport. Especially, if it keeps that sport in trouble.
Look, the question is how to reduce fatalities. That is a serious, critical question.
Business as usual isn`t going to get it done.
This is my 55th season of competitive riding, since Eisenhower was President, and my 47th of competing in events at preliminary or higher. You think I want my sport to change? I`ve been at it longer than almost anybody, and if I can adapt, so can you.
I want eventing to survive, and if that takes some changes, well, that`s what it takes.
Better than losing the greatest riding sport altogether, and if it isn`t what it was "back when", it`s still the best game in town.

[deltawave]

I'm not sure the lower levels can be lumped with the upper levels here. (I know I'm not the only one saying this)

Horses and riders are NOT dying below Preliminary level, unless there are statistics out there that are not being talked about. So making lower-level XC easier may not be what we want. Upper level courses? Probably, yes. Not EASIER as in "soft" but SAFER, more forgiving, less "ultramodern" if you will. Whatever that means. :sigh:

Make Training level (for instance) a good bit easier and what will you get? More people getting around "clear" and proclaiming--regardless of HOW they got around--"I'm ready for Prelim, yeah!"

Check some of the pictures from HT's lately? There are some truly scary rides going on out there, from top to bottom. Heck, I am probably one of them! :lol: But I have very, very conservative and strict "move up" criteria out of sheer chicken-heartedness. I'll be hanging out at Novice for a LONG TIME on my green one.

Going "clear" XC four times (or whatever) should no longer be the only criterion for qualifying to move up. "Clear" does not mean "Competent".

[ezmissg]

Or race over timber, or try to finish the Tevis Cup, or ride jumpers, whatever.
You don`t have to find all your adreniline rush in one sport. Especially, if it keeps that sport in trouble.
Look, the question is how to reduce fatalities. That is a serious, critical question.
Business as usual isn`t going to get it done.
This is my 55th season of competitive riding, since Eisenhower was President, and my 47th of competing in events at preliminary or higher. You think I want my sport to change? I`ve been at it longer than almost anybody, and if I can adapt, so can you.
I want eventing to survive, and if that takes some changes, well, that`s what it takes.
Better than losing the greatest riding sport altogether, and if it isn`t what it was "back when", it`s still the best game in town.

Denny, I am going to accede to you. If you believe it boils down to this, Lord knows that I am in no way capable of making a case against your position.

Therefore, I'll go with "easier for the rest". Statistically, it's by far the safer bet.

[LookinSouth]

I'm not sure I agree with this. About 8 years ago, when I started seeing mini-Badmintons popping up at Pre-Training level, I thought the problem was that people were either a) too scared, b) incompetent, or c) riding a horse with limited scope, to move up to Training as far as jump heights (and so on for the Training/Prelim jump). So they stayed at Pre-training, but organizers, course-designers, and the competitors themselves wanted more challenging XC so that it wasn't just a dressage competition. Besides which, you couldn't just have everyone going clear!! :no: Pre-Training stopped being a training ground, and became an end in itself. Same with Training. Within a few years, Prelim was nealy becoming unattainable for the average good rider & horse.

I will no longer start a horse at Pre-Training (3'), whereas I could & did in the 90s. It's too technical.

Interesting points. I guess then the question would be this... If we simplify what is asked XC then how will it encourage riders to improve their skills XC? Or should we just dumb it down to the point that riders can safely get away with incompetence? :confused:

[Carol Ames]

riding a horse over fences is inherently dangerous, add speed:eek: , varying terrain, and weather, and you've got an unsafe mix.

[Amiga]

Yeah, but one of our international riders was seriously injured at Red Hills during the Prelim. So we can deduce from this that accidents CAN happen and WILL happen no matter the experience of the rider, and this rider is a highly successful international competitor. Face it, Eventing is dangerous, has always been dangerous, and always will be dangerous. Heck, any time a person is even around a horse, anything can happen. I'm just saying that in the past, I always thought that Eventers were the most humble. Now I'm starting to think they are getting way too arrogant-not that other riders in other disciplines are not-they are,but when you are riding an animal that weighs probably 1200 lbs +, both horse and rider better have their ducks in a row, because when you are riding at speed, up and down hills,through woods,water and jumping ANYTHING you need to understand that no matter how much experience you or your horse has, this is and always has been an extreme sport. There is a chance that either the horse or the rider or both may end up dead in the end. So make smart decisions. Your life and your horse's life are in the balance. I want to keep Eventing going forever- I love the sport. BE RESPONSIBLE, NOT A HERO. This is the reality.

[SmallHerd]

Okay, here's my thing. Making courses easier to make them safer? I don't buy it. It's not that simple. And I'll speak to that other gorilla in the room - The Basket Jump. I saw it at Rolex this year and the year before. NO ONE had any problems with that fence, even when it was part of stadium. So based on the numbers of successful trips over that fence, any betting person would bet that it was a SAFE fence (as safe as fences at that level can be). Those that went on course walks with the pros heard that it was a straightforward fence, nothing tricky. So if the basket was a "safe" fence, how do we make the courses safer?? Shorten the fences and narrow the spreads?

I know this is just one example, but if this was a straightforward fence, how can we make courses safer?

So Denny, based on my comments above, HOW do you think we can make the courses safer?

I still believe it boils down to rider responsibility, but we know that isn't working. If that isn't working, then it is up to our governing bodies to force the issue by putting restrictions in place. But I may be wrong. :confused:

[B-Man]

[QUOTE=LookinSouth;3299276]I couldn't agree more with the first half your post! Personally, I think alot of the problems related to XC are due to the fact that many eventers today do not spend enough time schooling XC and riding on challenging terrain at speeds. Too much time is spent in the ring working on Dressage and stadium. It is so difficult to keep on top of everything enough to be competitive...even at the lower levels. However, having competence XC and when riding over rolling terrain is of the utmost importance.
Making XC easier will just encourage people to focus LESS on XC. I just can't imagine it will help the problem at hand. Making stadium more difficult has nothing to do with the terrain challenges faced on XC. Many jumper riders are perfectly competent on the most technical of courses. However, that technical ability doesn't always translate to what is required at speed when going up and down hill etc....

I was trying to think of a way to express how I feel about this, and the above wrote it better than I. I'm seconding what has been said and adding my own .02
The whole reason I am involved with this sport is the inherent challenge of accomplishing the skills that each of the phases require. However, the core (or heart) of eventing is XC. If that is dumbed down while keeping the other phases the same, or worse, making dressage and stadium more challenging, it becomes something else...a glorified combined test. For the lower levels, this would be even more ridiculous, since often there is not too much change in the placings after the dressage phase (mostly in the top half of the divisions).
It saddens me that XC, which is what makes this sport so special, the ability and desire to gallop and jump, (at whatever level you are) is being looked at as something that needs to be made easier.
Lets talk making it safer, rather than easier....this makes sense to me. These have been mentioned many times on other threads, but here they are again: safer means relaxing the time, less technical questions and ridiculous looking jumps, more old school XC jumps like you would actually see out and about. Plus the cut and dried idea of enforcing qualifications, and enforcing the rules that already exist in our rule book.
I for one, don't want to be a dressage or show jumper specialist...if that were the case I would have been doing one or the other for the past lifetime. But, I've been in love with this sport since the early 80s and spent up to the present, continuing to learn the keys of all three phases.
There are ways to manage the safety issues without mangling the best part of the sport.
Holly

[oreo]

I don't know what to think right now....

Except I think the planets lined up, where the XC courses got more showjumpy (scewing the horses) and the riders got more money/ less skilled (screwing the horses again).

After all is said and done, you just can't bring a willing but not fancy horse into this sport anymore most of the time.

I know our local kids who breed at home and don't have much money, but ride several horses a day are so disheartened. They see the kids on the $60-70- 200K horses going off to YRs. Mostly based on money.

What to do? Money is taking over the sport, I think it is because some of these riders should be doing Hunters/ Jumpers, but it got too expensive.......

Maybe I'm just smarting about paying over $2k to have an eventer that I thought might be happier as a jumper go to TWO (yes TWO) shows. He isn't happier, so back to eventing. Waste of money.

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

[Little Valkyrie]

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.

[LookinSouth]

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.


Well this is shocking depending on what context they are speaking in. Horse doesn't jump good enough for the hunters...well what Hunters? The local open circuits? County fairs? Or the AA rated scene? Many horses don't jump good enough for the AA rated Hunter scene that would still be perfectly capable in the lower levels of eventing, equitation and/or jumpers.

Same goes for jumpers. There is no real division at the rated shows in the jumpers below 3'3ish. If said kid is a 2'6 hunter rider I can see why he/she may have difficulty in that division. Especially since it usually consists of riders racing around like hellions. A kid in said scenario may do just fine at the BN level in eventing. IF they are taking the time to develop the skills neccessary for riding/jumping competently in the open.

I agree though that Eventing is much cheaper than H/J's if you are interested in competing at the RATED levels. But I am not so sure we can blame the converts for the demise of the sport:)

To answer Denny's question: "easier for the best" but I think this should on only change for the upper levels. Like others have said...if we dumb down Novice/Training we'll have a whole lot of riders moving on up who are NOT neccessarily ready.
And maybe not easier...but less time requirements and technical.

[denny]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

[deltawave]

That sounds just about perfect. :yes:

[Eventer55]

I heard someone at a horse trials this spring tell her companion that they came to eventing because "the horse doesn't jump well enough for the hunters and the my daughters not a good enough rider for the jumpers, so eventing seemed logical because that stuff doesn't count". Yep, and we wonder why the quality of riding is going down.

I was standing next to a Lower level instructor a couple of years ago when her student went hell bent for leather over 2 fences, almost lost it over one and when I gasped, the instructor said "all you have to do is get over it, it's not about pretty." :no::no::no::no:

Neither is a horse struggling to stay alive with a broken neck etc etc etc etc. . .

[magnolia73]

"Is it better to make eventing`s xc phase somewhat too easy for the best, or somewhat too hard for the rest?"


It's like the unanswerable question.

The problem is the riders. And the real problem are the riders that are overly confident in their ability. Make it easier? Fine, I will make race around, make time and move up a level. Make it harder? I won't get the hint and move down a level.

At the **** level - the top- it needs to be easier as the test has exceeded the ability of the horses to safely compete. I think that these riders are all good- testing won't weed any of them out. The horses are all good. The questions are too much for a horse brain to handle.

[grayarabpony]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.


Thank you Denny. I agree with Deltawave, perfect.

[thumbsontop]

"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.


First, why would SJ and D being more influencial result in it being easier for "lesser riders"? If I were even riding somewhere closer to these levels it would almost sound offensive. Different, yes, but not less.

As to the other point, I don't think the XC part should be easier for the best or less easy for less experienced or talented riders. I don't think it should ever be the case that you could possibly look at a cross country ride and say "that rider shouldn't be competing at this level". It happens, but THAT is what should be stopped. Keep the safe, but challenging courses, and make sure that riders who qualify can handle it.

[mbarrett]

I have stayed out of these conversations of late because I am dismayed and discouraged. I am a LL eventer and I'm beginning to doubt if I'll ever get decent instruction in order to prepare for an event. I'm about ready to pack it in and trail ride for the rest of my life.

That being said, I think a lot of folks, who are much smarter than I am, are trying to say: Make xc courses appropriate for each level. I didn't say easier. I said appropriate.

It sounds like many courses are too technical or way over the top for what is being asked at that particular level. XC should be a systematic training tool to educate and present questions appropriate for each level of horse and rider. As the rider and horses move up, the questions change as well.

That's what I think.

[annikak]

I,ike the easier...I guess.

But again, it contributes to what I have said and written a few places- Horsemanship is dying. That seems to be our issue. That is what we need to fix!

HJ is addressing it in their way, I think- the outside courses seem to be making a comeback, and they are taking a hard look abuse in their sport...if you are to believe what their magazine says.

Eventing does need to do something- but again, I am not sure it's the sport, but people. Someone mentioned Redhills- I think human mistakes were made there. Say what you will, but they walked the course, and knew it was hard. Redhills- you come prepared for an uber hard event.

So, the idea of a letter from USEA before you can move up? An endorsement on your card? Something like that? yes, expensive and time consuming. But- I like that idea a lot!

Yes- it needs to be addressed. I think its sad we are going to have to bring it down to adapting to the weaker. But, I guess it's the only way.:(

[Gnep]

I would go even farther, I would keep a list and notes on trainers, trainers and coaches whos students screw up consistently, having wrecks etc. suspend them.

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.

Yes we can not built the courses, that will test the top 20 to the limit and completly over task the rest, but on top of that we have to be able to prevent that the not truly qualified will ride.
We need a better qualification system, the natural selection process is not working anymore.

[sm]

I agree, prelim and up, only. Leave the training and below alone, except try to weed out the yahoos who ride as if nov xc is the Md. Hunt Cup.*Let them go play in traffic, or something.Make it VERY HARD to qualify to go advanced, QUITE HARD to go intermediate, and PRETTY HARD to go prelim.*Figure out how to quantify those vague definitions.*Then-- Kick them down a level if they mess up. Quantify "mess up." Then let them requalify to move back up.Then---NO MORE VERTICAL TABLES. Period. At any level. This includes picnic baskets, hiding the vertical table profile.*Then, do one of two things. 1. First choice. Bring back more flowing xc design, over jumpable,( but can be big), fences.*Or, 2nd choice, if the xc has to be tricky and technical, SLOW THE SPEED REQUIREMENTS to reflect this. Maybe 20 mpm, at prel, int, and adv.*See what happens. If the train wrecks keep on coming, do more.*Keep trying things until the wrecks almost stop. I use "almost", because jumping is never safe. But it can be made much safer than what we have right now.
Or so I hope.

Agreed. Bolded part may be by inivtation only (Denny brought up By Invitation only elsewhere, I don't remember at which level). Common sense, horse sense, rider responsibility: however you phrase it, if it's lacking then it's a "no thanks, not on my watch."

[RiverBendPol]

.....A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.........


Gnep, I'm with you on this one. "...No cheeting possible..." is the key here. By the time a horse got to the 10 minute box, alot was clear about how/if they would complete D in good form. To commit to a full format 3-day took a huge amount of focus, fitness for both horse and rider and time. Now these so called CCI's can be run every other weekend, to the detriment of the horse AND of the sport.

[tx3dayeventer]

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheating possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.


You are right. The long format was a sort of natural selection. There were always HT's but to do a real 3-Day you and your horse had to be fit and sound. I guarantee that if your horse didn't feel 110% right you were not going to leave the start box. You knew you were going to be seriously injured or killed if you did.

I think in more recent years, people have become too lax. They want to win at all costs. Horsey is sore, so you jump anyways knowing there is no jog up to pass. It is for the sponsors and owners b/c they all want to see horsey win.

It is a different mentality. It is a different sport. If we want to keep our sport a sport we are going to have to figure how to do what the long format used to do, keep those out who can't do it (for any number of reasons: soundness, fitness, ability, etc).

Add: Denny is spot on, as usual.

[Jazzy Lady]

If we make the UL's easier, people will upgrade faster thinking they are preparred, AND they will ride faster around the course.

I'm all for lowering the time now for the more technical courses.

Making the fence faces more forgiving.

Upping qualifications.

Just a bit about Ashlynne. She and Task Master apparently fell at a roll top. Not a vertical, not a square table. No matter how forgiving, sometimes when the speed is great, there's nothing that can stop the fall from happening.

Regarding her xc goes before hand. Her very first run she had a run out and time. The run out was quite minor, but the horse looked to be jumping well. Her second go I know she had a fall early on, but I don't know what happened around the rest of the course. Following that, she downgraded and ran a prelim before bromont, where she won on a double clear xc. She made a poor decision to run the CIC**. Rules can't make up for riders who don't ride with their brains.

She and I upgraded at the same event. I also had a run out and time. The next event was also my second intermediate. I retired after a run out at an elephant trap. The communication was lacking and there wasn't anywhere to gain the impulsion to re-attemp the fence, so I walked off. It was a free for all out there on the intermediate course. One rider had a fall, and two stops at the SAME obstacle and got on and continued. Why?

NOTHING can regulate rider stupidity.

Dumbing eventing down is not the answer. Finding a way to make it harder for riders to upgrade could very well help.

Lowering the speeds so people aren't flying at these fences that may be in a galloping spot, but aren't a galloping fence (re-the square table ellie fell at), may help.

Softening the faces may help.

Increasing the YR age so the kids aren't pushing for a ** since they've aged out of * at 18 years old... MAY HELP.

I'm 24. I consider myself a "young rider", but I aged out of ** three years ago...

[Brandy76]

I don't know what to think right now....

Except I think the planets lined up, where the XC courses got more showjumpy (scewing the horses) and the riders got more money/ less skilled (screwing the horses again).

After all is said and done, you just can't bring a willing but not fancy horse into this sport anymore most of the time.

I know our local kids who breed at home and don't have much money, but ride several horses a day are so disheartened. They see the kids on the $60-70- 200K horses going off to YRs. Mostly based on money.

What to do? Money is taking over the sport, I think it is because some of these riders should be doing Hunters/ Jumpers, but it got too expensive.......

Maybe I'm just smarting about paying over $2k to have an eventer that I thought might be happier as a jumper go to TWO (yes TWO) shows. He isn't happier, so back to eventing. Waste of money.

My point is that I think a lot of the "new" people moving over find Eventing very inexpensive. Compared to H/J. And they are IMO, ruining the sport.

Flame suit on.

No need for a flame suit. You are so right on. I evented since 89, then was on the fringes of the sport for the last few years - horse retired, now I am out walking courses, (new horse - green ottb)and watching, and what I SEE is saddening, and frightening.
Not to generalize, and if it comes out that way, sorry in advance- I see a lot of people with a lot of money coming to the sport from other disciplines or starting new to riding, that just go buy an accomplished horse, maybe go training once or twice, then start moving up. Rapidly. And some very SCARY riding results. And owners that have a BNR riding a horse that is maybe, say, topped out at Prelim, pushing the BNR to move the horse up (maybe they also sponser that BNR) - so what are they to do? Say no? Anger a client? Lose the business? And most BNR are solid enough to say, maybe I can get this done, anyway.
It is two common denominators - technical show jumping question over and over again over SOLID obstacles, and more money than sense.

[IFG]

I would go even farther, I would keep a list and notes on trainers, trainers and coaches whos students screw up consistently, having wrecks etc. suspend them.

A lot of people are not any more in awe with the CCIs, they are considered more as HTs on steroids. The long format was such a huge task to comit to, that a lot of people stayed away from it, it was such a time consuming task to prepare for it, it demanded absolut sound and healthy horses, it demanded riders and coaches that were on top of every little detail, there was no cheeting possible, the hour plus the horse was under the saddle would unmask it.
It was nothing special that 25 % of the horses were scratched, spun or withdrawn by the end of endurance day, just that thread kept a lot of people away, so to speak natural selection.

Yes we can not built the courses, that will test the top 20 to the limit and completly over task the rest, but on top of that we have to be able to prevent that the not truly qualified will ride.
We need a better qualification system, the natural selection process is not working anymore.

I agree with Denny and Gnep.

The long format kept the upper levels elite. With the short format, IMHO, there is no gate keeper, and that is why we find ourselves debating endlessy the lack of rider responsibility. The long format enforced personal responsibility. Your horse didn't pass the vet checks, either because you didn't prepare the horse adequately or the horse was unsound, you were out.

[Janet]

I see a lot of people with a lot of money coming to the sport from other disciplines or starting new to riding, that just go buy an accomplished horse, maybe go training once or twice, then start moving up.
Already covered by the current rules.

While a HORSE can go Prelim without prior qualifications, a RIDER needa 4 qualifying rounds at Train