Eventing 3 horse deaths at Blenheim HT, have courses become too technical? Are horses not prepared enough?

[LEC]

I think if falls are going to be reduced to their absolute minimum, then both the horse and the rider have to be capable of being competitive in the cross country phase at least one height above the one at which they are competing.

I was a very gung ho rider at Novice but the two horses which I rode at that level were both well capable of a lot more. I have to shut my eyes when I see people going cross country at any level on a horse which is at its limit at that height/complexity, because then there is simply no room for error, and error there will occasionally be.

I don't know how you would make that qualification or who would judge it, though.
.

Actually, you could do something. If new to the level you could have them put so on their entry forms and then they get highlighted and kept an eye on. You would run them at the beginning/end of a section to make it easier for those on the ground. Miranda Colletts system would make it easy to check

 

[RachelFerd]

Actually, you could do something. If new to the level you could have them put so on their entry forms and then they get highlighted and kept an eye on. You would run them at the beginning/end of a section to make it easier for those on the ground. Miranda Colletts system would make it easy to check

Easy enough to monitor horses that are new to a level, but very hard to evidence horses being capable of doing more than they are currently doing. In a way, the SJ at BE being up to 5cm bigger than the XC is a mini test of this - horses that have more than 5 fences down don't even get the option of starting XC. So you've had to evidence some ability to jump. Trouble is at 4*/5* level, most riders will never be schooling over fences as big as what they're going to meet in competition - I always get the impression from what many top riders have said, that they often don't KNOW they've got a 5* horse until they're out on the XC at their first 5*.

Capability of horse is an interesting topic. I mean, further up this thread there has been lots of criticism of warmbloods entering eventing - but theoretically, many of these horses have far more ability and scope to jump anything from any stride than the thoroughbred and trad ISH types of the past. The showjump breeding is also creating more careful horses - perhaps not the gung ho brave types, but maybe less likely to make over-bold mistakes of the type that the Murphy Himself stamp of old event horse would make.

As I've said before on this thread - my horse isn't fabulously scopey and also isn't fabulously bold. I'm definitely safer on him though, even with his talent limitations, than I would be on a seriously scopey and bold horse that didn't naturally back itself off its fences and learn from its mistakes quickly.

The other thing sitting at the back of my mind, is that a desire for safety can reduce the challenge of courses which should be prepping horses for bigger tracks. So when you make Blenheim or Bramham safer, you have to do that *without* making it a less serious preparatory event for horses that are going to be going out at 5* next time.... not easy.

 

[sakura]

"That'll be the cover story in your horse and hound this week!" My husband said.

I laughed and said it probably wouldn't even get mentioned in the article covering that championship.

"Why not?" Well, it's just not the way things are done I said.

If it were a football match and a bad tackle it would have been replayed, dissected, he said. He couldn't believe it wouldn't be the talk of the sport that week. He was seriously cross and confused. I think he felt a bit like I was patting him on the head and telling him not to worry himself, just let the experts talk vaguely about the rider having an overly firm contact...

This! Most people who I know aren't talking about the three deaths, I only found out about them here as I don't watch horse sports anymore. It's just "sad but accepted" by so many.

 

[Orangehorse]

I don't want any horse to get injured doing any discipline, including racing.

But the nature of a horse - large strong animal on delicate legs, means that they are going to get injured whether jumping, galloping or just out in the field having a play. Of course it is horrible and upsetting but no matter what safety rules are developed, horses are still going to get injured. The only way to stop it is to stop competitions.

AS for pre competition checks, there was a sad case of the rider and owner of a horse that died of a heart attack during the competition who was a vet, so even the experts can't predict things like that.

So yes, I guess it is accepted.

 

[Chianti]

Do other types of animal die in the sports humans choose to put them in? I genuinely don't know - could only think of racing pigeons. I suppose some of those never make it home. If three dogs had died doing the agility competition at Olympia what would the response be? Why is it just accepted as part of eventing or racing but people would protest if it was dogs dying? When that trainer sat on the dead horse on the gallops people were more affronted by that than by the fact the horse had died. Sometimes I don't think I like the horse world.

 

[Cortez]

Do other types of animal die in the sports humans choose to put them in? I genuinely don't know - could only think of racing pigeons. I suppose some of those never make it home. If three dogs had died doing the agility competition at Olympia what would the response be? Why is it just accepted as part of eventing or racing but people would protest if it was dogs dying? When that trainer sat on the dead horse on the gallops people were more affronted by that than by the fact the horse had died. Sometimes I don't think I like the horse world.

Racing greyhounds often die and/or are horribly injured, and coursing never ends well for the hare, even with muzzling. There are innumerable animal-based sports which are anything but sporting for the creatures involved. Greyhound track racing at least would seem to be on the way out, even here in Ireland, which supplies a huge number of dogs all over the world.

 

[Red-1]

I think if falls are going to be reduced to their absolute minimum, then both the horse and the rider have to be capable of being competitive in the cross country phase at least one height above the one at which they are competing.

I was a very gung ho rider at Novice but the two horses which I rode at that level were both well capable of a lot more. I have to shut my eyes when I see people going cross country at any level on a horse which is at its limit at that height/complexity, because then there is simply no room for error, and error there will occasionally be.

I don't know how you would make that qualification or who would judge it, though.
.

I must confess, my eventers were generally class animals who had far more scope than I needed so a large margin for error. I also, personally, preferred a less careful type, strange as it sounds. The ones who aren't scared to give a fence a tap don't seem so predisposed to dramatic leaps if they are wrong - the up then down overjump that a careful horse tends to do when wrong. XC fences are totally slither-over-able whereas a dramatic overjump mis timed seems more likely to end in tears, IME.

 

[Velcrobum]

I do think there needs to be a big push for rider responsibility and BE is about to address this through the Howden Way training academies up to 2* level but these will be voluntary.

I watch a LOT of eventing, and it’s adults who are the issue. Not the U18s who are very carefully watched and developed.

Therein lies the problem how do you persuade an adult that they really really need to have a lot more training?? When I was a competitor I spent a lot of money on training then sought advice, SJ plus XC lessons from an established (at that time 4*) rider before I entered my first affiliated event. I wanted to do well and minimise chances of injury so I knew me and my horse had to be well prepared.

 

[sakura]

I don't want any horse to get injured doing any discipline, including racing.

But the nature of a horse - large strong animal on delicate legs, means that they are going to get injured whether jumping, galloping or just out in the field having a play. Of course it is horrible and upsetting but no matter what safety rules are developed, horses are still going to get injured. The only way to stop it is to stop competitions.

AS for pre competition checks, there was a sad case of the rider and owner of a horse that died of a heart attack during the competition who was a vet, so even the experts can't predict things like that.

So yes, I guess it is accepted.

And this is where mitigating risk factors comes in. A horse being injured whilst turned out in a safe field (assuming that fact) is very different to a horse dying on a xc track where a human wants to win a competition. If horses are so inherently easily injured by design, then perhaps we owe it to them to think harder about loading them up with additional weight, pointing them at solid fences and testing their ability to navigate through them. Or perhaps we need to put more stock into the ability of the rider on their back who usually has additional means to overrule the horse should they choose to - rightly or wrongly.

I don't know the answer, only that there needs to be one and that this conversation needs to keep going - those who have lost their lives are surely owed that much.

I guess we all have different levels of acceptable risk. I think it's very sad that three deaths at a major horse event is barely talked about in the wider equestrian world and considered an acceptable risk by others.

 

[Chianti]

Racing greyhounds often die and/or are horribly injured, and coursing never ends well for the hare, even with muzzling. There are innumerable animal-based sports which are anything but sporting for the creatures involved. Greyhound track racing at least would seem to be on the way out, even here in Ireland, which supplies a huge number of dogs all over the world.

I hadn't thought of greyhounds. They have a pretty crap life as well. I just don't see how we can go on accepting it as being natural that animals die, or are very badly injured, because we want to take part in a sport. Everyone concerned is very sad when the post the news but then they just get another one out of a stable and carry on regardless.

 

[Orangehorse]

I hadn't thought of greyhounds. They have a pretty crap life as well. I just don't see how we can go on accepting it as being natural that animals die, or are very badly injured, because we want to take part in a sport. Everyone concerned is very sad when the post the news but then they just get another one out of a stable and carry on regardless.

Well, yes that basically is what happens. As I said in my first post, it is bad luck and completely unpredicable whether a horse falls and is ok or if it falls and gets a fatal injury. Why, how? Who knows? Horses break legs when being exercised, with a potential competition in view, racehorses on the gallops, when being prepared for a race. Even if they never went near a competition there is still a chance of an injury. Mr. Frisk won the Grand National and then broke a fetlock when being ridden on the road.

If those horses had just got up and walked away this thread would not be in existance. The only way to stop it is to stop competitions. You can take all the precautions in the world, have training for horse and rider but still. either the horse or the rider can make a mistake and have a fall.

 

[ycbm]

As I said in my first post, it is bad luck and completely unpredicable whether a horse falls and is ok or if it falls and gets a fatal injury. Why, how? Who knows? Horses break legs when being exercised, with a potential competition in view, racehorses on the gallops, when being prepared for a race. Even if they never went near a competition there is still a chance of an injury. Mr. Frisk won the Grand National and then broke a fetlock when being ridden on the road.

This argument doesn't stack up for me, sorry. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, it's the proportion. There are tens of thousands of horses which hack every week and very few of those will get a life ending injury due to the hack. There are very few, relatively, horses which event over courses like Blenheim, but 3 - over 5% I think - did not live to go home. If 5% of hackers didn't get home, I'm reasonably sure there would be an end to riding horses.
.

 

[teapot]

This argument doesn't stack up for me, sorry. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, it's the proportion. There are tens of thousands of horses which hack every week and very few of those will get a life ending injury due to the hack. There are very few, relatively, horses which event over courses like Blenheim, but 3 - over 5% I think - did not live to go home. If 5% of hackers didn't get home, I'm reasonably sure there would be an end to riding horses.
.

Can you imagine it happening in riding schools?

 

[planete]

My views on risk and harm to horses and all animals have drastically changed over the years. I was a bloodthirsty teenager and young woman who got really excited about hunting anything but the more I got to know and appreciate the animals I owned or worked with the less palatable it all seemed until I read this statement by somebody whose identity I have forgotten: "If you would not do it to your dog, why are you doing it to your horse?". Right, why am I? I would not let my dog take part in an activity where he would have a chance of getting killed. I would only hit him to stop a dangerous action if there was no other way, certainly not to 'sort him out'. I would never sell him...this line of reasoning is taking me into deep waters where I do not expect to be followed really but it is what feels right to me nowadays. I had to stop watching racing and cross country, I stopped going to shows where overweight riders hauled on the mouths of overweight cobs. I had a look at Shite eventers and promptly left...

I am aware this not an argument, more of a musing really but I probably need help not to become a vociferous animal rights zealot right now.

 

[Orangehorse]

This argument doesn't stack up for me, sorry. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, it's the proportion. There are tens of thousands of horses which hack every week and very few of those will get a life ending injury due to the hack. There are very few, relatively, horses which event over courses like Blenheim, but 3 - over 5% I think - did not live to go home. If 5% of hackers didn't get home, I'm reasonably sure there would be an end to riding horses.
.

Well yes of course. So stop competitions.

 

[ycbm]

Well yes of course. So stop competitions.

That is becoming more of a possibility every passing year.
.

 

[Orangehorse]

My views on risk and harm to horses and all animals have drastically changed over the years. I was a bloodthirsty teenager and young woman who got really excited about hunting anything but the more I got to know and appreciate the animals I owned or worked with the less palatable it all seemed until I read this statement by somebody whose identity I have forgotten: "If you would not do it to your dog, why are you doing it to your horse?". Right, why am I? I would not let my dog take part in an activity where he would have a chance of getting killed. I would only hit him to stop a dangerous action if there was no other way, certainly not to 'sort him out'. I would never sell him...this line of reasoning is taking me into deep waters where I do not expect to be followed really but it is what feels right to me nowadays. I had to stop watching racing and cross country, I stopped going to shows where overweight riders hauled on the mouths of overweight cobs. I had a look at Shite eventers and promptly left...


I know exactly what you mean. Historically horses were a means of transport, servants of man to work or go to war, so all we have done is to adapt that but still for our own wants whether that be going out for a hack, playing with groundwork, dressage, show jumping, eventing, polo, trec, driving, etc. But, but, but we all like doing it to some degree or there wouldn't be any horses ..............

 

[sakura]

If those horses had just got up and walked away this thread would not be in existance. The only way to stop it is to stop competitions. You can take all the precautions in the world, have training for horse and rider but still. either the horse or the rider can make a mistake and have a fall.

Yes, exactly. It's acceptable to some because people want to compete.

Your post perfectly illustrates the problem with elite horse sports. They break horses.

 

[RachelFerd]

Yes, exactly. It's acceptable to some because people want to compete.

Your post perfectly illustrates the problem with elite horse sports. They break horses.

That's an easy conclusion - but do you know what also breaks horses - hacking injuries, field injuries, ignorant owners, amateur low level athletes, riding schools, idiots who leave horses in fields to get fat and laminitic... so the only natural conclusion to this argument is to stop owning them altogether.

OR you have to accept that there is always going to be a residual level of risk, and work to establish what that acceptable residual level should be.

 

[Chianti]

Well, yes that basically is what happens. As I said in my first post, it is bad luck and completely unpredicable whether a horse falls and is ok or if it falls and gets a fatal injury. Why, how? Who knows? Horses break legs when being exercised, with a potential competition in view, racehorses on the gallops, when being prepared for a race. Even if they never went near a competition there is still a chance of an injury. Mr. Frisk won the Grand National and then broke a fetlock when being ridden on the road.

If those horses had just got up and walked away this thread would not be in existance. The only way to stop it is to stop competitions. You can take all the precautions in the world, have training for horse and rider but still. either the horse or the rider can make a mistake and have a fall.

But that's it exactly

Yes, exactly. It's acceptable to some because people want to compete.

Your post perfectly illustrates the problem with elite horse sports. They break horses.

Exactly. When a horse has to be destroyed after a competition we get the post on social media saying how sad everyone connected is and what a star the horse was. They then get another one out of a stable and carry on as before. There's no reflection on whether what they are doing is right or not.

 

[reynold]

I question which is worse of these.

A competition horse, looked after to a very high standard, that goes out and competes and then dies either at the scene of the accident or shortly afterwards with typically very little suffering.

Or the amateur ridden horse/pony that is routinely abused and poorly cared for. Too much use of whip, poorly balanced 'sack of spuds' riding, ignorant use of spurs, the 'ponies don't need protective boots XC attitude' seen at Pony Club, bad feeding, etc., etc. that for those animals goes on day in and day out for years.

As has been said many times on this forum - there are many worse things than death in this world. The same thought applies to the issue of assisted dying for humans suffering e.g. motor neurone disease. Not all life for both animals and humans is of sufficient 'quality' in this world.

Also, not all pros have unlimited stables full of horses. A friend of mine lost her only dressage horse recently from a heart attack in the field and rides as a pro. One of the deaths at Blenheim was a heart attack and there is usually no warning of those for horses.

Another thought in regard to horse deaths is that many of those whose owners attempt to 'save' them instead of PTS suffer horribly during 'recovery'. Horses stood in cross ties and wearing splints for fractures for months on end and ending up having to be PTS anyway. The recovery from many colic surgeries is not really horse-friendly.

I personally question whether the attempted treatments are in themselves cruel. There ARE fates worse than death.

 

[ycbm]

I question which is worse of these.

Why do you question that? They aren't connected in any way. Other horses being treated badly is no reason to accept elite horses dying unnecessarily for a person's ambition to compete (if that is what is happening).
.

 

[teapot]

Why do you question that? They aren't connected in any way. Other horses being treated badly is no reason to accept elite horses dying unnecessarily for a person's ambition to compete (if that is what is happening).
.

No they’re not connected but asked another way, how is one acceptable over the other? Nothing that happens in the equestrian industry is in isolation and that seems to be forgotten. Top level sport impacts on grassroots regardless of discipline, and I’m not sure you can ignore what happens at the lowest levels if we’re heading down the welfare and social licence path that the sport as a whole is.

I always use the which is worse comparison of comp horses/race horses versus riding school horses. I put it on another thread, but how can people not like horses falling out on a xc course, or worse, suffering a fatal injury, yet turn an absolute blind eye to what school horses put up with six/seven days a week?

What is worse welfare wise - one fall xc, goes back to a pampered well funded lifestyle, and receives the right treatment to crack on again, or being consistently used, less treatment/care (let’s face it because of costs primarily), novicey unbalanced riders on their backs, kicking at their ribs etc.

I know what I’d rather be as a horse.

 

[tristar]

That's an easy conclusion - but do you know what also breaks horses - hacking injuries, field injuries, ignorant owners, amateur low level athletes, riding schools, idiots who leave horses in fields to get fat and laminitic... so the only natural conclusion to this argument is to stop owning them altogether.

OR you have to accept that there is always going to be a residual level of risk, and work to establish what that acceptable residual level should be.

150 years ago an article appeared in a well known national paper, how sometimes riders in well known hunts would kill two horses in a day hunting, there was a huge public outcry

it seems things have not moved on very much does it,? where is the outcry,? have we become more inured and less humane? because the exposure on the internet makes access to the facts all more accessible, and possible to view rider error in a way that was not possible before

when you take a horse eventing or racing , in particular, you know, because the stats are already there of the risks of serious injury or death.
twinkle toes hurting itself in the field bears no relation to facing horses into solid great lumps of wood, they have not had the honour of having a look at before being ridden into, sometimes at high speed, and sometimes over undulating ground that upsets the balance.

its not a case of which i would rather be, its a case of individual morality, and of those who enable events where horses actual lives are put at risk, well and riders

 

[DiNozzo]

Exactly. When a horse has to be destroyed after a competition we get the post on social media saying how sad everyone connected is and what a star the horse was. They then get another one out of a stable and carry on as before. There's no reflection on whether what they are doing is right or not.

I don't think this is true of the vast majority of top level riders which is where the majority of equine deaths take place. Mollie Summerland was severely (and rightly so!) criticised at Badminton at the water. She then went home, reflected on what went wrong, and put it right (the horse happily jumped a similar question later on). This reflection needs to be done by the rider, and I'm not really sure you could or should publicise that. I don't believe riders that have incidents where their horses die, don't look at what they could have done better.

The course designer does reflect on their courses when they look at the statistics for completion, faults, Mims pins etc.

I think the sport has sensible precautions in place, and for me, can only really do 3 things as a sport to improve safety. One, more closely defining MERs (soft/hard tracks to be qualified in some way, I'm not qualified to begin to do that). Two, tracking performance on course (riders should be pulled up sooner and more often). Three, the FEI dangerous riding policies should be expanded and used for more impact.

 

[sakura]

That's an easy conclusion - but do you know what also breaks horses - hacking injuries, field injuries, ignorant owners, amateur low level athletes, riding schools, idiots who leave horses in fields to get fat and laminitic... so the only natural conclusion to this argument is to stop owning them altogether.

OR you have to accept that there is always going to be a residual level of risk, and work to establish what that acceptable residual level should be.

But horses are not dying from hacking or field injuries to the same extent that we see in elite sports - correct me if I'm wrong though. There's also the matter of intent. An owner turns their horse out fully expecting to see them again later, an eventer knows the horse (or themselves) may not make it round safely.

Most owners already do everything they possibly can to prevent accidental field deaths from happening at all - can you honestly say the same about eventing?

Taking a horse eventing or racing is just not the same as hacking. Although I do accept there is a risk there too.

 

[RachelFerd]

But horses are not dying from hacking or field injuries to the same extent that we see in elite sports - correct me if I'm wrong though. There's also the matter of intent. An owner turns their horse out fully expecting to see them again later, an eventer knows the horse (or themselves) may not make it round safely.

Most owners already do everything they possibly can to prevent accidental field deaths from happening at all - can you honestly say the same about eventing?

Taking a horse eventing or racing is just not the same as hacking. Although I do accept there is a risk there too.

Four horses are killed or injured riding on British roads every week. 2019-20 80 horses were killed hacking out.

 

[ramsaybailey]

Four horses are killed or injured riding on British roads every week. 2019-20 80 horses were killed hacking out.

Are you of the view that the deaths are just to be accepted as part of the sport?

(Not meat to be confrontational genuinely interested in views on the subject)

 

[RachelFerd]

Are you of the view that the deaths are just to be accepted as part of the sport?

(Not meat to be confrontational genuinely interested in views on the subject)

I believe that there is a residual level of risk involved with jumping horses over solid fences (or indeed, just riding horses in general) which means that deaths will never be entirely eradicated from the sport.

That doesn't mean that I'm happy with the current level - and there's more to be done in improving it.

But the stat on riding horses on the road is also relevant - no-one sets out on a hack thinking their horse is going to be killed, and no-one sets out on a XC course thinking their horse is going to be killed - but in either situation, there is a chance that it will happen. It's very easy to blame 'elite sport' for deaths, but when riders are riding for leisure purposes on the roads and horses are getting killed, there is still an element of personal choice which has led to a horse being killed. That doesn't make one better/worse than the other.

 

[sakura]

Four horses are killed or injured riding on British roads every week. 2019-20 80 horses were killed hacking out.

Correct - which is why I don't take my horse out on the roads at the moment. I have had to semi retire her as a result (I don't have much off road hacking or an arena). I'm not saying this to insinuate anything, just adding background to my comment. I don't think horses dying on the road or in sport is an acceptable level of risk for me to take.