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

[planete]

It is a moral responsibility question. I provide my horses with as safe an environment as possible, if they then hurt themselves I do not feel I am at fault. I ride them in as safe an environment as I can provide, same lack of guilt if we have an accident. I do not propel them fast at solid fences knowing a small error can kill them and me. I would never forgive myself if I felt responsible for a death that occurred in the pursuit of my enjoyment.

 

[oldie48]

It is a moral responsibility question. I provide my horses with as safe an environment as possible, if they then hurt themselves I do not feel I am at fault. I ride them in as safe an environment as I can provide, same lack of guilt if we have an accident. I do not propel them fast at solid fences knowing a small error can kill them and me. I would never forgive myself if I felt responsible for a death that occurred in the pursuit of my enjoyment.

Sadly not my horses, my last horse is prematurely retired following a field accident. As I said in an earlier post, sh!t happens!

 

[honetpot]

And yet racing is still going despite horse deaths regularly going viral.

Racing is basically self funding, the extra support it may get in from the Betting Levy, it's pretty open that it is a business, that employs a lot of people on and off the course.
If you want to send an event team to the Olympics, you need funding,
https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/current-funding-figures
I am not sure how much value for money the funding is, it is an elite sport, and if we talk about 'legacy', I am not sure that there is much.

 

[palo1]

It is a moral responsibility question. I provide my horses with as safe an environment as possible, if they then hurt themselves I do not feel I am at fault. I ride them in as safe an environment as I can provide, same lack of guilt if we have an accident. I do not propel them fast at solid fences knowing a small error can kill them and me. I would never forgive myself if I felt responsible for a death that occurred in the pursuit of my enjoyment.

But surely just keeping animals is 'in the pursuit of our (my) enjoyment? The logical end point of that argument is that we should have no interaction whatsoever with animals as that risks them being put at risk in many ways from not just our enjoyment but other things too. That would totally separate us from the natural world and in my view, be a complete disaster. None of us are free of direct impact on other living beings. We can do our best but it is impossible to escape from that fact.

 

[planete]

Sadly not my horses, my last horse is prematurely retired following a field accident. As I said in an earlier post, sh!t happens!

Shit happens, but preferably not because of my actions. That is my point, which you seem to be missing.

But surely just keeping animals is 'in the pursuit of our (my) enjoyment? The logical end point of that argument is that we should have no interaction whatsoever with animals as that risks them being put at risk in many ways from not just our enjoyment but other things too. That would totally separate us from the natural world and in my view, be a complete disaster. None of us are free of direct impact on other living beings. We can do our best but it is impossible to escape from that fact.

Moral responsibility means doing the best we can for the animals in our care (and for wild animals). Being alive is a risk, it is up to us to mitigate risk and discomfort for those we are responsible for. Whether we feel owning an animal is morally justified is another debate but animals domesticated for hundreds of years and well adapted to the environment and activities provided for them can arguably be better off than their wild cousins who are being endangered in their thousands. We impact every living organism on the planet by our activities and most wild animals are suffering through our mere presence. The only way to save many wild species now is through human intervention like captive breeding and reintroduction coupled with habitat protection or rewilded areas, so more human interference and a different form of ownership.

 

[RachelFerd]

Shit happens, but preferably not because of my actions. That is my point, which you seem to be missing.



Moral responsibility means doing the best we can for the animals in our care (and for wild animals). Being alive is a risk, it is up to us to mitigate risk and discomfort for those we are responsible for. Whether we feel owning an animal is morally justified is another debate but animals domesticated for hundreds of years and well adapted to the environment and activities provided for them can arguably be better off than their wild cousins who are being endangered in their thousands. We impact every living organism on the planet by our activities and most wild animals are suffering through our mere presence. The only way to save many wild species now is through human intervention like captive breeding and reintroduction coupled with habitat protection or rewilded areas, so more human interference and a different form of ownership.

So, do you propose that our horses should just rot in a field until we don't have any any more??! Genuinely don't understand where you're coming from.

 

[planete]

So, do you propose that our horses should just rot in a field until we don't have any any more??! Genuinely don't understand where you're coming from.[/QUOTE

Nowhere have I advocated doing nothing with our horses or not keeping horses.

 

[HashRouge]

So, do you propose that our horses should just rot in a field until we don't have any any more??! Genuinely don't understand where you're coming from.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's slightly annoying the way you keep intimating that being turned out in a field is somehow the worst thing that could happen to a horse. Most would be quite happy to just "rot in a field", I would imagine.

 

[oldie48]

Yup, all of my horses would have been happy to rot in a field but sadly that's not their natural environment. Surveys that I have seen on the internet suggest that 10% of horses/ponies have laminitis each year. If that is a true figure it is horrifying not just because of the pain and premature loss of life but because it affects their everyday management for the rest of what life they have left. I can get quite upset when I see fat, under worked horses, standing on bare paddocks or muzzled (and yes I've had to resort to those measures with Welsh ponies who seem programmed to live to eat and how I've hated it!). I don't get upset seeing fit athletic horses being ridden well over big tracks doing the job they have been trained to do.
In answer to the OP's original question about the technicality of modern courses, I do think that's a reasonable question. I think technical questions play a role in slowing down horses which can be helpful in the early part of a course when horses are fresh and strong, they are also useful in picking off weaker competitors safely if well designed with a run out or a stop but I do think they can be over used, particularly in the latter part of the course when horses are getting tired. Having lost a friend in a rotational fall I am a fan of frangible pins and think the 11 point penalty is enough.

 

[Flame_]

The idea that lack of exercise, obesity and total inactivity is the only alternative to eventing is pretty ridiculous.

Some humans might need challenging, risky competitions to motivate them to exercise and educate horses but many people are happy and able to do it for enjoyment and the benefit of the horses.

Why would horses have to rot in the field without eventing? People would just do other stuff with them.

 

[oldie48]

The idea that lack of exercise, obesity and total inactivity is the only alternative to eventing is pretty ridiculous.

Some humans might need challenging, risky competitions to motivate them to exercise and educate horses but many people are happy and able to do it for enjoyment and the benefit of the horses.

Why would horses have to rot in the field without eventing? People would just do other stuff with them.

Of course it is a ridiculous comparison but it was in answer to Hash Rouge's comment but I do think I make a serious point. This is what the BHS says and we have been comparing death rates re hacking and eventing all I've done is raise the issue of horses with laminitis, which I think probably kills many more horses and ponies than top level eventing and in most cases is perfectly preventable.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...s/laminitis/&usg=AOvVaw29M-B4SnDJHBnYi6B90Boo

 

[sakura]

So, do you propose that our horses should just rot in a field until we don't have any any more??! Genuinely don't understand where you're coming from.

Do you think every horse that isn’t out eventing is “rotting” in a field? I can assure you that my mostly retired 16 year old is happy, cared for and healthy, despite not having me on her back jumping solid fences. Or me asking her to do much of anything anymore actually (side note, I always said she’d be a difficult horse to retire - she proved me wrong. She loves being a horse.)

Do you accept that insurance companies do not cover eventing as standard the way many do hacking or being field kept? Because it involves a higher risk of serious injury and death. That’s why. No other reason.

I genuinely do not understand where you’re coming from.

 

[RachelFerd]

Do you think every horse that isn’t out eventing is “rotting” in a field? I can assure you that my mostly retired 16 year old is happy, cared for and healthy, despite not having me on her back jumping solid fences. Or me asking her to do much of anything anymore actually (side note, I always said she’d be a difficult horse to retire - she proved me wrong. She loves being a horse.)

Do you accept that insurance companies do not cover eventing as standard the way many do hacking or being field kept? Because it involves a higher risk of serious injury and death. That’s why. No other reason.

I genuinely do not understand where you’re coming from.

The path of logic that you're using - reducing risk in every way possible - can only lead do doing absolutely nothing at all, unless you can accept that you will expose your horse to risk through the process of owning and riding them. That's why I'm asking where the "end point" is!

 

[sakura]

It doesn't have to be that black and white though, does it? Eventing is one of the riskiest things you can ask a horse to do, so it seems logical to me to work from the biggest dangers down. This thread is about eventing. Where you end up is irrelevant to anything I've said because my main point here is that eventing is one of three equestrian sports that, IMO, is likely to face difficulty in keeping its Olympic status going forwards. If you want to discuss the eventual end game, then go ahead - I don't know the answer. But I do know that three deaths at the same event is not acceptable for any sport.

But again, not riding a horse at all does not mean that horse is "rotting". Even talented horses who are used to working can benefit and thrive from a non-ridden life. It's just wrong and insulting to say that not eventing = a poor quality of life.

 

[ycbm]

The path of logic that you're using - reducing risk in every way possible - can only lead do doing absolutely nothing at all, unless you can accept that you will expose your horse to risk through the process of owning and riding them. That's why I'm asking where the "end point" is!

Rachel, I am a lot older than you, and as I have got older I have become more risk adverse. I no longer jump big fixed things, hedges I can't see over, ride horses other people can't stay on, because I am no longer prepared to take those risks.

It doesn't mean I sit in my armchair doing my knitting.

Nobody is asking Edit on this thread for reducing risk in every way possible. What we are saying is that we are increasingly uncomfortable. With the outliers in terms of risk, the activities which are many, many times more dangerous to the horse than group turnout, a hack, lower level competition, and that definitely includes top level eventing.

 

[RachelFerd]

There are people on this thread who have advocated for a philosophy of removing risk from the way they exercise and manage horses.

The logical end point for this approach is to not compete and not ride.

I have a strong belief we need a more positive narrative about horse sports and the JOY of owning and training horses that isn't ignorant to these risks,.whilst also explaining why there is a legitimate reason to participate and to train horses.

The dead end of "minimising risk" doesn't lead to anywhere helpful.

Ps. I'm not "young" and have got less risk averse over the last 10 years ?‍

Rachel, I am a lot older than you, and as I have got older I have become more risk adverse. I no longer jump big fixed things, hedges I can't see over, ride horses other people can't stay on, because I am no longer prepared to take those risks.

It doesn't mean I sit in my armchair doing my knitting.

Nobody is asking for reducing risk in every way possible. What we are saying is that we are increasingly uncomfortable. With the outliers in terms of risk, the activities which are many, many times more dangerous to the horse than group turnout, a hack, lower level competition, and that definitely includes top level event

 

[ramsaybailey]

I'm really not understanding the logic of eventing vs rotting in a field. Horses can be provided with happy stimulating lives in the right fields/herds. I don't think it's a valid point really?!
In eventing we are placing the horses in a high risk situation so we should at least be continuously evaluating how we can make this as safe as possible for them especially as there have seemingly been more accidents recently. Badminton this year was a really hard watch.
I just think horses are amazing animals and we owe this discussion to them.

 

[ycbm]

There are people on this thread who have advocated for a philosophy of removing risk from the way they exercise and manage horses.

Nobody has argued for total elimination of risk. That suggestion has only come from people who want top level eventing to continue.

The logical end point for this approach is to not compete and not ride.

No, it isn't. The logical end point is to remove the outliers like top level eventing has been this year. Everyone on this thread accepts that life involves a risk of death and nobody wants to see no horses alive.

I have a strong belief we need a more positive narrative about horse sports and the JOY of owning and training horses that isn't ignorant to these risks,.whilst also explaining why there is a legitimate reason to participate and to train horses.

Feel free to start those threads.

Meanwhile, on this thread, (see title) you and others who want top level eventing to continue as it is can simply state that you accept the additional risk.

Instead of repeatedly trying to convince others who feel differently than you do that it's OK because horses break their legs turned out in a field and saying that the alternative is for nobody to keep horses at all.

The dead end of "minimising risk" doesn't lead to anywhere helpful.

Minimise does not mean eliminate.
.

 

[sakura]

Thank you, ycbm! I agree completely with your post.

This is a thread about reducing fatalities in eventing, a sport that is one of the highest risk activities you can ever ask a horse to participate in.

Hacking/turn out/anything else - doesn’t matter in this discussion because we’re talking about eventing which *is* more dangerous - whether you’re comfortable with that fact or not doesn’t matter.

 

[tristar]

you can almost eliminate the risk of laminitis, but not a random field injury.

but if you stop riding horses at solid wood you have totally eliminated the risk of rotational falls and injury or death to horse or rider

 

[Chianti]

Racing is basically self funding, the extra support it may get in from the Betting Levy, it's pretty open that it is a business, that employs a lot of people on and off the course.
If you want to send an event team to the Olympics, you need funding,
https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/current-funding-figures
I am not sure how much value for money the funding is, it is an elite sport, and if we talk about 'legacy', I am not sure that there is much.

I've never really understood why we subsidize owners and riders, who are all much richer than me, in a sport they have chosen to engage in. I'd much rather the money went to riding schools and supported young people who want to ride.

 

[Upthecreek]

As there is no way to completely eliminate all risks of horse injuries or deaths presumably the only acceptable outcome to those who feel eventing is too high risk is to ban it? Or would you find it acceptable for it to continue at lower levels? If so what level is the maximum you feel comfortable with?

For those who used to event but don’t now, why was the risk of horse injury or death acceptable to you when you chose to participate but isn’t now you don’t? I think it was established earlier in the thread that there was actually a similar number of horse deaths during past decades despite people’s perception that there was a lot less than now.

 

[ycbm]

As there is no way to completely eliminate all risks of horse injuries or deaths presumably the only acceptable outcome to those who feel eventing is too high risk is to ban it? Or would you find it acceptable for it to continue at lower levels? If so what level is the maximum you feel comfortable with?

Personally, I think I would feel comfortable for any horse sport to continue where the risk of early death or serious injury is no more than 5% above that of group turnout. I think that would mean changes to or the suspension of top level eventing, NH jump racing, quite possibly international GP dressage, not sure about hunting or show jumping.

For those who used to event but don’t now, why was the risk of horse injury or death acceptable to you when you chose to participate but isn’t now you don’t?

I've never evented above Novice and in many seasons on many diffeent horses I've never had a horse injured on a cross country course, or out hunting. But I'll admit that in my heyday I'd have done anything possible to do advanced xc. Two things have changed. Courses have been redesigned to become much more technical, to invite errors in order to prevent it becoming a dressage led competition, and I have become more and more aware of the sentience of all animals and question more and more our right to do what we do with them.

I think it was established earlier in the thread that there was actually a similar number of horse deaths during past decades despite people’s perception that there was a lot less than now.

That's true, but looking at it the other way round, in the past deaths were caused by trompe l'oeil flat-top fences, which were removed, and non breakable fences, which now break. All those excessive risks have been removed and yet there are still the same number of deaths. That can only mean, surely, that deliberately making courses more technical to cause errors is causing horse deaths through asking unfair questions or competing on unsuitable horses?
.

 

[Upthecreek]

Personally, I think I would feel comfortable for any horse sport to continue where the risk of early death or serious injury is no more than 5% above that of group turnout. I think that would mean changes to or the suspension of top level eventing, NH jump racing, quite possibly international GP dressage, not sure about hunting or show jumping.



I've never evented above Novice and in many seasons on many diffeent horses I've never had a horse injured on a cross country course, or out hunting. But I'll admit that in my heyday I'd have done anything possible to do advanced xc. Two things have changed. Courses have been redesigned to become much more technical, to invite errors in order to prevent it becoming a dressage led competition, and I have become more and more aware of the sentience of all animals and question more and more our right to do what we do with them.



That's true, but looking at it the other way round, in the past deaths were caused by trompe l'oeil flat-top fences, which were removed, and non breakable fences, which now break. All those excessive risks have been removed and yet there are still the same number of deaths. That can only mean, surely, that deliberately making courses more technical to cause errors is causing horse deaths through asking unfair questions or competing on unsuitable horses?
.

Do you know that the risk of early death or serious injury is more than 5% above that of group turnout now? If not how would we find out?

I agree that there is far greater awareness of risk and more mitigating safety measures in place now than there has ever been, however the margins of error when jumping solid fences at speed will always be tiny. Rider or horse mistakes that have potentially catastrophic consequences will still occur at all levels.

Courses have become progressively more technical over the years, but it hasn’t happened overnight so I don’t see it as being for the purpose of catching riders and horses out and deliberately causing errors. The sport has evolved and so the training and preparation required to compete successfully must evolve too.

I don’t think the questions are unfair, but they are different questions. Riders need to be more skilful and precise than in years gone by and horses need to be more obedient and careful as well as being brave, powerful and fast.

Lack of sufficient opportunities to compete since the 2019 season due to covid has been detrimental and potentially led to horses moving up the levels without gaining the variety of technical experience needed. Perhaps ‘dumbing down’ of some of the technical questions is required or more generous optimum times?

 

[ycbm]

Do you know that the risk of early death or serious injury is more than 5% above that of group turnout now? If not how would we find out?

I agree that there is far greater awareness of risk and more mitigating safety measures in place now than there has ever been, however the margins of error when jumping solid fences at speed will always be tiny. Rider or horse mistakes that have potentially catastrophic consequences will still occur at all levels.

Courses have become progressively more technical over the years, but it hasn’t happened overnight so I don’t see it as being for the purpose of catching riders and horses out and deliberately causing errors. The sport has evolved and so the training and preparation required to compete successfully must evolve too.

I don’t think the questions are unfair, but they are different questions. Riders need to be more skilful and precise than in years gone by and horses need to be more obedient and careful as well as being brave, powerful and fast.

Lack of sufficient opportunities to compete since the 2019 season due to covid has been detrimental and potentially led to horses moving up the levels without gaining the variety of technical experience needed. Perhaps ‘dumbing down’ of some of the technical questions is required or more generous optimum times?

However you want to look at it, there are many, many people who are unhappy with the questions being asked at international level in all horse sports. That is growing and isn't, imo, going to go away.
.

 

[Gloi]

Of course it is a ridiculous comparison but it was in answer to Hash Rouge's comment but I do think I make a serious point. This is what the BHS says and we have been comparing death rates re hacking and eventing all I've done is raise the issue of horses with laminitis, which I think probably kills many more horses and ponies than top level eventing and in most cases is perfectly preventable.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJq8CD-r76AhUCTEEAHS2HB88QFnoECAcQAQ&url=https://www.bhs.org.uk/horse-care-and-welfare/health-care-management/horse-health/equine-diseases/laminitis/&usg=AOvVaw29M-B4SnDJHBnYi6B90Boo

This reminds me of a chat I was having with a vet recently who said she had been keeping records and that over half of the equines euthanised in emergency situations in the practice had been because of laminitis, way above colic.

 

[ycbm]

Eventing deaths are not instead of laminitis deaths they are as well as laminitis deaths. Laminitis deaths occur through ignorance, unmanageable disease or very bad luck. They do not usually occur because someone knowingly puts the horse at higher risk of death than other horses in order to pursue a sport. They are entirely irrelevant, imo, to a discussion about elite event horse deaths due to eventing.
.

 

[Upthecreek]

However you want to look at it, there are many, many people who are unhappy with the questions being asked at international level in all horse sports. That is growing and isn't, imo, going to go away.
.

Well yes quite, but surely we need to try to find constructive solutions to enable horse sports to continue as safely as possible rather than banning everything deemed risky? I don’t doubt that there are many people who are unhappy with the current situation. Equally there are many thousands whose careers depend on equine sports (I’m obviously talking about all those who would be affected, not just riders).

 

[Red-1]

Eventing deaths are not instead of laminitis deaths they are as well as laminitis deaths. Laminitis deaths occur through ignorance, unmanageable disease or very bad luck. They do not usually occur because someone knowingly puts the horse at higher risk of death than other horses in order to pursue a sport. They are entirely irrelevant, imo, to a discussion about elite event horse deaths due to eventing.
.

I think you are rather kind. I agree that many lami deaths are due to ignorance or bad luck, but I also think that some are due to owners wanting an easy life. It is easy life to chuck them out 24/7. It is easy not to have to bring them in and out and in and out, to do stable chores or pay someone else to. It is cheaper not to have to provide bedding or hay/haylage too.

Proper big grass turnout is expensive to manage. Chucking out in a field is not difficult.

I think many of the owners will have known about lami and just decided that £ and convenience was too good to miss. Fat horses look great too. Rigs has to be slim (lami with previous owner) and people comment. Even I don't think he looks as glorious as he would with more fat on him.

As for eventing, I am in a similar position, I risked all in my younger years. I think that in youth you are not aware of your own mortality, let alone the horse. I became more careful in my 40s. I remember a BE100 (riding a young horse that I had bought to ultimately go the new CCI***) who was going beautifully, XC very careful, was standing in top 1/4 after a good dressage and clear SJ... The XC course that day was causing issues and I burst into tears and declared that I didn't want to do it as Jay was too precious to risk.

Mr Red persuaded me to do that one, in his words we are her, have paid to do it, he had taken the day off to come, and I was to do it! But, I didn't go over 90 afterwards.

I think you do get more cautious as you get older.

But I also think the courses are more trappy, and they are trapping some. I would rather have more tricky SJ courses and big, bold XC tracks.

 

[ycbm]

Well yes quite, but surely we need to try to find constructive solutions to enable horse sports to continue as safely as possible rather than banning everything deemed risky?

Nobody, I think, on this thread is talking about banning everything deemed risky. (Or taking away people's jobs overnight!).

Not "risky". Excessively risky. Not banned, changed, if possible.
.