Adelinde Cornelissen - A Rant!!

[cptrayes]

Don't pick them off one at a time TS, for every one you pick off we can probably find a hundred more between us. They were examples that BB was incorrect in what she was saying that the formulation of our laws is generally based on evidence. It often isn't, it's based on what people felt was right at the time the law was made.

The Dangerous Dogs Act is one which would support Booboos argument that bad decisions are made on feelings alone.

The law preventing children of 14 and 15 from working full days is based purely on the "feeling" that all children should be in school until they are 16. I doubt there is the slightest bit of scientifically valid research that would prove that, but it's much less clear whether its a bad law or not and most people would, I think, feel that it was not.

 

[cptrayes]

The 'walking around naked' is a breach of the peace which does allow for a fairly subjective interpretation of when public peace and order is disturbed, but as a result sentences are generally very lenient (exactly because of the very small amount of harm caused by the offence).

That would be why the naked rambler has served so many prison sentences then?

I met him once when I was out on a horse. I wasn't the slightest bit offended but my horse nearly fell over craning his neck back to keep his eyes on this thing flopping around in full view that he'd never seen on a humn before

Again, don't pick them off one by one BB, there are thousands, they were just a sample.

 

[cptrayes]

And for the purpose of discussion, where is the proof that dressage is taking what horses do naturally and putting it in a ring?

If I could be fagged, I could trawl the internet and find you video of horses loose in fields doing every single dressage movement in the GP test. Perhaps not the number of tempis, but certainly tempis and certainly all the rest. I've had horses at home outside my windows for 21 years now and seen them for myself, but for proof, it's there if I could be bothered to look for it.

I couldn't find you a picture of a horse willingly putting itself into hyperflexion so tight that its parotid glands pop out the side of its jowls. If you can, I'd love to see it.

Have you ever watched Amelie? In it there is a short film of the peloton of a bike race passing a grazing horse in a field. He pops up his head, canters to the gate, jumps it, and joins in their cycle race. Great fun, and pretty conclusive that horses like racing in a group, or at least one does

 

[TarrSteps]

I was terrified when the horse jumped into the Tour de France in real life! It really did not look to me like it was having a good time and I kept waiting for it to slip and fall on the tarmac or wipe out cyclists.

Anyhow, we're having a discussion, so technically we are allowed to argue your points.

I am with Booboos though - you can defend something without supporting it. Or at least you can support the idea that if you are going to single out a practice it isn't unreasonable to ask why that one and not another.

Btw, perhaps the photos that have surfaced are rolkur done badly? It's at least possible. I have seen video of a demo and a book on the subject where, to be fair, the horses did not look stressed and in the demo the horse did show a marked improvement in relaxation and way of going. Interestingly, that video briefly did the rounds as a fuel for the anti debate but quickly disappeared.

As far as the naturalness of movements, I'm not convinced, sorry. Dressage has a real whiff of the circus about it. Technically gymnasts move naturally but there is ample evidence that at the top levels the toll is significant. And this is of course, the defence of rolkur - if we are going to ask extreme things of our horses we need to prepare them in extreme ways. Again, not saying I agree but the principle deserves examination.

 

[tristar]

i think the doing what comes naturally bit centers around, that the fei definitions of what can and cannot be performed within a test is based on whether or not it is natural, certain movements are considered un-natural and therefore are not included in competition dressage, sadly they have forgotten to exclude going round with your blood supply cut off in rollkur. however, my horses very often perform movements the fei don't know about!

rollkur is ugly, incorrect, inferior training etc

 

[Booboos]

That would be why the naked rambler has served so many prison sentences then?

I met him once when I was out on a horse. I wasn't the slightest bit offended but my horse nearly fell over craning his neck back to keep his eyes on this thing flopping around in full view that he'd never seen on a humn before

Again, don't pick them off one by one BB, there are thousands, they were just a sample.

That's because of his purposeful disregard for the law. He literally takes his clothes off outside the prison as soon as he is released. Nothing pisses judges off more than being defied!

Well the only way to deal with a thousand objections is to pick them off one by one! If each one fails, job done!

 

[cptrayes]

I don't accept that you succesfully picked them off BB, but since you intend to do that with every example given, I can't be bothered to continue to respond.

If you can't see what is wrong with this, then you are looking with different eyes than mine.

http://www.bitlessbridle.com/RollkurFig4a.jpg

http://www.scandinavian-dressage.com/images/Rollkur2_300.jpg

http://dressyrmupparna.se/wp-content/uploads/webblogg/rollkur_121958115.jpg

http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/anky.jpg

http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/powerandpaintlarge.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/i...kCc7TX-Ir3GqqwNUi9AzsSwDNwcaY6_Uh_xCFpF-yqXLT

 

[Booboos]

I don't accept that you succesfully picked them off BB, but since you intend to do that with every example given, I can't be bothered to continue to respond.

If you can't see what is wrong with this, then you are looking with different eyes than mine.

I get the impression you may be a bit upset? I certainly didn't intend that. If I didn't respond to your arguments one at a time, how should have I responded? I am not 'picking them off' to be contrary, I am arguing that such laws are wrong and regulating on this basis is wrong. If we lived in a Sharia state I would have even more laws to argue against but their sheer number wouldn't make them any more right.

I think this is the crux of the matter, I am not really looking with my eyes, I am thinking with my brain

 

[cptrayes]

I get the impression you may be a bit upset? I certainly didn't intend that. If I didn't respond to your arguments one at a time, how should have I responded? I am not 'picking them off' to be contrary, I am arguing that such laws are wrong and regulating on this basis is wrong. If we lived in a Sharia state I would have even more laws to argue against but their sheer number wouldn't make them any more right.

I think this is the crux of the matter, I am not really looking with my eyes, I am thinking with my brain

Upset? Not at all. It's interesting to get into a rational debate with someone who can really argue. But in the end there is currently no evidence with which to support a legal ban on hyperflexion, and ethically I can't see how we are going to get any. I certainly wouldn't support taking a group of horses and doing it to them for a couple of years and then cutting them up to see what physical damage it may have caused. Perhaps we should have compulsory post mortems of all horses known to have been trained in that fashion when they die? Difficult to manage, maybe???

Where do you propose we should get our proof from, Booboos, or would you propose never to ban anything where it is unethical to produce the physical proof? I think you'd have a hard job banning sex with babies under that one.

I am also thinking with my brain, only I have fully engaged my eyes (and the rest of my body when I ride horses similar physically and in temperament to the ones this training method is so "successful" with) before doing so. (no, I don't ride internationally at GP, and neither would I want to if that method of training was the only way to achieve it).

The fact is that plenty of people at the top of the sport think that this training method is unacceptable. People at the top of the FEI felt it was so unacceptable that they have stated that it is banned, even if they fail yet to police that. The lack of policing is mainly a local issue with stewards who either are in awe of big name riders or don't see the problem. They are going to have to sort this, (withdraw the ban or police it) or the clamour is simply going to get louder.


ps just want to add for people who do not know me that I am no fluffy bunny. I support the proper use of draw reins and spurs and I hit horses with a whip when I feel that is the correct course of action.

 

[tristar]

booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?

once you have turned the the key and entered the enchanted castle and ridden with reins light as a feather,sitting on a horse whose sheer power is only directed, not created by harsh aids, you will need no other evidence to form the conclusion that trying to, although you have the right in a free society to argue for the right, for something as pathetic as rollkur training only exposes your lack of understanding of training the horse.

and i do understand that you are saying evidential proof is lacking, but one day you might discover yourself during your progression as a rider why so many do not find it acceptable.

 

[Booboos]

Upset? Not at all. It's interesting to get into a rational debate with someone who can really argue. But in the end there is currently no evidence with which to support a legal ban on hyperflexion, and ethically I can't see how we are going to get any. I certainly wouldn't support taking a group of horses and doing it to them for a couple of years and then cutting them up to see what physical damage it may have caused. Perhaps we should have compulsory post mortems of all horses known to have been trained in that fashion when they die? Difficult to manage, maybe???

Where do you propose we should get our proof from, Booboos, or would you propose never to ban anything where it is unethical to produce the physical proof? I think you'd have a hard job banning sex with babies under that one.

Apologies, I misread your post!

Well I am not a vet but off the top of my head it depends on the claims about rollkur:
- claims that horses cannot see and/or breath while in the position should be easy to examine and yes for the purposes of that study I would put horses in rollkur, it should be quickly apparent that they can't breath and/or see.
- claims that their bones and/or muscles and/or ligaments are malformed or similar should be also obtainable from physical manipulations, MRI scans, scintigraphies, etc. etc. (to be honest I am not knowledgeable enough to 'marry' the right test with the right deformity, but any vet should be able to do so).
- claims that these horses have a shorter lifespan or competitive career should be obtainable via audit.
- yes autopsies would be a good tool, horses could be donated or the FEI could make it compulsory.
- the toughest one to research are the psychological harm claims but I think that is a problem that affects all of riding and possibly all of the uses we put domesticated animals to.

 

[Booboos]

booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?

How does my lack of ability to ride affect my ability to reason? I seem perfectly capable of producing philosophical work publishable in peer reviewed journals and monographs by well reputed publishing house WHILE AT THE SAME TIME coming last in a novice dressage test!

 

[Doogal]

Parzival piaffe is completely bizarre.

His front end is practically glued to the floor and his back end bounces up and down behind him. It's wierd seeing her sit there with his spine bending upwards behind her backside.

I also thought he did most of the test overbent and was completely tense.

Agree, I was surprised when her score came up. Personally I thought Laura's test deserved the silver.

Ah, I have just realised this thread has gone off on a complete tangent several times over.

 

[cptrayes]

- claims that horses cannot see and/or breath while in the position should be easy to examine and yes for the purposes of that study I would put horses in rollkur, it should be quickly apparent that they can't breath and/or see.

I believe the sight issue is already proven and as far as the breathing goes, put a horse in it and listen.

- claims that their bones and/or muscles and/or ligaments are malformed or similar should be also obtainable from physical manipulations, MRI scans, scintigraphies, etc. etc. (to be honest I am not knowledgeable enough to 'marry' the right test with the right deformity, but any vet should be able to do so).

Who is going to pay.?

- claims that these horses have a shorter lifespan or competitive career should be obtainable via audit.

Numbers are too small to be statistically valid.

- yes autopsies would be a good tool, horses could be donated or the FEI could make it compulsory.

If you have trained a horse like it and still train horses like it what in the world would make you help prove that it is damaging?

- the toughest one to research are the psychological harm claims but I think that is a problem that affects all of riding and possibly all of the uses we put domesticated animals to.

I don't subscribe to the psychological harm claims as they are completely impossible to judge.






Booboos can we agree that it is wrong for a grown man to have anal sex with a boy who is too young to form lasting memories, even though that boy will never be able to remember in the future what was done to him, and assuming no physical damage was caused?

OK?

It is impossible to test whether a child would be harmed by the act or not. Ethically, it simply could not be done.

Still with me?

Right, then we both agree that there are good laws in existence which have no evidence whatsoever, that it is just our "feeling" that this is not a good thing to happen, or even a neutral one. However, there are people in the world who believe that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.


Once you accept that a large enough group of people can use feelings, not firm evidence, to ban something, it becomes only a matter of where you or I as individuals would draw the line in other matters.

As it happens, I would draw it below hyperflexion and you would draw it above. The fact that it has been banned by the FEI without evidence is neither here nor there, lots of our laws are made that way by a big enough concensus that something is wrong.

 

[cptrayes]

How does my lack of ability to ride affect my ability to reason? I seem perfectly capable of producing philosophical work publishable in peer reviewed journals and monographs by well reputed publishing house WHILE AT THE SAME TIME coming last in a novice dressage test!

Yes well none of us are surprised that you are a published philosopher Booboos, though I am surprised that as a philospher you are so intent on proof.

Your riding experience is directly valid.

If you have not ever sat on one of these huge moving and very sensitive warmbloods then you cannot even imagine what is necessary to put a horse like it into hyperflexion and keep it there for considerable lengths of time, or what effects it has on the way the horse is moving, or what the alternatives are to achieve the same end (even if that "end" is international success).

Your question asking for proof that it affects the breathing is a case in point. If you ride a horse in it, you can hear it.

 

[Zuzan]

.......... Or at least you can support the idea that if you are going to single out a practice it isn't unreasonable to ask why that one and not another.

Btw, perhaps the photos that have surfaced are rolkur done badly? It's at least possible. I have seen video of a demo and a book on the subject where, to be fair, the horses did not look stressed and in the demo the horse did show a marked improvement in relaxation and way of going. Interestingly, that video briefly did the rounds as a fuel for the anti debate but quickly disappeared.

As far as the naturalness of movements, I'm not convinced, sorry. Dressage has a real whiff of the circus about it. Technically gymnasts move naturally but there is ample evidence that at the top levels the toll is significant. And this is of course, the defence of rolkur - if we are going to ask extreme things of our horses we need to prepare them in extreme ways. Again, not saying I agree but the principle deserves examination.

I think there are very good reasons why Rollkur has been “singled out” … it is quite obvious that a lot of force is being used .. at least in the photos and videos I have seen.. Would be very interested Rollkur done well video / book as have never seen anything that didn’t demonstrate a lot of force applied by the human.

Are there any other methods in modern dressage that should be scrutinised?

Rollkur seems to be the one method in particular that the FEI / IOC seem to wish to cover up the most.. there must be good reason why they don’t want Rollkur discussed in the public domain .. We are well aware that those that wish to cover something up / squash debate tend to have things they know are destructive and or rooted in self interested at the expense of another/others.

My personal standpoint is that the general non horsey public probably see the force and the expressions on the horses (whether it is anthropomorphic or not) and see that the horse is being forced against it’s will .. It demonstrates force as a means to control the horse and force submission … it doesn’t demonstrate the horse and human in harmony.

The great danger is that the non horsey public will assume that all dressage or even all equestrianism requires this level of force. Equestrianism will then become further exiled from public acceptance / culture and the standpoints will become further polarised, so that the anti will become anti all equestrianism not simply anti Rollkur.

Of course you could always argue that the general public are ignorant and that Rollkur is for “experts” and only “experts” can validly comment on it but the issue the underpins the Rollkur debate is the level of force clearly exerted. It doesn’t take expertise to see the bracing of the muscles and the force exerted by the rider. Force is not subtle and doesn’t require any special skill. I think that force takes over when skill and expertise run out. Force is where communication ceases.

Whilst this debate hinges on reasons why Rollkur is bad I have yet to see or read anything that explains why it is good / useful. I would like too see a positive justification of the use of force (Rollkur or any other method) that explains why it is better than other methods that achieve the relaxation of the jaw / co-operation of the horse, or whatever other objective, that do not use force.

My perspective is that governing bodies in equestrian sport need to be exponents of and promote the co-operation and team elements between horse and human and closely examine and be open about practises that do not illustrate this clearly. This will engage the public more and generate positive (rather than negative) interest in equestrianism and therefore greater knowledge and understanding. A virtuous cycle.

Re the naturalness of the horses movement.. I think in it’s pure sense dressage is a means of show casing the horse.. in a human framework… Horses are great at demonstrating their prowess to each other and predators.. have seen a range of moves that even the Spanish School would be gasping at Dressage is a means to build a horse up so that it can demonstrate this prowess and grace with a rider . Circus yes but the imagination for the circus has clearly been inspired by the horses’ physical gymnastic ability in its natural state. Grand prix even haute école I see nothing that a horse wouldn’t do in the field it is all movement that they use in the social context and also as prey. Playing is very much a rehearsal for reality .. and dressage is exactly that in its pure form.

Re examining principles and general chewing of fat.. ( ) Really I think the debate needs determine how we assess the human effect on the horse and how we categorise something as positive..

Starting with starting of course … I have witnessed horses being started and prepared correctly they really exhibit an acceptance of their role as mounts and seem to relish it. A horse brought on well grows in strength and as a physical being so its self confidence builds and it grows more secure in its role both with other horses but also with humans. So training a horse can be said to be beneficial

This ability to understand and work with humans is obviously something we have selectively bred for otherwise we would all be struggling with Zebra / Taki type psychology! Physically too we have changed horses considerably.. However we have 2 very clear examples that how we have changed them does not mean they cannot flourish in what were their natural habitats.. Namib desert horses and of course the mustangs so our selective breeding cannot be said in all cases to be detrimental to the horse.

 

[SusannaF]

I'd just like to toss this piece by Epona TV into the ring. It covers the history of the term rollkur and the FEI's approach to it, and is very very interesting.


http://epona.tv/uk/news/show/artikel/editorial/?type=98&cHash=a2014d678367e97acc061a3a68ee545d

If you want to help ... get your video or still camera (or both) and go see how the riders warm up at a horseshow. Film everything they do and upload it to YouTube. Then circulate the link. You don’t have to accuse anyone of rollkur or aggressive riding or animal cruelty. Just document the riding and let others decide for themselves. Nobody can sue you for that, even if they might threaten to do so.

 

[BeesKnees]

To be frank I don't care whether objecting on emotional grounds is considered viable according to philosophical discussion. The pictures of Rollkur show an objectionable practice. So object I do as is my right.

The term 'hyper' comes from the ancient Greek meaning 'excessive', and I think that says it all.

 

[Booboos]

I believe the sight issue is already proven and as far as the breathing goes, put a horse in it and listen.



Who is going to pay.?



Numbers are too small to be statistically valid.



If you have trained a horse like it and still train horses like it what in the world would make you help prove that it is damaging?



I don't subscribe to the psychological harm claims as they are completely impossible to judge.






Booboos can we agree that it is wrong for a grown man to have anal sex with a boy who is too young to form lasting memories, even though that boy will never be able to remember in the future what was done to him, and assuming no physical damage was caused?

OK?

It is impossible to test whether a child would be harmed by the act or not. Ethically, it simply could not be done.

Still with me?

Right, then we both agree that there are good laws in existence which have no evidence whatsoever, that it is just our "feeling" that this is not a good thing to happen, or even a neutral one. However, there are people in the world who believe that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.


Once you accept that a large enough group of people can use feelings, not firm evidence, to ban something, it becomes only a matter of where you or I as individuals would draw the line in other matters.

As it happens, I would draw it below hyperflexion and you would draw it above. The fact that it has been banned by the FEI without evidence is neither here nor there, lots of our laws are made that way by a big enough concensus that something is wrong.

Could I please have the reference for the sight study?

As for the 'personal' approach to the breathing 'tests' it is fraught with difficulties. The horse may have respiratory problems already, the rider may have poor hearing, the breathing may be different but without affecting the horse's welfare, the breathing may only be affected if the horse is not used to rollkur, etc. This is why studies should be carried out professionally, e.g. well designed, with control groups, under double blind conditions (as far as possible), with scientific messuring equipment, etc.

Payment: now here I have very constructive advice. Luckily for everyone involved in this debate there are a lot of concerned individuals. I am sure conscientious voices against rollkur like Dr H and Philippe Karl will be only too thrilled to donate the proceeds of their books, DVDs, clinics, demos, etc. to research into this topic. Donations could also come from the public, who as is demonstrated by this forum are very concerned about this welfare issue. The FEI should provide matching funds.

Small numbers: yes, that's why we need research.

The rape example: I am not completely following this one. One doesn't not need to have knowldge of the harm that has been done to one for it to be harmful. If a person is raped while unconscious and does not notice any evidence the next day it does not mean that they were not harmed by the rape. The violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm. I also don't understand your point that there is no evidence that the rape of children is harmful; sadly children are raped and the evidence of physiological and psychological harm is consistent with what one would expect given our knowledge of human physiology and psychology.

No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm. That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.

I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.

 

[Booboos]

i think the doing what comes naturally bit centers around, that the fei definitions of what can and cannot be performed within a test is based on whether or not it is natural, certain movements are considered un-natural and therefore are not included in competition dressage, sadly they have forgotten to exclude going round with your blood supply cut off in rollkur. however, my horses very often perform movements the fei don't know about!

rollkur is ugly, incorrect, inferior training etc

What do you mean by 'natural'? Riding doesn't seem to be natural in the sense you are using the word.

If rollkur horses have their blood supply cut off do they get permenant brain damage as a result or can their brains function with no blood?

 

[Booboos]

booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?

once you have turned the the key and entered the enchanted castle and ridden with reins light as a feather,sitting on a horse whose sheer power is only directed, not created by harsh aids, you will need no other evidence to form the conclusion that trying to, although you have the right in a free society to argue for the right, for something as pathetic as rollkur training only exposes your lack of understanding of training the horse.

and i do understand that you are saying evidential proof is lacking, but one day you might discover yourself during your progression as a rider why so many do not find it acceptable.

I am sorry but again I am lost. What does my being a crappy rider have to do with anything? Are you suggesting you know rollkur is wrong because you are a great rider and have ridden so well? Is this some form of argument from expertise?

Would you then dismiss the combined expertise of Cornelissen, Anky, EG, PK, their trainers, their vets, all the judges who have ever judged them, etc.?

 

[BeesKnees]

No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm. That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.

I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.

The fact is that it doesn't have to be banned in order for things to change. If there is enough negative publicity, which with new media is very powerful and very 'bottom up', people will change what they do.

It would be interesting to know what Patrick Kittel is currently feeling about his use of Rollkur. It certainly didn't produce a positive outcome for him.

 

[Booboos]

Yes well none of us are surprised that you are a published philosopher Booboos, though I am surprised that as a philospher you are so intent on proof.

Your riding experience is directly valid.

If you have not ever sat on one of these huge moving and very sensitive warmbloods then you cannot even imagine what is necessary to put a horse like it into hyperflexion and keep it there for considerable lengths of time, or what effects it has on the way the horse is moving, or what the alternatives are to achieve the same end (even if that "end" is international success).

Your question asking for proof that it affects the breathing is a case in point. If you ride a horse in it, you can hear it.

Taken out of context this does sound like an irrelevant boast, although to be fair it was in direct response to the claim that my poor riding has affected my reasoning skills, so I was merely offering proof that my reasoning skills are fairly well functioning.

If the test is to have sat on Salinero, Totilas, Scandic, Painted Black, etc. then no one else who argues against rollkur has passed this test either (btw if they are very sensitive why do you need a lot of force to get them to curl their necks?)

 

[tristar]

booboos, i have not claimed to be anything, even a great rider!

i am disturbed by your continual references to van grunsen, now gal and assorted others, because i think anky is one of the worst riders i have ever seen, therefore i cannot be intimidated by you using them to make a point, i can only laugh, and i sincerely hope one day you will see them for what they are, when you can, maybe you will not come last in your competitions, i hope you can see through it all, and wish for you, one day it will result in you having success with your horses.

 

[cptrayes]

Taken out of context this does sound like an irrelevant boast, although to be fair it was in direct response to the claim that my poor riding has affected my reasoning skills, so I was merely offering proof that my reasoning skills are fairly well functioning.

If the test is to have sat on Salinero, Totilas, Scandic, Painted Black, etc. then no one else who argues against rollkur has passed this test either (btw if they are very sensitive why do you need a lot of force to get them to curl their necks?)

You are doing no justice to your self-proclaimed intellect now Booboos. It is not boasting to say that you have sat on a big moving and very sensitive warmblood if you have. Plenty of people own one. I happen to have one whose father is an international Grand Prix horse. That does not make me special, just very lucky.

Until you have ridden one, you cannot understand what we are talking about. You simply do not have the experience that you need to pass the judgements that you are now passing on others or on hyperflexion. And I would agree with you, anyone else who argues in favour of hyperflexion who has never ridden the type of horse that it was invented for is arguing from a very weak position.

Your last question is a case in point. You need to ask why it needs force, in spite of being shown multiple pictures where force is being used.

Some of these overbred, oversensitive horses are immensely strong and immensely opinionated. (Totilas was originally turned down by Edward Gal because he felt too explosive to be succesfully trained.) It takes force to put hyperflexion on a horse of the type who fights, as can clearly be seen in the freestyle test by Parzival, where Cornelissen has a very tight hold on the bits.

The fact that you have to ask why you would need to use force to apply hyperflexion is, for me, the final proof I need that your argument in favour of its use until it is scienticially proved to be detrimental is no longer worth continuing with.

 

[cptrayes]

Would you then dismiss the combined expertise of Cornelissen, Anky, EG, PK, their trainers,

yes because a British team which does not believe in such methods beat them handsomely.

their vets,

....wouldn't dare upset such an influential client by suggesting that there was a problem.

all the judges who have ever judged them, etc.?

no, because they can only judge what they see on the day, and also because they are increasingly placing horses not trained that way, ridden with lighter rein contact by the rider, above them.



Your argument is scraping the barrel now Booboos. Does it make something right just because someone wins by doing it? Or just because someone famous does it? Of course not.

 

[cptrayes]

What do you mean by 'natural'? Riding doesn't seem to be natural in the sense you are using the word.

If rollkur horses have their blood supply cut off do they get permenant brain damage as a result or can their brains function with no blood?

Most horses keep their brain, if they have one, in their forehead not their tongue Have you not seen the blue tongues that horses in rollkur sometimes show?

 

[cptrayes]

Could I please have the reference for the sight study?

Look it up for yourself. I'm happy with what I have read over many years about horses' sight, and also know that I could ride a horse which is overbent straight into an obstacle because it can't see in front of it. I did it by accident yesterday with my youngster. If you go to enough dressage competitions you can see overbent horses have to be pulled off line by their riders to prevent them crashing into another overbent horse who hasn't seen what's in front of it either.

As for the 'personal' approach to the breathing 'tests' it is fraught with difficulties. The horse may have respiratory problems already, the rider may have poor hearing, the breathing may be different but without affecting the horse's welfare, the breathing may only be affected if the horse is not used to rollkur, etc. This is why studies should be carried out professionally, e.g. well designed, with control groups, under double blind conditions (as far as possible), with scientific messuring equipment, etc.

You really don't have a great deal of experience of riding horses, do you?

Payment: now here I have very constructive advice. Luckily for everyone involved in this debate there are a lot of concerned individuals. I am sure conscientious voices against rollkur like Dr H and Philippe Karl will be only too thrilled to donate the proceeds of their books, DVDs, clinics, demos, etc. to research into this topic.

Why should they? They are the ones who DON'T use it. They have no need to prove it's safe, they have a better way of training already.

Small numbers: yes, that's why we need research.

You do actually need a big enough sample size to start with to produce a statistically valid result.

The rape example: I am not completely following this one. One doesn't not need to have knowldge of the harm that has been done to one for it to be harmful. If a person is raped while unconscious and does not notice any evidence the next day it does not mean that they were not harmed by the rape. The violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm. I also don't understand your point that there is no evidence that the rape of children is harmful; sadly children are raped and the evidence of physiological and psychological harm is consistent with what one would expect given our knowledge of human physiology and psychology.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the rape of a child too young to remember the occurrence who is not physically harmed by the experience is damaged in any way.

It cannot be tested. It is purely your own feeling, and that of many others, that "the violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm". You have no proof of that. Yet you feel it is wrong and are happy to see it banned.

The fact that a published philosopher who has been peer reviewed cannot see the inconsistency between that and your assertion that it is wrong to ban rollkur becuase a large body of people feel it is wrong is so bizarre that you now seem simply to be clutching at straws to maintain your position.

No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm.

It's not "prohibit practicces that cause no harm" we are talking about BB. Its "prohibit practices that cannot be scientifically proved to cause harm" and all societies have a multitude of those.

That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.

So we'll repeal the law against raping a woman who is completely unconscious and never remembers a thing about it or has any physical manifestation of it having happened, shall we? Like the one prohibiting a surgeon from sexually assaulting a woman under anaesthetic? No harm done there, is there?

While we are about it, lets repeal all the planning laws. After all, they are only about one persons feelings about what a building should look like compared to another's.

I could go on but I'm getting tired of this argument. Your position is, to me, so clearly incorrect that I am baffled now.

I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.

But this is not correct Booboos. All societies run on the basis that laws are made when a large enough group of people believe something is wrong and that other individual's feelings are not equally valid. This does not have to be scientifically provable to be good law.

But you are immovable on this point so we will just have to disagree, but how you can hold that view living in the society we live in is a complete mystery to me.

I can only think that you are engaging in this argument as a theoretical exercise.

 

[tristar]

i use natural under the fei 's own definition, ie. example: spanish walk is not defined as natural and therefore not included in dressage tests.

even though it is natural and horses do it of their own volition

so work that one out someone please

 

[Bearskin]

The Power and Paint photo http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/powerandpaintlarge.jpg (and their excuses for it....) sums up "rollkur" for me.

Some interesting reading: http://www.eurodressage.com/equestr...ation-science-recognized-2012-ises-conference

Booboos and Tarrsteps, I have really enjoyed reading your posts. It is very important to have an open mind when considering this subject.

Re the OP's original post: Should a dressage horse (happy athelete), trained to the highest level and competing in the individual finals of the Olympics, win a medal if its jaw is crossed for the majority of its test? Probably not, in my opinion, but Parzival completed a test without mistakes, with expression, power and elasticity; very hard for the judges to mark down. Adelinde rode a "clear round" whilst most of the other riders had "fences down". I hope that with Valegro's victory we will see a shift towards more open framed dressage training.