Adelinde Cornelissen - A Rant!!

Booboos said:
BeesKnees said:
If you wish to give up riding to err on the side of caution I respect your decision.
Click to expand...

LOL that decision was made along time ago due to other reasons.

However I don't think choosing to err on the side of caution regarding welfare issue equates to not riding at all. In the real world, (as opposed to the world of philosophical discussion perhaps ;)) we inhabit the grey areas.

So we may choose to ride, but adhere to current welfare practices i.e. to make sure our horse is seen regularly by a physio and use a correctly fitting saddle, and to build up workload slowly etc etc.

These considerations change all the time, and are very different now to when I first owned a pony as a child. And they change by dint of general consensus amongst the involved in keepong /riding horses. Not because harm has been 'proven' necessarily but because our opinions about what constitutes good welfare and animal rights etc etc have changed.
Click to expand...
 
Booboos said:
- socially determined moral truths are not objective, they are subjective no matter how many people agree on them.
Click to expand...

This is so patently obvious and in line with what I wrote that I cannot understand why you have written it. The fact that they are subjective, of course, does not make them untrue or invalid.

Booboos said:
- the website you cite says nothing about horses not being able to see if their heads are lowered.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It says that with its head lowered it can only focus on the horizon. And that to bring nearer things into focus the horse must raise its head. A horse with its head in hyperflexion , eyes pointed towards the floor, will therefore have a restricted, but possibly in focus, view of the horizon and a completely out of focus view of anything that it is able to see in its path. This would explain why it is so easy to get an overbent horse to walk into objects that are in its way.

Booboos said:
Horse vision is spherical, the biggest obstacle to it is the nose, so a horse in rollkur should be able to see right in front of it better than a horse with its head in the air.
Click to expand...

Actually the biggest obstacle is its own and its riders body, and there are chunks of the "sphere" missing under its jaw too, but we are talking about seeing forwards so I'll let you off that one :) But you also forget the blind spot right in front of it, which will be right where it is trying to move forwards to if hyperflexed.

In addition to the blind spot, when a horse is hyperflexed, anything it sees in front of it is completely out of focus because of its inability to focus unless it can raise its head and look through the bottom part of its eye.

If a horse is designed to see best out forwards and down and sideways when its head is raised, where do you think it can see best when its head is bent behind the verticle? - downwards and back and sideways. For a horse in hyperflexion to see forwards, even out of focus, it needs to effectively look "upwards" .

Have you ever called to a horse on the level from an upstairs window of your house? It's hilarious, or possibly cruel, I never could quite make up my mind. They don't have a clue where to look, they just stand looking about them, very puzzled. Horses are not programmed to look upwards. In hyperflexion, they have to look "upwards" to see forwards. Hence in that position, it being unatural to look upwards, and with a severe lack of focus, the horse is functionally at least partly sighted, and blind in its blind spot, which is the floor some distance in front of its nose. Just as a horse cannot see the part of the showjump in front of it at the moment of takeoff a horse in hyperflexion cannot see the piece of ground it is about to step on.

I understand that you want proof, and I cannot supply it. However, I do find it possible to put my own experiences of riding over the long term together with what I know about horse sight, and explain the fact that it is easy to cause an overbent horse to trip over things by coming to the conclusion that the horse is, in that situation, partly sighted at best, without some learned PhD person telling me it.

I am currently schooling my exuberent 6 year old to stop spooking at some plastic barrels that I have by the side of my arena*. In order to prevent him from spinning away and bucking I am putting him into temporary overbend, some moments even hyperflexed, for my own safety. When told to approach those barrels in hyperflexion he will walk right up and into the arena boards and has to be prevented from walking directly into the barrels lent against them (I have no fence around my arena). He isn't a stupid horse, he's just blind immediately in front of his legs when he is hyperflexed.



* yes, everyone wincing, I have tried every other method of desensitising him to them, and he is not the slightest bit concerned about them until he finds something difficult in his work, when they suddenly become horse eaters.
 
Last edited:
I have found this thread very interesting. Watching the Anky training link I must say the horse she is using in her clinic doesn't seem bothered or fighting the hyerflexion, although it looks unnatural.
Watching Parzival in his test though is awful - how anyone can defend that as looking like proper dressage, which to me ( a hapy hacker and hunter) should be harmony, light and a delight to the eye. It is so far from that. Poor boy.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
I understand that you want proof, and I cannot supply it.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. It's not me who wants proof due to some bizarre idiocyncratic reason of mine; it's the people who want to ban rollkur who need proof. While signing petitions, wearing t-shirts and being upset on the internet may be one way to go, may I respectfully suggest that getting proof that rollkur is harmful is a much more effective strategy for getting the FEI to enforce an effective ban and convincing those who practice it to give it up.

(subjective truths are neither true or false in virtue of being subjective. E.g. whether a person likes Marmite or not is a subjective truth, true for those who like it and false for those who do not, but there is no objective truth of the matter about the likability of Marmite, it's a matter of taste. If morality is subjective then there is no truth of the matter about whether rape is right or wrong, some people feel it is right some feel it is wrong and that's all there is to it - most people baulk at this conclusion and reject the idea of the subjectivity of morality).
 
Booboos said:
And therein lies the problem. It's not me who wants proof due to some bizarre idiocyncratic reason of mine; it's the people who want to ban rollkur who need proof.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. It has been banned by the FEI in warm-up at competitions already. I cannot imagine the ban will be removed, because it would be perceived as such a retrograde step, and I believe that one day it will also be effectively policed or no longer need to be policed because it has stopped being used in public.

I am sorry that it conflicts with your view of how the world should work Booboos but there are plenty of rules and laws which are set on the basis that a big enough group of people feel that something is right or wrong.

And in my opinion that does not make them bad rules or laws.
 
Last edited:
Booboos said:
I did not, I said 'general principle' and general principles admit to exceptions which I then discussed with another poster (e.g. bestiality, incest).
Click to expand...

Yes I get it. There are 'general peinciples' which adhere to the rules you wish society to ascribe to. Then the are exceptions, which you argue do really adhere to those rules, if we look at them your/the right way. And those that dont adhere and are thus just bad laws/rules which ought to be repealed :rolleyes:

Wow. I can't imagine what it's like to be so convinced that your way of looking at and describing the way society organises itself is so absolutely right.
 
BeesKnees said:
Yes I get it. There are 'general peinciples' which adhere to the rules you wish society to ascribe to. Then the are exceptions, which you argue do really adhere to those rules, if we look at them your/the right way. And those that dont adhere and are thus just bad laws/rules which ought to be repealed :rolleyes:

Wow. I can't imagine what it's like to be so convinced that your way of looking at and describing the way society organises itself is so absolutely right.
Click to expand...

No, the term 'general principle' referred to the claim that the law in England has been developped along liberal lines because of No Harm Principle (which has lengthy defences). That entire claim is a general principle which admits to exceptions. Here is another way of phrasing it: "Most laws or for the most part laws in England follow No Harm Principle lines". None of this is negated by exceptions. J.S. Mill's legacy is still alive and well. For more on this see any philosophy of law textbook, e.g. Tebbit "Philosophy of law" Routledge 2000

For a comparison see Iran where moral social cohesion is highly prized. I am not moving there anytime soon though even if they ban rollkur! :)
 
BeesKnees, makes the point of how own perception of how we treat animals changes over time, i find this very interesting, many advances have been made in the last 25 years, re equipment, horse dentistry, saddles etc spring to mind, i would be intrigued to know how rollkur will be viewed retrospectively say in 25 - 50 years, or indeed dressage comps in general.

tarrsteps, point about policing rollkur and then bringing in exessive spuring, illegal tack, and the before mentioned short side reins, does not paint a pretty picture, what are we doing to horses!

if people at the top are putting very short side reins on 4 year olds, what sort of example is that, what does it say about their true ability as trainers and riders?
 
TarrSteps said:
Just to clarify again, hyperflexion is not banned in warm ups and has never been. It's continued and prolonged use is controlled by the Stewards, who also police other excesses such as repeated spuring, illegal tack etc.

World Horse Welfare's recent statement on the subject:
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/information/latest-news?view=show&content_id=5249
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It is banned by the FEI when applied by aggressive force. Their interpretation of aghgressive force currently lets most usage of it off the hook but that isn't going to hold for much longer now that there is a groundswell of public opinion against it.

Yes
 
Booboos said:
No, the term 'general principle' referred to the claim that the law in England has been developped along liberal lines because of No Harm Principle (which has lengthy defences). That entire claim is a general principle which admits to exceptions. Here is another way of phrasing it: "Most laws or for the most part laws in England follow No Harm Principle lines". None of this is negated by exceptions. J.S. Mill's legacy is still alive and well. For more on this see any philosophy of law textbook, e.g. Tebbit "Philosophy of law" Routledge 2000

For a comparison see Iran where moral social cohesion is highly prized. I am not moving there anytime soon though even if they ban rollkur! :)
Click to expand...

But Booboos your argument has been that whilst exceptions may exist ( although you have not agreed to any that have been suggested), that such exceptions are "bad laws".

What about the Social Authority principle? Mill himself talked of occasions where it is acceptable for society to exert "social punishment" to protect the wider society from "actions that are prejudicial to the interests of others"

This opens up the discussion as to the the legitimacy of controlling actions where it can be anticipated that harm will be caused over a period of time, but where that harm is not immediately visible or proven?
 
TarrSteps said:
Just to clarify again, hyperflexion is not banned in warm ups and has never been. It's continued and prolonged use is controlled by the Stewards, who also police other excesses such as repeated spuring, illegal tack etc.

World Horse Welfare's recent statement on the subject:
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/information/latest-news?view=show&content_id=5249
Click to expand...

To be accurate, the FEI defined hyperflexion as being the use of aggressive force, and banned it.

Then they muddied that waters by saying extreme flexion (which is of course the literal meaning of the words hyper and flexion) could be held for short periods of time.

As long as it wasn't using force.

Having already said hyperflexion was by definition forceful and aggressive.......

I do agree with Boobos on one thing. The ruling is muddled nonsense and needs clarifying.
 
Excessive force in the warm up is banned, period. Which still brings us back to the original question, why is this one particular action so much worse than another? If the horse is not obviously in distress (as in the Anky video) why is this one practice singled out?

Look, I'm probably the last person to comment, as I'd go without a noseband if they let me. :) But I still think it's a worthy discussion. This particular discussion was started for personal and political reasons. I get a bit annoyed with epona as they are so clearly on a mission about it and many people seem to have joined the band wagon without doing any of their own research.

PERSONALLY, there are all sorts of things done in the service of sport that make me nervous, not least because of the trickle down effect. The idea that a mark of ' good riding' is being able to get your horse 'in a frame' has done untold damage, in my opinion. :(

But we aren't going to out law dressage any time soon because of some bad practice! And then I've seen some Classical training with stressed, unhappy horses, too.

I'd agree the FEI is not doing a good job of creating or policing the rules. But I might argue that's at least partly because the rulings on rolkur have all been done in response to people's feelings!;) They are trying to keep two sides reasonably happy and we all know how that usually goes.
 
BeesKnees said:
But Booboos your argument has been that whilst exceptions may exist ( although you have not agreed to any that have been suggested), that such exceptions are "bad laws".

What about the Social Authority principle? Mill himself talked of occasions where it is acceptable for society to exert "social punishment" to protect the wider society from "actions that are prejudicial to the interests of others"

This opens up the discussion as to the the legitimacy of controlling actions where it can be anticipated that harm will be caused over a period of time, but where that harm is not immediately visible or proven?
Click to expand...

I metioned the first exception myself and it was bestiality, then accepted that incest is the other main exception. I do think they are incorrect laws and should be repealed (incest for the cases of consentual adult incest). My argument is not simply that they are bad laws, but that they are bad laws because society does not have the right to restrict the liberty of people whose actions do not cause harm to others.

What you are quoting is part of the ellaboration on the No harm principle, here is the whole thing:

"The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection."

'Prejudicial to the interests of others' does open the definition of harm to questions of social harm, but to be perfectly honest I don't see the relevant to the rollkur debate either way. Even if we accept social harm, in what way does rollkur constitute a social harm, how is society significantly harmed by its practice?

Not sure what your point about social punishment might be, I don't have any problem with social punishment as stand alone or along side legal punishments, as long as they are appropriately metted out (i.e. where harm is caused to others).

Why do you anticipate that rollkur will cause harm over a period of time? And why isn't that harm evident in horses that have been trained in this way already?
 
My point Booboos is that the harm principle is not the only principle by which western liberal democracies create rules/laws/norms, and there are plenty that do not adhere to it that I fully support such as taxation for the purpose of welfare, laws on discrimination, and on environmental issues. The ability to produce prrof of actual physical harm in many of those cases would be difficult.

My point is that the harm principle should not be the only principle by which such rules and laws are created because it is simply insufficient and leaves too many questions. Harm by whose definition? What is the cut off point - a bit upset, very distressed, physical pain? Physical harm, or psychological harm? To what standard of proof does the evidence of harm have to meet? Does the harm have to be intentional?

It is insufficient because it only deals with harm caused by people to each other and largely between individuals. It doesn't deal with people harming themselves or being harmed by other external or social factors. And it certainly doesn't help us with harm to animals.

The harm principle is the refuge of libertarians, but it simply does not and cannot, by itself, create a fair and just society. A society where humans wrestle with the complexities of life and how they interact with others, both human and animal, rather than retreating behind over simplified rules of harm. That's why it relates to Rollkur.
 
BeesKnees said:
And as the FEI themselves defined hyperflexion as flexion brought about by using force, hyperflexion is therefore banned.

Except it's not!
Click to expand...

Then the FEI has made a distinction between hyper flexion ( their definition being overflexing or overbending achieved by excessive force )
However it very easy to get many horses ( including one of mine ) into this postion using no force at all.
So if you get the horse there without 'excessive force ' it's ok?
That's what the FEI rule seems to say.
 
BeesKnees said:
My point Booboos is that the harm principle is not the only principle by which western liberal democracies create rules/laws/norms, and there are plenty that do not adhere to it that I fully support such as taxation for the purpose of welfare, laws on discrimination, and on environmental issues. The ability to produce prrof of actual physical harm in many of those cases would be difficult.

My point is that the harm principle should not be the only principle by which such rules and laws are created because it is simply insufficient and leaves too many questions. Harm by whose definition? What is the cut off point - a bit upset, very distressed, physical pain? Physical harm, or psychological harm? To what standard of proof does the evidence of harm have to meet? Does the harm have to be intentional?

It is insufficient because it only deals with harm caused by people to each other and largely between individuals. It doesn't deal with people harming themselves or being harmed by other external or social factors. And it certainly doesn't help us with harm to animals.

The harm principle is the refuge of libertarians, but it simply does not and cannot, by itself, create a fair and just society. A society where humans wrestle with the complexities of life and how they interact with others, both human and animal, rather than retreating behind over simplified rules of harm. That's why it relates to Rollkur.
Click to expand...

I agree with your regarding the complexity of the definition of harm (although as I am sure you know having quoted from On Liberty, many of the questions you raise are already answered there), but when there is no harm whatsoever it's a fairly easy principle to apply, so let me ask again, what is the harm in rollkur? So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.
 
^ Which is the point I was trying to make earlier. My esteemed colleagues are making the point that hyperflexion is (or should be) banned but it's actually the use of force that's banned. The position of the neck is controlled.

I agree there have been some very unpleasant photos posted - mostly by parties with a vested interest - but there are lots of photos of unhappy horses doing all sorts of things. What does that prove? The actual proof which anti-rolkur activists call upon to support a ban of the practice does not seem to be, well, very well proven. They DON'T want to ban it on the basis they don't like it, they want to ban it on the basis it's harmful. Which it may very well be (personally I think there probably is), but there is no actual proof. My point is, if we're going to ban things on those grounds, why is this the line?
 
according to one report, a vet , in a study said he found that 80per cent of horses they examined who had worked in rollkur, had damage to the nuchal ligament resulting in, and visiblely manifesting in ossification of the ligament, which in their opinion would cause pain, and could account for the long period some horses take to prepare for competition warm up and many training resistances, problems etc.

it appears there is evidence out there already.

to me when i look at some of those horses working, they are blocked, which accounts for why i don't like watching them, i want to look at something good that inspires and thrills and absorb the qualities to aim for.
 
That study needs to be made public then. :)

Interestingly, I was talking to a vet recently about neck pain - in my experience quite a common factor I in behavioural issues, either as a primary issue or as a knock on effect from some other damage, and she was saying arthritis/joint disease/bony changes/whatever are so standard in the joints at the base of the neck as to be considered normal. Unfortunately they are difficult to detect on x-ray and most vets consider them irrelevant when discussing soundness concerns. I found that an incredible piece of news! Of course I have no proof and maybe she had it completely wrong but given how many horses I see with knots etc in the muscles of the neck it didn't surprise me.
 
TarrSteps said:
They DON'T want to ban it on the basis they don't like it, they want to ban it on the basis it's harmful.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. I think the majority of people who are concerned about it want it banned because they consider it distasteful to watch and feel it to be unnecessary to subject a horse to it. I don't know if it damages the parotid glands to be forced out of the side of a horse's face, but I don't want to see it done. I do know that any horse I have ridden in hyperflexion can't see properly and assume that many of the ones I see will be the same. I don't think that causes long term harm but I don't think it is acceptable. etc.



TarrSteps said:
My point is, if we're going to ban things on those grounds, why is this the line?
Click to expand...

The line is where a big enough group of people can make enough of a noise to make people in authority do something about it.

That is no different from the way many of our laws are made, and it is how many rules at work and in society are formed.

If the FEI want this noise to go away, they are going to have to prove that it is not harmful and communicate that effectively to those who are getting upset about it.

That may sound unfair, but it's the way the world works.
 
Booboos said:
I agree with your regarding the complexity of the definition of harm (although as I am sure you know having quoted from On Liberty, many of the questions you raise are already answered there), but when there is no harm whatsoever it's a fairly easy principle to apply, so let me ask again, what is the harm in rollkur? So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Rollkur causes harm. I haven't actually said it does. I've objected on grounds of incorrect work and forceful riding. I think it likely it does cause distress, and possible physical discomfort, but I can't prove it,

Frankly though that doesn't worry me. I think the harm principle is of little relevance when discussing Rollkur, or any issues of animal righs and welfare. To me your insistence of proof of harm is a red herring.
 
also the amount of saliva foam pouring out of those horses mouths is worrying, is that due to excessive pressure? its all down their chest and legs sometimes, far more the normal saliva output.
 
tarrsteps, that's interesting about the base of neck because i believe that is one of the points where impulsion can block, another good reason to work young horses with an unconstricted front end and try to establish a consistantly stabilised base of the neck position to allow the impulsion to pass though, maybe?
 
tristar do you have a reference for this study please?

BeesKnees: if you think that questions of harm are not relevant to issues of welfare, it does account for a lot of our differences in this discussion.
 
cptrayes, while I see your point that many people have jumped on the bandwagon over this, the original people who drove the debate were not vets or riders, they were journalists and a judge who had a rather contentious relationship with other judges and the FEI. All the reasoning came after.

Dr. Heuschman has some interesting and thought worthy points (I have met him and seen him speak) but he has not been joined in his campaign by a legion of vets. He has his own explanation, of course ;) but I do think it's interesting that many of the people who initially supported his views have publicly taken a big step back and, in the case of someone like Balkenhol, I really do not see that their change of opinion is down to community censure.

The same people continue to drive the debate, publish on line, use social media etc. Yes, this is how revolution comes about and, as I've said, people are perfectly free to make up their own minds on the matter. But this idea that it ORIGINALLY grew out of veterinary concerns is not true.

You are right, if enough people are mobilised to petition the FEI, this can be a route to change. Surely the quickest and most powerful way is to provide hard evidence that this is a harmful training practice.
 
Yes, tristar, it interested me particularly as I see so many horses rigid and cramped in that area, even though the poll is far more discussed. In fact I'd say most horses I meet have some limitation there and respond favourably in their posture, relaxation and way of going if it's addressed. Technically good riding which stretches the neck to the hand and engages the muscles of the core to carry the horse should prevent this happening but I do think it probably starts far earlier, with pulling back when tied etc. Any time we seek to control a horse by directing its head rather than its shoulders I feel we are opening the door to neck damage but to some extent we lack options. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top