BE Safety Meeting at Stoneleigh next week - I've been invited!

kerilli

kerilli

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 April 2002
Messages
27,417
Location
Lovely Northamptonshire again!
Visit site
Having been 'vocal' (who, moi?) at the Huntingdon Safety Forum, I've been contacted by BE and asked whether I would like to go to a pow-wow before their big Safety Committee meeting, next week.
smile.gif
smile.gif

So, if anyone has any burning issues they would like raised, please stick 'em in this thread, so we can kick them around, or pm me.
I think the proposed titanium hooped body cage (protection against crush injuries) that fits around a normal bp is a great idea, so i'll definitely ask about that.
Ta!
 
I know I keep chuntering about it - but ground preparation on the landing side would be a really progressive step as far as I'm concerned. I know the ODEs are strapped for cash but surely for the 3DEs it would be worth their while.
 
Would it count to raise about BE90's becoming too technical? Courses have changed since I started a few years ago and fences now seem to be being built to trap people rather than encourage forward riding and a good round. Some of us don't have any desire (more like the bottle
grin.gif
) to continue up the grades so why does it need to be made more difficult at the lower levels? We're now finding skinnies, corners, doubles on angles with dodgy striding and fences on downhill/slopes at angles going towards gaping ditches that aren't part of the course (Malpas). I don't find a lot of the courses encouraging or educational at the minute so no hope of building an inexperienced rider's confidence or that of a young horse. I feel that BE90 and 100 riders are often dismissed because it's "the lower levels" when in actual fact riders and members at this level are crucial to the survival of the sport yet our voice isn't very often heard. I feel that if I were to find a rider rep at an event to query a fence and for it to be taken to the stewards it would be regarded as a bit of a joke and waste of time - I haven't done so and I might be wrong in thinking this, but this is the general feeling I have.
 
kit, i brought this up at the Huntingdon meeting and it was poo-poohed.... one of the course designers said that the extra cost would make staging a new event unviable, but they'd do it if riders are prepared to pay £50 start fee each... (ha ha).
i wasn't quick enough, should have said we'd rather have the landings properly prepared than loads of fancy flowers and fence dressings!
wink.gif

there is valid concern about the landings being dramatically different to the rest of the course so more likely to risk injuring horses' legs etc. also slipperyness - although i can't recall seeing a horse slip on landing, with studs in anyway.
i started a thread about this a week or so ago, and there were very mixed reactions. i thought it might be possible to use woodchip and sand, or peat, so wouldn't cost the earth, surely?
the trouble is that ANY fence can cause a rotational, so if you're doing it at one, you need to do them all.
a mate suggested just watering the landings, so, cheaper than using materials, and still soft. but - again, change of softness = more likely to injure horse?
although, most fences get cut up in landing area and end up softer there, i think, unless ground is rock hard.

S_V, i voiced the rising difficulty at the lower levels at the Huntingdon meeting, and have been told that the same question was raised very strongly by 2 people (1 of them a pro) last night at the meeting in Cheshire area.
i was told that they know they've gone too far with skinnies at the lower levels and will be redressing this.
Clear Guidelines are going to be published, and i will try to say that the Guidelines need to be "Rules" in some cases, perhaps... so that we know what we're going to get, basically!
S_V, i know exactly the fence you mean at Malpas, and although i went clear on a N last time I was there, i've not been back...
 
Would it be worth mentioning the speed now?? I obv have the slowest horse ever and dont get near the opt time for BE but why have they made the time tighter this yr??? surely this encourages dangerous riding???!! Just thought!
smirk.gif
 
That is really good news - glad they are listening to what you have to say! Personally a slight bug bear I have is that IMO riders mistakes are talked about much more often and more openly than course designers errors. There are systems in place already (not saying they don't need continually examining and improving) for monitoring riding for example but what happens in regard to an assessment of the course designers role in accidents? Should there not be a similar system to monitor their results and take action if there are concerns? Maybe there is already a system and I am not aware of it but from where I am sitting I wonder how accountable they are when they make errors?

Of course I am not suggesting this is the only issue - and I do feel an open and honest discussion of all the issues is essential. Its just that I remember the days when it was almost unheard of for people to die and the one major change that strikes me above all others is course design.

I also think that the debate on safety wear is important and if wearing an exo or similar will save lives then perhaps BE should be encouraging it.
 
I went to the Safety Forum at Leahurst on Tuesday - was meaning to post separately but this seems as good a place as any (and K has FAR more forum clout than me - so people will open this thread!
wink.gif
tongue.gif
)

most of what happened was very similar to Ks earlier post - including fairly pathetic turnout of approx 25people.
* New course design guidelines should be on website by xmas
* There is a new hat standard but no hats meet it as manufacturers feel that it would not be aesthetically pleasing enough for anyone to wear it - Rider pressure to BETA required if we are interested.
* FEI 25pt penalty for breaking frangible pin has been discretionary since 1.7.09 (BE no longer penalises for it - this had passed me by!)
* Introducing compulsory design elements into courses - eg all pn courses will have to have a corner (made up example - no idea if this is true!)
* Iain Graham stated that he quite often has to tone-down pn courses that he is TA for - course designers making them too strong
* BE is very aware of increasing technicality at lower levels and is going to be doing something about it.
* One thing that did bother me - Iain Graham said that he would certainly not be expecting to find alternatives on a Novice track as it is a qualifying level. There was a lot of discussion about course descriptions in the schedule. Again BE is aware that some of these are awful, misleading etc etc and is hoping to encourage organisers to improve them (bit wishy washy but they are aware that it can be a problem)
* Lots of discussion from the advanced riders who were there about courses encouraging hooky riding. Fences off turns are designed to slow people up and avoid accidents but there was a lot of opinion that they are just encouraging people to hook. Also, that the technical combinations with skinnies are actually training young horses to jump and whoah rather than maintain a rhythm through a combination - then when you get to a longer (or more traditional) distance, it becomes 1.5 or 2.5 strides rather than an old fashioned 1 or 2.
* Opinion from the floor was that it was largely a waste of time voicing worries to officials at events. BE very anxious to quash (sp?) this opinion and very much encouraging people to speak to rider rep about any concerns.

blimey, that turned out longer than expected..

anyone going to Wiltshire College tonight? Would be good to see if there are any wildly differing viewpoints.

cappuccino & panini if you made it to the end...........
 
[ QUOTE ]
"I think the proposed titanium hooped body cage (protection against crush injuries) that fits around a normal bp is a great idea, so i'll definitely ask about that"

erm is this a serious suggestion?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, 2 different BE officials have mentioned it to me recently. i think they have seen a prototype. it would be lighter than the Exo (one of the biggest probs with that, in a lot of riders' eyes) and would hopefully be as strong (able to hold the weight of a falling horse off the ribs, to stop crush injuries). the 'cage' isn't the same design as the Exo's, apparently it is 'hoops' that go around the rider, and would fit over riders' existing bp.
umm, why do you think it wouldn't be a serious suggestion?
 
Rafferoo, i have it on very good authority (CMP) that course designers do 'monitor' each others' work, as does BE. i suppose that organisers have a lot of influence - if a course isn't liked by the riders, the organiser will use a diff course designer the next year. so, riders have the ultimate clout - we can vote with our feet. when the organiser is also the course designer, it is up to US to boycott their event(s) to try to get the message across. mentioning no names...
wink.gif

prudunce, i think they still need to reward those that CAN go xc safely at speed, hence the revised speeds, but they have to rely on rider responsibility and judgement. i've had fast horses and slow horses, but trying to make a slow horse go fast before it is ready to is a sure-fire recipe for disaster, obviously. (when it knows a bit more and you can cut corners, get straight back into a rhythm after fences, etc, it is surprising how quick you can be even on something that can't gallop!)
sm153, ta for that, very interesting. i'd say that the problem with the combinations etc is across all the levels, not just at top level.
i didn't know about the avoidance of alternatives at N because all Ns are qualifiers. hmm. i really do think they need to make it a 2-tier system, with the softer Ns non-qualifiers. Do people really do the minimum number and then step up, though? surely people go on how the horse feels, not on the number of qualifying runs he's had?
 
I have thought about this, re the qualifications, Is it right that people should:
1) be able to pick up points (and QR's) at all levels having taken every long route on the course and pick up time penalties that look more like a very very good dressage score? (I know there is a limit on time for QR but is that too great on some cased?) But then I think the points system may be under review also.
2) that people can specifically say that X event is easy for that level and so go there to pick up qualification, example Aston le Walls, there was a post on here that questioned that it was a true Advanced track.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have thought about this, re the qualifications, Is it right that people should:
1) be able to pick up points (and QR's) at all levels having taken every long route on the course and pick up time penalties that look more like a very very good dressage score? (I know there is a limit on time for QR but is that too great on some cased?) But then I think the points system may be under review also.


[/ QUOTE ] I'll put my hand up and say I'm one of those. However, yes it may mean my horse is qual CIC* [and, infact CCI*] but I'm sure as hell not running him in one as he's not ready. I've been taking it steady to educate him, not just get my qual runs.
 
MaryMoo, very valid points.
Perhaps the number of qualifying results should be raised (say, 6 at a level, not 4, before you can move up) to allow for a few possibly 'easier' ones.
Must admit, the first run at a higher level with a horse, especially if the rider has never ridden at that level, is always a bit daunting imho, so the thought of being at a slightly 'softer' course is reassuring. (we see enough questions on here for 'easier first time Novice runs' etc.) once you've got that first one under your belt, it doesn't seem so daunting... even if it was a softish one.
surely only someone very experienced (or utterly crazy) would do the minimum 4 runs before moving up a level anyway??
i think the variation in course severity is a good thing, as long as it is accurately described in the Omnibus - nothing worse than going to an event described as 'suitable for a first-timer' and finding a very difficult xc course, esp if you haven't ridden at that level before...
 
It is really good news that you have been invited, K...and well deserved.
One thing that has been bugging me this season...is the course walkers. The event is running...and people are walking the course. Jump judges MUST be aware of alternatives/other level jumps at their fences. Very often course walkers are walking a different course...from the one being ridden. They are all over the place! The whistle goes..and they scurry for cover..sometimes to a fence which is on the current course. I really think this needs to be tightened up. Problems have ocurred for us several times this season in relation to this.
 
Yep, Bubblegum, I know. the Fence Judges need to be more alert, tbh... sometimes when walking a course and concentrating on learning it (or not concentrating and chatting to mate!) it is easy to stray onto the track... oops, did it at Brigstock myself actually, fence judge didn't blow whistle.
i'll mention it. better training (drilling?!) of fence judges...!
 
Yes. it is easy... I totally agree. More general awareness needed..from course walkers (and I include myself in that) and fence judges.
It's an accident waiting to happen
frown.gif

Thanks, K. Best of luck in getting all your points over....
smile.gif
 
with regards to the suggestion of a two-tier system at novice- could they possibly look to put in another level btween PN and Novice? i know they did a few PNPs last year (not eventing this year- do they still exist?) but that was putting the emphasis on DR and SJ being different- not XC- perhaps its the XC that is more the issue? dunno if that would be financially viable tho- if not then maybe increase the number of qualifying runs needed?
 
Here's a random musing then... if there was a two tier system, with a strand for baby/green horses, and a strand for mini-badminton-experience, would we then see horses working up the levels as young horses, then coming back to say "mini-badminton PN" before moving up again?

I do like the idea of the two tier business, but I wonder whether events would get enough entries in each to be viable?
 
I'll agree on the course walkers and sleeping fence judges, at no. 10 at ALW, came off bank, and some dimwhitted person on cruches decided to amble across. I kicked for fence luckily horse ignored her, no response from fence judge, MG (OH not the horse!!) screamed at woman who eventually got her lardy arse out of the way. People walking with her subsequently had to run out of the way at the next. Dur!
 
Having done the fence judge bit, we were told to blow the whistle for EVERY horse, regardless of if we could see a person because it was also to wake the next judge up to the fact a horse was coming!!
But it doesnt work all the time, at Gt Witchingham I had similar problem to Oldgit, only problem was it was in trees and person had a dog, Dad says he heard me shout at them from the other side of the field!!
 
no idea, GF, that would be up to the riders! must admit, i'd probably do it, depending on horse... eg. do some easy PNs, then if happy a few easy Ns, and once horse had the idea of going forward to his fences, then a technical mini-Badminton PN or 2, before a couple more easy Ns, then technical Ns, then if all good, Int.
i think events would get many more entries in the easy ones, look at how many entries ALW always gets, and i think part of the reason is that riders know the courses will be short, and flat, and not uber-tricky (and the ground will be good, and the distances good, both also important.)
surely it's not beyond the wit of man to have both at the same event. say the PN course has 21 fences, of which, say, 7 differ between the 2 levels, simpler for lower tier, more technical for higher tier. so, only about 7-14 different fences, not a whole extra course.
 
Thanks Kerilli. It's nice to know that there are people out there willing to raise concerns and speak on our behalf - I just get all hot and sweaty and start stumbling over my words. Wouldn't think I'm a teacher would you?! Lol! The intro fence I'm talking about came round behind the PN/ N ditch that you are thinking of so we had to come galloping up the field and then do a U turn back on ourselves to jump over the fence (at a ridiculous angles) back down towards the Novice ditch which wasn't even part of the course (or any of the courses this year). This meant you had to staedy up to do the turn, keep forward momentum and face an intro horse/ rider with a novice ditch on a downhill, angled fence. You were then expected to land over this fence and turn away from the ditch and run parallel to it to get out of the little dip. It was completely unnecessary in my opinion and caught countless people out. I was caught out as I'm an inexperienced eventer, but on a very experienced horse, and I still managed to finish 11th. I have been put off moving up to PN because of the increasing technicality that seems to be appearing on course. I think designers are trying to create mini intermediate and advanced tracks when it really isn't necessary.
 
Wow. Enjoy the experience and let us know how you get on. I agree that courses have become too technical and don't encourage forward riding and welcome the new guidelines provided course designers are required to stick to them not just use them as guidelines.

The qualification saga was mentioned at Leahurst and BE people said the rider must take more responsibility for only upgrading when they truly feel they are ready. Actually in general BE said that they've done a lot to improve safety but unless riders take responsibility for their actions things will not improve. I believe that BE need to promote the need for riders to take responsibility for their own safety.
 
yes, i totally agree S_V, completely unnecessary and unfair on inexperienced riders OR horses. considering that course designers have been asked RECENTLY by M E-S to beware of confusing horses with other courses' fences, i'm annoyed (but not surprised.)

lizzieb, i don't know how you can get through to people... seriously. at the Huntingdon meeting it was mentioned that some adult riders decide to 'go eventing' when they get to the stage of being able to steer, walk, trot and canter. ffs. are they being fooled by the fact that the fences are only 80 or 90 cms? when we had to start at N, you sure didn't see people who couldn't ride! they wouldn't have dared try to come down to a 1.10 fixed fence.
also, if they don't know what they're feeling for xc, how will they know when they get it? this happens all the time in dressage obviously, but it's not dangerous to get it wrong, you just get crap marks!
we need more trainers for the lower levels, and more guidelines. it cannot be that difficult to explain what riders should be feeling for before they decide to move up a level.
BUT there are frequent posts on here along those lines, "how do you know when your horse is ready for the next level" so it isn't obvious or easy to tell unless you have a good trainer helping and advising you, or you have done it before and found out that your instinct was right (or wrong perhaps.) it has absolutely nothing to do with being 'qualified' for the next level, usually the number of qualifying runs required is waay less than the amount someone sane and reasonably experienced would actually do... 4 novices before going Intermediate? no thanks, not even on a former Grade A who knew everything about jumping! even if he won every one of his first 4 novices (nice idea) he'd still need more (IN or Ns HC if necessary) so that he'd met lots more questions at 1.10, before going on to meet them at 1.15 with bigger spreads...
sorry. going off on one there.
wink.gif
the more i think about it, the more i think the number of qualifying runs needs increasing quite a bit...
 
i think it is quite interesting kerrilli that you have been invited and i havent, as i think it is fair to say the person being the most vocal at huntington, raising points discussed on this forum and elsewhere was me!! of course i can think of a few reasons why that should be and none of them are positive!
You have seen my letter to mike ES in response to the forum (or at least i emailed it to you) and his response to it was rather disapointing. I havent sent you a copy of the response as i got it while sitting at teh airport on the way to Rio. I havent responded to his response either yet.
as you know the subject of clearly defined levels for each grade is one of my pet subjects which i was the one to bring up at huntingdon. Lets hope they do sort it out.
also I extremely concerned (as voiced AGAIN in the recent MES letter) about the descepancies in distances in combinations. I am afraid i do not think it is up to the designers to allow as much as they like for ground conditions or whatever, i think it should be the riders job to learn how to ride appropriately; a holding stride jumping downhill or a more driving one going uphill to use basic examples.
It concerns me greatly if you want a new topic that now Jonathon Clissold has been appointed course builder for london 2012, that we have two of the team responsible for Belton engaged in what we are hoping will be a great show piece for the sport. i hear the TD or asistant CD will be the same person who was TD at Burghley 2004. I apprieciate everyone can make a mistake but how on earth can we be having three of the people who made fatal errors of judgement in their different capacities be incharge of an olympic xc?
if you get an answer to that one I would really like to know but the fact that they have all allegedly been appointed (and particualrly before the belton inquest) does not fill a person with confidence in the system really.
 
This is unlikely to be a popular view, I think the danger is more to do with the riders life styles than the courses. I would be very interested to know how much sleep people have had before a serious accident, how many horses they have to ride, how they eat, smoking and drinking etc. What other stresses and pressures they have.
I know courses have changed but so have life styles. It is common for people to travel virtually all night and then compete several horses while living on fags and coffee.
Please ask how much attention is paid to such external factors. It could be that until riders take such factors seriously accidents will continue no matter how the courses are built.
My big concern with courses is speed, I think the speedat all levels is unsafe, I would prefer to see the dressage being influential rather than it being a xc race.
Well done to you for speaking out and gaining respect for your views.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is unlikely to be a popular view, I think the danger is more to do with the riders life styles than the courses. I would be very interested to know how much sleep people have had before a serious accident, how many horses they have to ride, how they eat, smoking and drinking etc. What other stresses and pressures they have.
I know courses have changed but so have life styles. It is common for people to travel virtually all night and then compete several horses while living on fags and coffee.
Please ask how much attention is paid to such external factors. It could be that until riders take such factors seriously accidents will continue no matter how the courses are built.
My big concern with courses is speed, I think the speedat all levels is unsafe, I would prefer to see the dressage being influential rather than it being a xc race.
Well done to you for speaking out and gaining respect for your views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of these factors were brought up in the questionairre that made up the study into risk factors for eventing done by the team at Leahurst. Factors such as driving yourself to an event, not eating before etc were shown to have some influence along with a variety of training/course design issues. This information has all been passed onto BE but very little has been done with it, the study was paid lip service at the Leahurst safety meeting, but does not seem to have been taken seriously as much use could be made of the data in it.
 
I must say that one benefit of the increasing complexity of PN courses particularly, is that it has made the step up to Novice easier. I have never been novice before and neither has the horse, however the PNs' we have done seeem to have been bigger, and more technical than I remember (I essentially had a year out in 08 save for a few intros). Now if that is planned it would be admirable, but I rather suspect tis more luck than judgement. A structured season of events with progression from one grade to the next is surely the only way forward for the non-professional (and lets face it we subsidise the sport) riders like what I am. Although my cynical side thinks that a two tier competition (intro sorry BE90 and 100) subsidising the higher eschelons might be the desired balance of some!! Appologies if this makes little sense, but it is my wedding anniverary, so am two sheets to the wind.
crazy.gif
crazy.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top