Bill Levett's most recent Diary on EWW and Tatt's comments - thoughts?

J

jules89

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 August 2008
Messages
8,309
Visit site
Andrew N said the said fence was awful, Mark T said the fence was ok. A horse died. Was it right to have been taken out? Two of the top XC riders having different opinions

Thoughts?

Frankly I am a big fan of Bill, worked for him and really respect him and his views. Just an interesting thing for him to have said and I am deeply sorry for a horse to have died but I am so interested to see if anyone else dis/agrees with him.

If you don't know what article I am talking about, join EWW
wink.gif
lol
 
I thought it was a very interesting article, it will not have been the 1st time that AN has spoken out very strongly about a course/fence/ground.

I also agree that I dont think the way forward is for riders to gang up (how I read it, i am prepared to be corrected) against the powers that be, leaving them with very little option, Mark had similar sentiments in an article in H&H after Belton.

On further description of the fence I think that it is 1 question that horses seem unable to grasp, from memory the only other water jump that involved jumping from one level of water to another caused many horse falls and was either removed during the class or never used again was the one at Burnham Market.

And i like his theory on skinnies and technical 'slower' fences are ok but they MUST have a kinder profile.
 
I also believe that May King had jumped it twice and said she would be happy to jump it again whereas Matthew Wright said it needed a JCB taking to it.... (I think he may have offered to drive it too
wink.gif
).
 
I also like BL's theory on skinnies and slower fences, makes good sense.

Re jumping from water to water, there was one at Bramham (can't remember which year, but deffo pre-1998, you were still on ponies Marymoo
tongue.gif
) that jumped ok iirc. I've got a fab photo of it.

Re the fence at Tatts, you would never think AN and MT would have differing opinions to that extent would you?
 
I said i was prepared to be told i was wrong Baydale, but i do remember the one at Burnham Market has never been used since it caused problems!!!
The opinions on the fence at Tatts were so split and very strong for each side. It is a pity the pics wont be on EWW!!
 
The 2 horses that fell before the fatality were coming in far too fast imo into the water, so that the horse never got a chance to see the water-drop-water and hence misread it.

Caterston defender imo never realised that it was a drop and simply misread the question- it never put out it's landing gear so to speak. So when it dropped it tried to correct and all force on one leg.

Imo the water base needs changing to something more stable, but for those that approached the fence correctly had no problems jumping it!
smile.gif
 
I remember the Burnham Mkt one causing problems but seem to remember they thought there was a reason for it, wasn't it the banners or something? Tbh I can't remember another water to water fence other than Bramham - I bet kerilli will with her encyclopaedic memory
wink.gif
- but that was in the old days before we had skinnies and filled-in corners *Baydale sighs wistfully*.
 
I think in the old Trout Hatchery at Burghley you had to jump up from one level to another with the step up having water running off the edge. Have a pic somewhere of Bruce Davidson doing it on Eagle Lion I think.
 
No I think that is just a fence in water.
I honestly don't think it was anything to do with the footing in the water as all other classes had no problems, and they have done a lot of work on the base of the water.
The only thing I can think of is that some horses couldn't read the height of the drop, as it is water to water, in which case it isn't a fair ask.
Obviously I didn't ride it but I don't agree with the revolt (as Bill described it) in the start box. I know the safety of the horses and riders was paramount, but as a spectator the very long hold (not caused by the fall of CD) on the course put a big dampener on the class!
Could the riders not have raised their concerns to the TD in a more respectful and professional way?
 
I agree clairel, there are many opportunities for riders to voice the opinions on a course, especially atm when they are being listened too, after the course talk to rider rep and then simply withdraw before xc if they felt that strongly, which MW obviously did to say it should be bulldozed.
 
Just read Bill's article and he makes good points. i was at tatts and knew some who rode through the water and thought it was fine. It appeared that the more expereinced riders felt the water was fine whereas the less experienced riders did not want to jump it.

AN was not riding in the 3* but was watching the action. I heard after that he described the problem as follows: as the ground was sticky throughout horses were making more of an effort to get out of it. in the water the ground was firm and some still made the extra effort and landed too steeply.

on the course as a whole Mary King has been quoted as saying "I thought it was refreshingly old-fashioned with natural fences - it felt like proper cross-country.".
 
I can completely see Bill's point in that I think it is unprofessional and not the right way to go about things. BUT (and it's a biggy) - it is a sad indictment of the state of the sport and the relationship between riders and technical officials that the riders felt a) that this was the only way their concerns would be heard, and b) that the person refusing to leave the start box did not get E (as per Tankers Town) - which suggests that the officials perhaps felt they had a point. Why did either side let it get to that point? Why do the riders feel as though they are not likely to be listened to unless they make a point in this fashion? And at what point did it become sporting or professional to effectively hold the organisers to ransom in this way rather than making your point and then if they decide to leave the fence in the rider withdrawing if they feel it is an unfair question for their horse on that day? After all nothing is black and white as evidenced by MT and AN having opposing view points on the same fence.
 
sorry, but I was sitting at fence, and the first rider, OT did not come too fast into water, I then watched next few riders, not a pretty sight.. the riders acted in a fair and organised fashion, please do not turn this into a witch hunt...maybe this will be the start of riders being listened too, also Tankerstown decided that today was not the day, Sharon was quite happy, thats the difference!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but I was sitting at fence, and the first rider, OT did not come too fast into water, I then watched next few riders, not a pretty sight.. the riders acted in a fair and organised fashion, please do not turn this into a witch hunt...maybe this will be the start of riders being listened too, also Tankerstown decided that today was not the day, Sharon was quite happy, thats the difference!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand? There is no 'witch hunt' here - we are merely discussing Bill Levett's comments in his latest column for EWW - have you read it?

If you re-read my post you will see that the point I was making was NOT that the rider should have been E, but that they could have been - using the TT example - and the fact that they were not suggests that the organisers/technical people felt that they perhaps had a point. I was questioning why either side let it get to that point....
 
sorry,but if you look back up the posts you will see one that says riders came in too fast....also riders have a responsiblilty to themselves, not to spectators...as I have already said much earlier on this week, if something good comes out of all this...surely we should all be grateful. Sorry you feel that this was not the time to do it....but when would the time have come.
 
You are completely misunderstanding my post and I have no idea why. My point is that it is sad it has come to this, not that it should not have happened! It suggests a complete breakdown in communication between riders and technical officials to me, and no matter whether the riders were right or wrong, it is still unsporting and unprofessional to hold people to ransom in this manner - because as a rider you do not HAVE to tackle the course, and if they all felt that strongly and felt the officials were not prepared to listen, a mass withdrawal of all remaining horses would have got the point across in much the same way. Vote with your feet, using the rules provided, it is less like blackmail, gets the point across and I doubt very much that organisers would not listen in the future should this happen.

It is not the sentiment I dislike, it is the way in which it was executed.
 
Just out of curiousity... does anyone know if the riders approached the TD before they went on strike in the start box?
If they didn't then it is very very unprofessional of them!
I know they have a responsibility to themselves and their horses but they also have a responsibility to the organisers. (Who went to great efforts above and beyond the call of duty to get this event to even run!) In my view, if they did not approach the TD with their concerns first, then they where holding the organisers ransom!

Whatever the problem was with the fence (and I don't think anyone knows for sure!) it clearly was an issue for some and not others. I really believe they did the right thing taking the fence out, if the riders felt so strongly about it, in light of recent events (although bearing in mind 2 years ago when almost 50% of horses fell or stumbled in the water, and no-one refused to leave the start box!)

I don't think this is a "witch-hunt" but it is certainly not the way riders and TD's should be communicating!
 
I do agree with you that it is sad that it came to this, but perhaps the riders felt, gosh I do feel as if I am getting boring...that something was wrong with fence....and this is not always possible to see...no matter how many course walks you do....then I still feel this was the right thing to do....as for the ones who felt that the fence was wrong and that they should have withdrawn, it would have been a very very expensive withdrawal, and why should they have paid all the money that they did in entries fees, stabling, ferry etc to lose it all...and perhaps just perhaps if the course had continued to contain this fence, maybe we would have had more than one tragedy... I know it was difficult for all concerned, spectators, fence judges, the poor people in control (who were being slowly baked in the sun, thanks the Mongey Men) but I think Tattersalls, the organisers of the event, and all others should be proud that this is were it all changed. Tattersalls will be always be known as where it all came down to the riders.
 
A slightl sidetrack, but I heard this week that there have been 4 or 5 cases of 'rider revolt' since Ian was killed at Belton. Can anyone on the circuit confirm or deny this. Obviously Tatts got the most attention/press as it was a high profile international, but is it happening on the national circuit as well??

On the plus side this obviously demonstrates that riders are not willing to be silent (if they feel strongly) any longer, I suppose the big minus is that the course designers may fel that they are being constantly held to ransom, and they can't do their job any longer.

Obviously a certain degree of hearsay in this (though a fairly reliable source).

Anyone shed any light???

Fiona
 
I wish the riders would understand that the officials have to weigh up all the facts and then make an informed decision, sometimes with heavy time constraints, trying to be fair to everyone. If the outcome does not go the way that suits you or your horse, it doesn't mean that they haven't listened, it means that they have chosen their right to disagree. There is an increasing number of these officials who give up a week per competition on a voluntary basis who wonder whether they have had enough.
Just as we need riders to make a competition, like it or not we also need these officials to oversee these competitions to a) produce a result and b) see that the competition is run, within the boundaries and in the spirit of the sport, at the standard required at each star level. Competitors, if given a free rein, will push the boundaries to suit themselves. Mutiny is NOT the way forward.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Mutiny is NOT the way forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but neither is a dictatorship when peoples and horses lives are at stake!
 
There is no dictatorship. Rider reps are appointed to highlight the concerns of the riders and there are riders meetings. Any rider has the right and opportunity to voice concerns. Sometimes these are valid, sometimes they are not. They are all considered. If 50% of riders think 1 thing and 50% think another, half the riders will think that the officials are right and half will think they are wrong. It is impossible to please everyone.
 
I totally understand your position, and - up to date - have never seriously queried the position, or the experience of those in control of BE and its safety. I have always thought that I can trust them.

Perhaps I am lucky - myself and three daughters have evented without SERIOUS injury for many years, and I have always considered that everyone involved in running events does their best to ensure safety - why would they do otherwise? No-one wants to feel responsible for injury or death.

Having started eventing myself in 1970(!!!) the courses that my daughters now face are very very different - in that they demand much more of rider skills and horse training.

BE is a victim of its own success!!

Back in the dark ages (me) there were far fewer people competing, and if you had a bold and clever horse, you could get somewhere, even with a mediocre dressage.

Now everyone has 'trainers' and 'training', and very average horses are competing at every level fairly successfully.

With so many people competing, it is very difficult to sort the 'sheep from the goats' and get a fair result, especially at the lower levels.

I have always wondered about how organiser's/course builders etc get remunerated? Is it really in line with the responsibility they take on board these days? I have no idea, but I suspect not.

There are so many professionals, (and some amateurs), with multi-thousand pound horses, not to mention the yards and the horse boxes, and yet we still have to rely on volunteers to run most of our events!!!!!!!!!! Surely no other business in the world runs like this?!!!!!!
shocked.gif
confused.gif


IMO the 'riders revolt' is symptomatic of a lack of confidence in the leadership, and the riders need some clear responses - in the media - to their fears and worries. This has not happened so far!

I sympathise with BE in many ways, but they are running a multi million pound business, which is ever expanding, and they must keep up with the needs and concerns of their members if the sport is to survive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top