CDJ withdrawn from paris

www.facebook.com

13K views · 177 reactions | Frau Werth gewinnt mit diesem Ritt den von Helgstrand offenbar umfassend gesponsorten "Helgstrand Dressage CDI3* Grand Prix (GP)" der "Danish Warmblood Stallion Show" am 06.03.2026 Ich empfinde diese Vorstellung vor dem L

Frau Werth gewinnt mit diesem Ritt den von Helgstrand offenbar umfassend gesponsorten "Helgstrand Dressage CDI3* Grand Prix (GP)" der "Danish Warmblood Stallion Show" am 06.03.2026 Ich empfinde...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

They should have their hands cut off but they could do just as much damage with prostheses 😡
 
tristars said:
In that klimke video the weymouth bradoon is very high

I never liked klimke when he was at his height, something was not quite right about it

Years after i read another interview he did, when challenged that certain things were not quite performed as they should be, correctly, he actually said. ' i like to win, i do what it takes to win'
Click to expand...

Cragrat said:
I too am gutted to see Ingrid on a horse who is so tense.

I do like that ingid still doesn't have blocks on her saddle, and you never see her 'water-skiing' on the horses' mouth. I think her hands do look 'relatively' forward and soft? I'm not sure if she is wearing spurs or not in this clip, but she is using her heels a lot :( The horse is clearly tense and unhappy - I wish she had just acknowledged this and retired, instead of battling through.
Click to expand...

tristars said:
In the ingrid video her heels are up so much, it may be the light or shadow but it seems there are darker brown marks on his sides where spurs would contact
Click to expand...

She sits behind her feet and is cited by those (like Catherine Haddad) who think that we SHOULD be behind our feet, that it's the best way for many riders to achieve a neutral pelvis. In fact someone who runs a classical discussion group on FB thinks that you have to be behind your feet, by definition, to achieve a neutral pelvis.

I'm very glad she likes an open seat with minimal blocks but either the saddle is putting her in the wrong position (and highly likely it's playing a part) or she's making some decisions that counter the laws of physics.

We seem to have forgotten that how we sit is the root of everything.
 
It's all very demoralizing since we are so far beyond knowing better that it's beginning to look like something between sheer arrogance and actual clinical grade delusion.

I think we should go back to the original principles of dressage, which was cavalry riding, and unless the horse is of the type and temperament to actually cope in battle, it shouldn't be presented.

It should be sound and sturdy enough for useful riding, brave enough not to be so constantly stressed by basic day to day life that it is bordering on exploding at any minute, and with economical enough movement that it can cross a battle field efficiently.

And then we can get rid of knee blocks on saddles, double bridles, and spurs while we are at it and everything can go in a basic saddle and snaffle bridle. This deep seat/ leveraged knees/ hold the front/ kick strategy of horse training just has to stop.

Maybe we should introduce a judge-ridden segment where unless the horse can be ridden by someone else, in a snaffle, and go around sweetly, you are deemed not to have schooled it well enough.
 
It feels like lots of people only really care about if these people are successful

E.g. a certain British SJ, who had that "incident" at Olympia(?) But was being widely rooted for and celebrated on here because he won a gold medal
 
reynold said:
Racing gets a lot of both deserved and undeserved bad press.

It's certainly got a lot more power in regard to whip use (and no spurs) than any other horse sport. A jockey who exceeds the permitted number of hits (6 in the whole race in flat racing and 7 in jumps racing) can face severe sanctions, with sanctions increasing in severity if the offence recurs inside a defined period. I think eventing is the only one of the 3 main sports that has a similar but less used sanction system in place for bad riding and the ability to stop a XC round if a horse appears exhausted.

Also in regard to whip use the horse must be seen to have been given a period of time to respond to a smack before it is permitted to administer another hit. I'd like to see a similar limit to the severe use of spurs in a dressage test but that is never going to happen.

It isn't the spurs themselves or bits/double bridles that are the problem per se - it is the hands and legs that use them....

I also think that there are random and unannounced inspections of licensed racing trainers stables but I may be wrong in that(?) Can you imagine if there were unannounced inspections of FEI competing riders stables in any other horse discipline, especially if it was when the riders were 'training' their horses....
Click to expand...
I honestly think the solution is to treat it the same as doping in other sports. In athletics, all pro athletes must log their location for an hour each day that they're available for drugs testing. Fail to be at location that day three times in a year. Ban.

There should be unannounced calls at yards similarly. If there is any evidence of abuse, ban. Not at location you say your horse will be three times in a year, ban.

Now fei probably has less funding than IAAF but they should have similar principles. Any failure to adhere to rules on blood and welfare in warm up and competition, ban for a significant amount of time. For other sports such as endurance, racing, eventing where there are horse deaths. Horse death = 6 month suspension for rider and trainer. Yes it could be accidental but I believe most horse deaths at competition come from either over ambitious riding or over training. Having such a severe consequence would change the sport.
 
LadyGascoyne said:
It's all very demoralizing since we are so far beyond knowing better that it's beginning to look like something between sheer arrogance and actual clinical grade delusion.

I think we should go back to the original principles of dressage, which was cavalry riding, and unless the horse is of the type and temperament to actually cope in battle, it shouldn't be presented.

It should be sound and sturdy enough for useful riding, brave enough not to be so constantly stressed by basic day to day life that it is bordering on exploding at any minute, and with economical enough movement that it can cross a battle field efficiently.

And then we can get rid of knee blocks on saddles, double bridles, and spurs while we are at it and everything can go in a basic saddle and snaffle bridle. This deep seat/ leveraged knees/ hold the front/ kick strategy of horse training just has to stop.

Maybe we should introduce a judge-ridden segment where unless the horse can be ridden by someone else, in a snaffle, and go around sweetly, you are deemed not to have schooled it well enough.
Click to expand...
You’re right about some of the dreadful, competitive dressage riding, but cavalry saddles (dependent on which period of history, which cavalry armies etc) generally used higher pommels, sheepskin ‘blocks’ across the soldiers’ thighs, often the cantles, to better secure the riders; and unless your horse has a high-roofed mouth - a snaffle can be exceptionally harsh. Cavalry equipment and riding are not the holy grail.
Might do a lot better with a mandatory sensor on competitors’ reins (whatever bit), and mandatory sensor belly bands to record actual pressures applied, with cut off point for whatever’s deemed excessive. Shouldn’t be too difficult in this day and age, and considerably easier than individually measuring nose bands, examining tongues, flanks and debating those results with defensive riders.
As for the temperament of horse - I remember when prize winners and their mounts received the trophies and applause - ha ha! Into the stratosphere….
 
www.horseandhound.co.uk

Dressage needs to answer harder questions to secure its future

The latest Charlotte Dujardin controversy has reignited debate on horse welfare – but the real issue lies in judging, rules, and the structure of dressage.
www.horseandhound.co.uk www.horseandhound.co.uk

Opinion piece on dressage welfare/social licence by H&H Dressage Editor.

Long piece and asks for 'thoughts' at the end to hh letters email address.

IMO a bit lazy in parts, especially where it compares dressage to racing simply on the basis of horse deaths, totally ignoring the much higher level of regulation already in place and updated frequently for horse racing.

Also seems towards the end to pose a 'bottom up' approach rather than a 'top down' approach, which totally ignores the blatant abuse by top dressage riders in plain sight.

I was interested to read that the Times had done a piece on the latest CDJ video clip and that questions asked by the Times weren't answered.....
 
reynold said:
www.horseandhound.co.uk

Dressage needs to answer harder questions to secure its future

The latest Charlotte Dujardin controversy has reignited debate on horse welfare – but the real issue lies in judging, rules, and the structure of dressage.
www.horseandhound.co.uk www.horseandhound.co.uk

Opinion piece on dressage welfare/social licence by H&H Dressage Editor.

Long piece and asks for 'thoughts' at the end to hh letters email address.

IMO a bit lazy in parts, especially where it compares dressage to racing simply on the basis of horse deaths, totally ignoring the much higher level of regulation already in place and updated frequently for horse racing.

Also seems towards the end to pose a 'bottom up' approach rather than a 'top down' approach, which totally ignores the blatant abuse by top dressage riders in plain sight.

I was interested to read that the Times had done a piece on the latest CDJ video clip and that questions asked by the Times weren't answered.....
Click to expand...

Mostly it starts out quite well, though there are already licensing requirements for riding schools...

Interestingly, a few things that have been mentioned in this thread appear to have made it to the article - or perhaps it's just common sense that others have thought of too?

'Judging criteria that explicitly reward visible relaxation and softness – rather than simply penalising obvious resistance – would begin to shift what riders train for. In the longer term, introducing coefficients that weight marks against observable conflict behaviour during a test would make welfare a structural part of how dressage is scored.'

'And a mandatory welfare education requirement for riders returning from sanctions...'


However, I STRONGLY disagree with this:
'Horses can be asked to do things they wouldn’t choose to do, and may not particularly enjoy, without that constituting poor welfare – provided it causes no lasting harm and their overall quality of life is good.'

For me, that's like saying it's ok to physically abuse someone without it being classed as abuse if overall their life is ok the rest of the time. It also fails to give the horse autonomy and offer respect of a sentient being.

It gets a little more woolly and therefore worse from then on in my opinion.


The only way to know if a horse is suffering or stressed or living how they don't want to live is to give them freedom to express how they feel, not leave it to humans to decide. Horses can CLEARLY express how they feel, and we owe it to them to only ever put them in situations where they can freely do that and be taken heed of.
 
reynold said:
www.horseandhound.co.uk

Dressage needs to answer harder questions to secure its future

The latest Charlotte Dujardin controversy has reignited debate on horse welfare – but the real issue lies in judging, rules, and the structure of dressage.
www.horseandhound.co.uk www.horseandhound.co.uk

Opinion piece on dressage welfare/social licence by H&H Dressage Editor.

Long piece and asks for 'thoughts' at the end to hh letters email address.

IMO a bit lazy in parts, especially where it compares dressage to racing simply on the basis of horse deaths, totally ignoring the much higher level of regulation already in place and updated frequently for horse racing.

Also seems towards the end to pose a 'bottom up' approach rather than a 'top down' approach, which totally ignores the blatant abuse by top dressage riders in plain sight.

I was interested to read that the Times had done a piece on the latest CDJ video clip and that questions asked by the Times weren't answered.....
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you are defending racing while continuing to denigrate dressage and trying to drag Charlotte, once again,into the mix.Put it this way,there is the audience at a dressage competition,settling down to watch and enjoy the tests.They see a blind folded horse being dragged into the ring while being pushed from behind and urged on by it's rider.What do you think the audiences likely reaction would be?Let's leave the judges out of it for the minute.
My guess is half the audience would be filming it and uploading it to YouTube where it would go viral and the other half would be trying to get into the ring to kill them.There would be a riot.The reaction of the racing crowd?
The Telegraph wrote an article about Cheltenham mentioning amongst other things the death of a horse that had won its owners £370.000.Comments were not favourable to racing.The spotlight is now on ALL horse sports now,not just on dressage and Charlotte. Rightly so in my opinion.
 
PurpleSpots said:
However, I STRONGLY disagree with this:
'Horses can be asked to do things they wouldn’t choose to do, and may not particularly enjoy, without that constituting poor welfare – provided it causes no lasting harm and their overall quality of life is good.'

For me, that's like saying it's ok to physically abuse someone without it being classed as abuse if overall their life is ok the rest of the time. It also fails to give the horse autonomy and offer respect of a sentient being.

It gets a little more woolly and therefore worse from then on in my opinion.


The only way to know if a horse is suffering or stressed or living how they don't want to live is to give them freedom to express how they feel, not leave it to humans to decide. Horses can CLEARLY express how they feel, and we owe it to them to only ever put them in situations where they can freely do that and be taken heed of.
Click to expand...
Well currently that approach would have my EMS horse stuffing her face rather than being hauled out on in hand walks - where she would also be stuffing her face if I didn't insist otherwise.

My cob would not be leg yielding to strengthen his right hind - he would much prefer to be wonky - and would also choose to only do fun rides.

I disagree with a lot of H&H comments about dressage but I do agree that horses not enjoying an activity is not in itself a welfare issue. Do you get the best performance from a horse which isn't enjoying dressage? No. So that in itself should help weed out those who don't like it at the highest levels.
 
Dressage is at the pointy end because the point of it, the origins of it essentially, are supposed to be about improving equine welfare, improving the horse's body, relaxation etc. Yes it was for war so it's mixed up with that, but it's absolutely NOT faster, higher, stronger. It should be the first to change, if the others won't change, or won't change enough. It needs to be at the vanguard.

I think the "horses not enjoying things" is and should be nuanced. The bulk of what a horse does, surely, should be something that, on balance, it is happy doing, and its training has helped that happiness to be a true reflection of enjoyment, but that's a high bar. And yes, there are things that, because we domesticated them and use them in the way we do, they won't enjoy but are in their best interests, but that should not cover their day to day training and main experiences.
 
I just hate all that waffle

How about some plain english, coefficients, weighting marks, how about, having judges who can see when its wrong

They cant see when major abuse is taking place and do something about that when its in front of them, ie., digging the ribs with spurs and pulling the mouth with curb bits

So how are they supposed to become capable of judging and evaluating the subtleties of what should be art

Those horses have to go back to the stables and eat hay after having their mouths and tongues yanked about, they need to eat a lot with those sore mouths unlike a dog who can have a good feed they have to chew for hours
 
Last edited:
Not enjoying

Possibly not having a talent for, or confo that is not enabling a horse to find a thing easy

Teaching a horse to leg yield may lead to the horse feeling a lot happier overall, thats why we do it, quietly patiently, until they can do it happily

I dont believe any horse enjoys being crooked

Basic training opens up the opportunity to properly evaluate the horses talents fairly and humanely

Because its in the longterm interests of the horse and it soundness which will give the greatest reward to the rider
 
Not enjoying

Possibly not having a talent for, or confo that is not enabling a horse to find a thing easy

Teaching a horse to leg yield may lead to the horse feeling a lot happier overall, thats why we do it, quietly patiently, until they can do it happily

I dont believe any horse enjoys being crooked

Basic training opens up the opportunity to properly evaluate the horses talents fairly and humanely

Because its in the longterm interests of the horse and it soundness which will give the greatest reward to the rider
 
SEL said:
Well currently that approach would have my EMS horse stuffing her face rather than being hauled out on in hand walks - where she would also be stuffing her face if I didn't insist otherwise.

My cob would not be leg yielding to strengthen his right hind - he would much prefer to be wonky - and would also choose to only do fun rides.

I disagree with a lot of H&H comments about dressage but I do agree that horses not enjoying an activity is not in itself a welfare issue. Do you get the best performance from a horse which isn't enjoying dressage? No. So that in itself should help weed out those who don't like it at the highest levels.
Click to expand...

But the whole point of this issue is not about welfare within general management to benefit the horse, it's about welfare within training for human gain/competition!!!

Head:wall.
 
rabatsa said:
There is a large chasm between asking a horse to do something it does not want to do and forcing the horse to do something.
Click to expand...

In the moment, absolutely. Over the long term it's entirely possible to train a horse to do things it doesn't want to do through some degree of forceful methods, whether physically forceful or simply flooding etc.
 
PurpleSpots said:
Mostly it starts out quite well, though there are already licensing requirements for riding schools...

Interestingly, a few things that have been mentioned in this thread appear to have made it to the article - or perhaps it's just common sense that others have thought of too?

'Judging criteria that explicitly reward visible relaxation and softness – rather than simply penalising obvious resistance – would begin to shift what riders train for. In the longer term, introducing coefficients that weight marks against observable conflict behaviour during a test would make welfare a structural part of how dressage is scored.'

'And a mandatory welfare education requirement for riders returning from sanctions...'


However, I STRONGLY disagree with this:
'Horses can be asked to do things they wouldn’t choose to do, and may not particularly enjoy, without that constituting poor welfare – provided it causes no lasting harm and their overall quality of life is good.'

For me, that's like saying it's ok to physically abuse someone without it being classed as abuse if overall their life is ok the rest of the time. It also fails to give the horse autonomy and offer respect of a sentient being.

It gets a little more woolly and therefore worse from then on in my opinion.


The only way to know if a horse is suffering or stressed or living how they don't want to live is to give them freedom to express how they feel, not leave it to humans to decide. Horses can CLEARLY express how they feel, and we owe it to them to only ever put them in situations where they can freely do that and be taken heed of.
Click to expand...

Just on the RS licence - if I remember rightly, the one thing that isn’t considered under it is the actual quality and welfare based approach of the lessons/work/riding horses under go. Even working hours aren’t directly stipulated.

No spot checks either - you know when the council is visiting for the annual check.
 
PurpleSpots said:
But the whole point of this issue is not about welfare within general management to benefit the horse, it's about welfare within training for human gain/competition!!!

Head:wall.
Click to expand...
What's the difference? Cob does not like to leg yield in one direction because it is sore. Does it make any difference if we leg yield at home or leg yield in a competitive dressage test? Its all training.
 
SEL said:
What's the difference? Cob does not like to leg yield in one direction because it is sore. Does it make any difference if we leg yield at home or leg yield in a competitive dressage test? Its all training.
Click to expand...
If the leg yielding was going to be detrimental to his long term soundness (mental or physical) would you keep making him do it? I think that is the difference.

Asking them to do something which happens to be both a beneficial exercise and part of a competition ask is a pretty unique situation though. Not many horses "need" to do what we ask them to do.
 
Re the 'doing things they don't want to do'- it's pretty difficult to define 'want to'. No horse leg yields across a field and few jump for fun instead of going round obstacles given the choice. Some horses indicate their preference for staying in the field and eating grass than coming in for work. Does that mean they 'don't want to' work.

I do somtimes feel like I'm circling the viewpoint of 'horses just should not be ridden' because given the choice most probably would choose not to be. BUT then I back off from that. Thinking that what they would choose to do left to their own devices an what thet do with riders may look very different, but that does not mean they are stressed or unhappy.

If they are:

Happy to do X
Relaxed about doing X
Confident in doing X
Calmy accepting of doing X

The in my (current and possibly rationalised) view, I supsect they are ok enough about X for it to not be a welfare issue.

Active resistance is more problematic but sometimes that comes from uncertainty or confusion. And so resistance can turn into acceptance and even enthusiam with time and training. Mayka was HUGELY resistant to the saddle after being scared by it early on. SHould that have meant I repsected her wishes and never used tack or never backed her? (Genuine question as I know some people would ansewr yes to that question).
 
Just to add to this - and I'm just musing on things now really - I know a rider who only rides if the horse comes over to her in the field. But equally she has trained the horse to come. So is the horse coming because it is happy to be ridden or because it has been trained to come. How far ahead can they even think? Myka picks me up from the mounting block very enthusiastically. Does that mean she wants me to get on her or just that she knows flag in the air is the cue to come and pick me up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top