Clear name of Bertram Allen

sarcasm_queen said:
Really lovely to see that the vast majority of people agree to the ruling.
And I'm another who was disappointed in Geoff's comments, especially the very harsh things he said about the stewards.
Click to expand...

If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way himself.
 
ycbm said:
If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way himself.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A very unprofessional response from a well regarded so called professional in the equestrian world.
 
Luci07 said:
I agree that rules need to be adhered to. I haven't researched this heavily but haven't seen anything from BA asking for this decision to be over turned. The only thing I can see that would need to be changed (if these facts are true) would be if he really was told it would be a yellow card and then it was changed. I do balance that by the fact that I am assuming there wouldn't be a lot of time to ponder on this as Olympia moves fast. Now I understand what some of these massive elastic strips are I have seen some riders wearing. I have marked a thin skinned chestnut with rubs, not blood so switched to covered spurs. Mare was so fine skinned everything marked easily.
Click to expand...

The yellow card really is a red herring! He may have initially thought he might get one but that would only be the case if the ground jury suspected it was deliberate and they obviously decided it wasnt .The yellow card is a totally different thing to horse having bloody marks as that is a straight DQ whatever the reason.
 
This is really silly.

The rule says no blood. There was blood. The rule does t say 'some blood' or 'a tiny bit' or 'ok, so long and it was an accident'. So it clearly applies.

If one wanted to be really harsh, you'd argue that a professional world class rider shouldn't be having those sorts of accidents... They should avoid them either through their choice of equipment for a tin skinned horse or through their skills. Of course accidents do happen in the real world - which is why you will probably always get this sort of thing happening on occasion, but that's no reason not to enforce a pretty clear cut rule.

If you say 'oh ok, as long as it wasn't on purpose...' Where does that end? What about all the riders people are (rightly) saying were rough with their hands? If they don't care for their horse's mouth, why would they care about their sides, if they can claim it was an accident and keep the win?
 
ycbm said:
If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way himself.
Click to expand...

I think you may find down the line there will be repercussions from this . I really feel for the steward as they cannot DQ him it would have been a discussion between the FEI vet and the Ground jury so a joint decision but it was clear cut anyway ,I think the bigger controversy would have been if it had been ignored personally.
 
No one is saying that Bertram Allen was being cruel to his horse or that he did it deliberately, that would be a totally different story. Unfortunately, no matter how brilliant his round of jumping was, & it was brilliant, he unfortunately marked his horse & drew blood. The rule related to blood being drawn & it was drawn so he gets disqualified.

Some are saying well it was only a bit of blood? You cannot in reality go down that route because if that action is taken we would then get into the debating how much blood is allowed to be drawn or how big an injury should be before action can be taken. Then no one would have any idea what the rule actually is. The rule is there to protect the welfare of the horses & it should stay then everyone knows where they stand.

I have a horse that has very sensitive skin & he marks easily. When he is competed we have him wear a belly bandage to prevent him being marked, possibly Bertram Allen should have considered that prior to entry?
 
I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all...

Which if I'm right, (will never know), sends a 'but it's only a tiny bit of blood but he won so it's ok' message and I'm not comfortable with that idea at all.
 
Lynn11 said:
For those of you who may of been following the happenings at Olympia and thought the decision of disqualifying Bertram Allen of his clean win.

Feel free to sign the petition below.

Im all for the rule that anyone should be eliminated for harming their horse etc but I think this time he didn't deserve it.

What do any of you think?

https://www.change.org/p/people-clear-name-of-bertram-allen
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The rule is there to protect horses, whether injury caused is accidental or not and regardless of who caused it. If we start letting riders off the rules will be very open to abuse. The decision must stand for the credibility of the sport.
 
For those under the impression that BA accepted his disqualification with good grace - I'm not sure he did. He appealed, in conjunction with the horses owner. The appeal was rejected, of course but the act of appealing gives the impression that BA and the horses owner felt that blood and wheals were in some way excusable.
 
Spudlet said:
……..

If one wanted to be really harsh, you'd argue that a professional world class rider shouldn't be having those sorts of accidents... They should avoid them either through their choice of equipment for a thin skinned horse or through their skills.

……..
Click to expand...

Not harsh at all, and perhaps if BA were to read your post, he may consider his tactics in the future. Nobody wants to knock a young and successful rider, but I hope that the young man concerned (and others too) has and have, learned a lesson. All pro-riders are responsible for themselves.

Well said Spudlet.

Alec.
 
Prancer and Vixen said:
So essentially you are arguing that its ok for a horse to have blood on its flanks if it clearly wasn't hammered. Im sorry, I do not hold with that and will not sign to that effect. Im in support of the decision. There is a reason most endurance riders use bitless bridles, its because they know that no matter how light their hands the horse can still get a cut mouth and therefore be disqualified, stop expecting people to bend rules and find another way. No blood = no disqualification, simple.
Click to expand...

I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
 
teapot said:
I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all...

Which if I'm right, (will never know), sends a 'but it's only a tiny bit of blood but he won so it's ok' message and I'm not comfortable with that idea at all.
Click to expand...

He wasn't the only rider who lost his first place though - the other rider (I forget his name), conceded that he had accidentally injured his horse and accepted the disqualification. He said he was absolutely mortified that he had made his mount bleed and agreed with the decision.

ETA I have done a Google search to find who it was and could only find 3 pages of BA, none of the other rider who was disqualified.

ETA2 - has anyone posted the second picture of the horse's flank? The one where there is not one nick, but 3 and they seem to be quite clear holes...
 
Last edited:
EQUIDAE said:
He wasn't the only rider who lost his first place though - the other rider (I forget his name), conceded that he had accidentally injured his horse and accepted the disqualification. He said he was absolutely mortified that he had made his mount bleed and agreed with the decision.

ETA I have done a Google search to find who it was and could only find 3 pages of BA, none of the other rider who was disqualified.

ETA2 - has anyone posted the second picture of the horse's flank? The one where there is not one nick, but 3 and they seem to be quite clear holes...
Click to expand...

Yes about 2/3 pages back funnily not heard a lot from the pro camp since they appeared and certainly no reconition they saw it! http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?716344-Clear-name-of-Bertram-Allen/page7
 
teapot said:
I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all...
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round. If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future :)

If they took away the 'no blood rule' so it was down to someone's discretion then that wouldn't be fair either - what one person would let through another wouldn't.
 
Pebble101 said:
It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round. If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future :)

If they took away the 'no blood rule' so it was down to someone's discretion then that wouldn't be fair either - what one person would let through another wouldn't.
Click to expand...

The way he won it? There were 3 holes in the side of the horse, so it wasn't just one 'accident'. In the heat of the moment it might have looked an exciting round, but it wasn't very kind on the horse...
 
Steerpike said:
I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
Click to expand...

Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
 
Pebble101 said:
It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round. If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future :)
Click to expand...

The way it was won, that amazing round left the horse with the marks it had...

Anyone with their eyes open recognises the talent he has so I don't think a petition for the win to be reinstated gains anything in the long run.
 
EQUIDAE said:
The way he won it? There were 3 holes in the side of the horse, so it wasn't just one 'accident'. In the heat of the moment it might have looked an exciting round, but it wasn't very kind on the horse...
Click to expand...

To be fair, though I actually think it makes it worse not better, I think it is one incident that made the holes (though not the other weals, they are extras).

I think the spur dug into the horse and dragged back over the skin for several inches as he swung his leg back over a fence (you can see the weal if you expand the picture enough). By then, there was a bunching of skin at the end of the arc, and the spur then cut across the top of three wrinkles, leaving three holes of decreasing size.

So it was a one off injury in causing bleeding, but a fairly substantial misuse of the spur to have caused such a mark.
 
Last edited:
Steerpike said:
I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
Click to expand...

Endurance horses have to be fit to continue at every vetting, so if any injury could be exacerbated by continuing they should be spun (in theory). Even at the final vetting.

Yes bitless bridles are popular for reasons of eating and drinking, but also because one of the hardest things with endurance is trying to find tack that doesn't rub. For some horses, just the act of wearing a bit for eight plus hours can cause chafing, regardless of the rider's hands. Hence you see a lot of very minimalist tack and a lot of sheepskin being used.
 
Have a read at Bertram's interview on the world of show jumping site - shows just how badly it was handled and the support he has from other top riders.
 
ester said:
Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

But a horse can continue with a laceration or sore as long as it's not likely to be aggravated, which I have seen myself in FEI competition when a horse tripped on a middle loop and continued on to finish and pass the final vetting.
 
mle22 said:
…….. - shows just how badly it was handled and the support he has from other top riders.
Click to expand...

So the top riders don't agree with the decision? OK, that's not a problem, except, would you have them running the governing body? There'd be horses going round on three legs! :D The governing body, 'IF' they're so wrong, :wink3: need replacing, not the rule book. The Rule Book protects both horse and rider. The Rule Book must either be respected, or altered.

Otherwise, I agree with you, from what I see it wasn't managed too well.

Alec.
 
Steerpike said:
I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
Click to expand...

Well I assumed there was as I have seen horses disqualified for this very thing. Admittedly its not an area of equestrianism that I am very familiar with, however, many moons ago I did spend some time going out on the circuits to watch a friend and help out, it was always my understanding/was led to believe that this was one of the reasons for bitless and as I've said, I've certainly seen a horse stopped from going on due to damage in the mouth from a bit.
 
ester said:
Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

Thank god... Im not going bonkers! Thanks for clearing that up! :)
 
Follysmum said:
I didn't see this on TV but heard about it on FB. My first thought to eliminate this situation happening again and to safe guard any future mishaps was perhaps riders ditching the spurs.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this. I wouldn't wear them for a competition just incase that happened. I don't anyway but still wouldn't.

Rules are rules sadly he broke it. Need to just move on.
 
ester said:
Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
Click to expand...

Considering the last word 'Continue', presumably this would be taken in its literal sense, but as the horse in question had 'completed' the competition, would the same ruling be applied to disqualification, and in a retrospective sense?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Considering the last word 'Continue', presumably this would be taken in its literal sense, but as the horse in question had 'completed' the competition, would the same ruling be applied to disqualification, and in a retrospective sense?

Alec.
Click to expand...

I think so, for example... if a horse trots up lame or does not go back to a resting heart beat soon enough its eliminated, would assume it would be the same for other issues too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top