Clear name of Bertram Allen

Orca

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 November 2015
Messages
994
Visit site
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.

Agreed. This was my take on it from the outset. It's a shame really, that no-one sought to address his leg position with him at some point before this. The toe out/ heel in and swinging leg style of his jump stance is not conducive to safe spur use. There is one 'scrape' and numerous wheals, all of which could have been avoided.

I understand that it can be difficult to hold a good position over high jumps but it is not difficult to be aware of where spurs are at any given time. In fact, that really is a prerequisite to using them at all.
 

AmyMay

Situation normal
Joined
1 July 2004
Messages
65,914
Location
South
Visit site
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.

It may have been handled badly, and it's great that that BA has the support from other riders - because we would all agree that he did not intentionally set out to hurt the horse.

BUT, rules are rules, and if you cause your horse to bleed you are quite correctly disqualified. There's not really any discussion to be had around the subject.
 

Pebble101

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 November 2001
Messages
1,863
Visit site
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...

I wasn't defending him, my reply was to another post which suggested that had he been further down the line there might not have been a petition. My point was that if he had only just won without such a huge margin in such company it might not have caused such a furore - maybe I didn't put my point across very well.

Personally I think a lot of competition isn't very kind on the horses and that goes far wider than the way they are ridden.
 

EstherYoung

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 September 2004
Messages
1,957
Location
Yorkshire
Visit site
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

Indeed. They still have to be fit to continue at the finish. The rule of thumb is that they have to be fit to do another 15% of the distance again. So on a 100 miler, the vet wants to see that the horse could do another 15 miles easily.

I've seen horses eliminated for bruised mouths etc too.
 

DiNozzo

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2014
Messages
2,322
Visit site
Is the issue not more that the Italian officer (can't remember his name!) being seen to ride in a manner which is far more likely to cause damage than BA?

I agree that he should eliminated under the current rules, but I do not think that the current rules are adequate. There are others who would have caused far more damage to their horses, through bruising or other internal damage through horrific riding who were allowed to continue also.
 

FfionWinnie

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2012
Messages
17,021
Location
Scotland
Visit site
Two thoughts I've had today re him appealing. He's a young guy, the top riders and probably the owners were saying to him it's a tiny mark etc. You can see why he appealed. He did say in one interview I read that in the cold light of day he wants to just move on.

Now, it IS a tiny mark in the scheme of things. However, spurs is spurs at the end of the day and you cannot justify that mark or any other mark made by them!

How can you expect the viewing public to understand spurs and their use if something like this was allowed.

Accidents happen, yes. Should we castigate him for this one accident, no.

In my other life I run my sheep dogs in trials. The dog is not allowed to bite the sheep. Of course in a work situation it may need to and in a trial situation I would prefer my dog bit the sheep and I was disqualified than it let the sheep run over the top of it but would it be acceptable to change the rule and say FfionWinnie had a great run before the dog bit the sheep so let her win. No. Rules are there for a reason. Ultimately he hurt the horse he has to pay and I bet he will not do it again and the more furore there is the more he will be remembered for this so best to let it go, probably chuck out the spurs and not have the issue arise again.

Incidentally this is the most frustrating post I have ever had to write due to my iPhone's absolute insistence that spurs and mark must be capitalised and my determination that they will not. Argh!
 

KautoStar1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2008
Messages
1,632
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.
 

MungoMadness

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 July 2008
Messages
218
Visit site
Is the issue not more that the Italian officer (can't remember his name!) being seen to ride in a manner which is far more likely to cause damage than BA?

I agree that he should eliminated under the current rules, but I do not think that the current rules are adequate. There are others who would have caused far more damage to their horses, through bruising or other internal damage through horrific riding who were allowed to continue also.

That's a whole other argument though. The fact that someone else was worse is no justification at all, it's like saying oh let this man off for murder because someone else committed a mass murder which is worse.

I don't disagree that harsh hands are an issue, but the way I see it it's not measurable so it'd be impossible to rule, so we need to think of a way to make it measurable. Whether there is blood or not is measurable, I think itd be a mistake to change that rule. But fundamentally they are two different arguments.
 

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,388
Visit site
Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.

Totally agree! It takes time for the steward to call a vet and then the Vet to brief the ground jury . Time would have been spent making sure the ruling was correct as he had won the class so it made it more important that the decision was right .The question of a yellow card would also have been looked into which would have involved watching different camera footage. Also knowing what happens I am sure GB and some others would have already been giving the Ground jury some grief. I am sure from their point of view the easiest option would have been to ignore it but credit to them they did the right thing.
 

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,388
Visit site
That's a whole other argument though. The fact that someone else was worse is no justification at all, it's like saying oh let this man off for murder because someone else committed a mass murder which is worse.

I don't disagree that harsh hands are an issue, but the way I see it it's not measurable so it'd be impossible to rule, so we need to think of a way to make it measurable. Whether there is blood or not is measurable, I think itd be a mistake to change that rule. But fundamentally they are two different arguments.

Of course if those hands are hard enough to cause the horse to bleed action would be taken.
I see a lot of criticism of heavy hands at olympia every year in part due to the nature of big courses in a tight arena ,I think it always looks worse than it is as you are always having to shorten them up quick. Also the crowd and the cameras are very close to the action and you see things you would not at say Hickstead for example. Modern HD cameras make things more obvious as well
 
Last edited:

Supertrooper

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
13,772
Visit site
I don't for one minute think he meant to harm the horse but the rule is there for a reason. You can't have one rule for one and another for someone else. How is that for the horses benefit.........

There was blood on the horses side, he was disqualified, end of........

On another note though did someone see in the Puissance that a horse in that had a square of hair left either side of flank where the spurs were sitting. Never seen that before.
 

onemoretime

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 April 2008
Messages
2,440
Visit site
He was disqualified because what happened contravened the rules its as simple as ! Try looking at the olympia thread(in equestrian news) and you will find that on the whole you will be banging your head against a brick wall. If we have the rules they need to be enforced which they clearly have in this case. There is more evidence came out today that was even more damming for him not sure if you are aware of that. Sorry I for one wont be signing !
Apparently there was blood on the horses side and photos were taken and also steward put on surgical gloves and wiped over the horses side and this was bagged up and taken to the judges. It went on until 3am but the judges decision stood. The situation was pretty serious and the right action was taken, I am another that wont be signing the petition.
 

onemoretime

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 April 2008
Messages
2,440
Visit site
Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.
I dont think the situation was badly handled at all, in fact it was well handled and the officials decision was upheld end of. Hopefully the rider will learn from this, people setting up petitions only make the whole business drag on and cause further upset to all involved - let it drop.
 

minkymoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 July 2007
Messages
1,852
Location
Beautiful Hampshire
Visit site
Agree with the above. Rules are Rules. There might be an argument to change that rule. But there is no point in petitioning anyone about a decision made within the rules.

What happened to Bertram was very sad - probably more so to him and to his owners. No-one says that he deliberately mistreated his horse. Accidents happen.

I don't see anyone petitioning to re-instate Victoria Guilksson eliminated after winning the six bar for an eligibility breach. Or for any of the several dressage riders eliminated this year for blood in the mouth. And rightly so. Not because those riders have necessarily done anything really wrong. But because those are the rules of the sport we compete in.

You can't have one rule for some and another for everyone else. Petition to change the rule is you want to - that would have value. Don't petition to break the rules.

This. I'm sorry for the guy, but maybe he should have been more careful with his Spurs?

You can't have people whining about how unfair it is he loses his first place because of blood on his horse when on the other hand complaining about rolkur and blood in the mouth. Rules are rules and need to be adhered to.
 

gnubee

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
644
Visit site
I don't think his disqualification reflects poorly on him. He has a reputation for being a quiet rider and these things sometimes happen. However, rules are rules and need to be non-judgemental and clean cut, and all the arguments for not dq-ing seem based on him having a good reputation and not the facts of this instances. Do petition signers want all riders rating as good guy or bad guy before they enter the ring to determine whether the rules should apply to them? I also don't think you can conclusively say that without the cut and the action of the spurs pressing into it subsequently he would still have won the round. There is certainly cause to suspect that after the accident the horse might have been more reactive to otherwise gentle use of the spurs.

I do think his reputation is being damaged now though by the appeal and now support more widely that it was an accident and ok. My horse threw a hissy fit last weekend and in throwing her head to the ground her mouth has been bruised. Nothing I could do about it save completely drop the reins and put us both in danger, but when the dentist came this week I was so embarrassed about him seeing her mouth, apologised to him and explained what happened before I let him look at her. To me it seems normal to be ashamed whenever we injure a horse, even if there is nothing we could do about it. In a situation like this I would be mortified if anything about my response to the situation suggested I thought the damage was ok. To appeal a result in this scenario and allow this support to build up afterwards makes it look a lot to me like he is not such a good guy and thinks there is nothing wrong with a horse ending up like that as long as you are winning.
 

MrsMozart

Just passing through...
Joined
27 June 2008
Messages
41,222
Location
Not where I should be...
Visit site
I don't think his disqualification reflects poorly on him. He has a reputation for being a quiet rider and these things sometimes happen. However, rules are rules and need to be non-judgemental and clean cut, and all the arguments for not dq-ing seem based on him having a good reputation and not the facts of this instances. Do petition signers want all riders rating as good guy or bad guy before they enter the ring to determine whether the rules should apply to them? I also don't think you can conclusively say that without the cut and the action of the spurs pressing into it subsequently he would still have won the round. There is certainly cause to suspect that after the accident the horse might have been more reactive to otherwise gentle use of the spurs.

I do think his reputation is being damaged now though by the appeal and now support more widely that it was an accident and ok. My horse threw a hissy fit last weekend and in throwing her head to the ground her mouth has been bruised. Nothing I could do about it save completely drop the reins and put us both in danger, but when the dentist came this week I was so embarrassed about him seeing her mouth, apologised to him and explained what happened before I let him look at her. To me it seems normal to be ashamed whenever we injure a horse, even if there is nothing we could do about it. In a situation like this I would be mortified if anything about my response to the situation suggested I thought the damage was ok. To appeal a result in this scenario and allow this support to build up afterwards makes it look a lot to me like he is not such a good guy and thinks there is nothing wrong with a horse ending up like that as long as you are winning.


This ^^^
 

DD

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 August 2015
Messages
2,306
Location
Albion
Visit site
Apparently there was blood on the horses side and photos were taken and also steward put on surgical gloves and wiped over the horses side and this was bagged up and taken to the judges. It went on until 3am but the judges decision stood. The situation was pretty serious and the right action was taken, I am another that wont be signing the petition.

^^^^^^
this.
I think banning spurs is what the BSJA should do.
 

Illusion100

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 January 2014
Messages
3,625
Location
Probably on my way to A&E
Visit site
Spurs should only be a 'directional' aid and used carefully and lightly.

To even mark a horse with spurs is never good. To draw blood/have visible wounds etc is just not cricket.

As a fellow countryperson, I'd love for Bertram to have won but I stand by the rules.

I cannot support blood being drawn from a horse, for whatever reason to win, especially at that level.
 
Top