Controversy at Olympia...

I like a friend's suggestion to copy racing and let the horse keep the win and ban the jockey for a bit.

For eventing it is:
abuse of horse definition includes:
f) Horses bleeding on the flank(s) or back indicating excessive use of the whip and/or spurs
Blood on Horses may be an indication of abuse of the Horse and must be reviewed case by case
by the Ground Jury.
In minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its tongue
or lip, or minor bleeding on limbs, after investigation the Ground Jury may authorise the Athlete
to continue.

But abuse of horse can be dealt with by lots of options!:
a) Recorded Verbal Warning.
b) Yellow Warning Card.
c) Elimination.
d) Fine.
e) Disqualification.


SJ
Mandatory disqualification:
Horses bleeding on the flank(s), in the mouth or nose or marks indicating excessive use of spurs or of the whip anywhere
on the Horse (in minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its tongue or lip, Officials
may authorize the rinsing or wiping of the mouth and allow the Athlete to continue; any further evidence of blood in the
mouth will result in Disqualification.);

Driving

2. Wounds and Lacerations
2.1. Blood on Horses may be an indication of abuse of Horse and must be investigated case
by case by any member of the Ground Jury.
2.2. In minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its
tongue or lip, or minor bleeding on limbs, after investigation the Athlete may be
authorized to continue.

4. Penalty
Acts deemed as Abuse of Horse will result in the imposition by the Ground Jury of any or a
combination of the following penalties:
a) Yellow Warning card
b) Fine
c) Elimination
d) Disqualification from the Event

Endurance (2016)
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.

So eventing/driving seem to have a system in place where 1) it is reviewed by ground jury and 2) said ground jury have the option of a number of different penalties not just disqualification and I don't really understand why this latter options does not exist across the board.
 
Geoff Billington should be ashamed of himself. When you start calling people *********g idiots on social media you loose the moral high ground imo. Totally disrespectful to all those stewards who give up their time foc across the country week in week out to make sure the shows that he attends run smoothly. If anyone should be disqualified it's Mr Billington.

Grudgingly perhaps, I have to agree with you. Were Billington placed in the position of applying the rules, would he have ignored the precepts and then applied his own? If we don't or are unable to, show respect to those who judge, then we don't disrespect them publicly, we replace them.

Alec.
 
In the first photo of the H&H article about this, as they go over the red and gold parallel (black wings), it's easy to see how a spur injury could have happened. Toe at a right angle to the flank, heel dug in. I'm pleased he was disqualified.

Utter rubbish. Watch the round on video, and see this fence as it was taken. A more fluid and enabling rider, you will unfortunately almost never see. These days. If there were indeed marks on this horse, they were not made during this stunning round.
 
Orca, how sad it is that you're pleased someone is eliminated. It's happened. He's taken his punishment. He's not an axe murderer, nor has he gouged holes in his horse's side nor ripped it's mouth to shreds.
I think Michael Whitaker has shown much more generosity of spirit than you have.
 
Rumour is that another rider complained. There also is a photograph of Ben Mayer's groom laughing in the background as the result of the decision was given to Bertram. Maybe sour grapes because the ride was taken from Ben?
The marks were minuscule and I know how sensitive chestnuts can be.
 
I think the wording in the rule book is to the effect that its blood or marks indicating excessive use of whip or spurs that would be the cause of any appeal he may or may not make as its clear from the round that he was not using the spurs excessively. and for info I have seen a chestnut marked from the seam of a riders boots when they were not wearing spurs so some horses do mark very easily. its a huge shame they did not speak to him immediately they saw the marks and made the decision to take it further as it would have made things a lot clearer from the start

Apparently another rider complained, so maybe when the steward originally looked at the horse when he came out of the ring he didn't notice it as it was so small?
 
Ester the reason those two disciplines are judged differently is because they both involve the possibility that the horse may contact an obstacle and cause small lacerations which the ground jury can then review . I promise you if a horse had come out of the dressage or show jumping phases showing blood it would be eliminated. There has to be a bit of wiggle room were the horse could be lacerated by an external means.
Jock Paget at Burghley was stopped CC in his infamous year with the horse bleeding, however he was only allowed to go on after it became obvious from camera footage that the horse had a small wound caused by the brush at the previous fence.There was a very lengthy discussion before he was allowed to carry on , I think maybe with what transpired he wishes he had called it a day then.
 
Some horses, without question, are thin skinned. Such horses will mark easily, I'd have thought. The rider should have been aware of this and worn spurs which weren't so likely to mark the animal.

It was desperately sad to see such a top class round cancelled, BUT …….. Rules is Rules, and without those rules then the blatant disregard for the welfare of the horse in sport, would only grow.

The disqualification, for the betterment of horse welfare, must stand, however it may not really be justified in this specific case.

Alec.

This exactly and brilliantly put; no ruling body can say 'These are the rules BUT in this instance.....'. I don't think anyone would say the harm was intentional but it was done and should be acknowledged, and possibly learnt from. The injury was not in an area where the horse would have repeated exposure to spur pressure (as training over 1m60 is not done too repeatedly), so possibly a 'softer' spur should have been used. Things like this need to be considered.
 
Ester the reason those two disciplines are judged differently is because they both involve the possibility that the horse may contact an obstacle and cause small lacerations which the ground jury can then review . I promise you if a horse had come out of the dressage or show jumping phases showing blood it would be eliminated. There has to be a bit of wiggle room were the horse could be lacerated by an external means.
Jock Paget at Burghley was stopped CC in his infamous year with the horse bleeding, however he was only allowed to go on after it became obvious from camera footage that the horse had a small wound caused by the brush at the previous fence.There was a very lengthy discussion before he was allowed to carry on , I think maybe with what transpired he wishes he had called it a day then.

I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification.
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.
 
I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification.
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.

I would love to see how you propose policing the damage caused by spurs then! It is all to easy to give a horse a crafty boot,and I must admit you are all trying to defend this lad yet he has marked the horse and drawn blood thats not easy by accident. Would you have the same attitude to a racehorse with a whip wheal as there are a few of them that dont race anymore because they mark to easily and nobody will risk riding them.
 
well as above damage from spur is not an external factor and therefore would equal disqualification.
Or are you suggesting you won't be able to tell if it is from a spur or a tree?

I'm not defending him particularly I just think if it is because of the welfare of the horse than all things should be equal in all equestrian sports and think it is an interesting discussion to have.
 
I nosied at reining.
that is very definite too, with absolutely no leniency for mouth bleeding at all re. bitten lips/tongue

If the Equipment Judge or Chair Judge discovers fresh blood in the Horse’s mouth or in
the area of the spurs during the equipment check , the Horse and the Athlete will be
eliminated. If there is blood elsewhere on the Horse, an FEI Veterinarian is to be called to
decide if the Horse is fit to continue.
 
It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

But rules are rules. I thought it was odd that we didn't hear straight away that he was disqualified though - as surely the stewards saw the blood when he came out of the ring. I can't help thinking that they were hoping he would be put out of the running by someone following him and that they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy. Would they have bothered to disqualify him if he was seventh? I think it was awful for him to watch and with every horse think he was closer to winning - only to have it taken away.
 
Rumour is that another rider complained. There also is a photograph of Ben Mayer's groom laughing in the background as the result of the decision was given to Bertram. Maybe sour grapes because the ride was taken from Ben?
The marks were minuscule and I know how sensitive chestnuts can be.


If a rider complained I think they should arrange the following words in the correct order:
Without sin he cast stone first who is the
Or
Calling pot black kettle
Or
Go I there God grace the for
 
If you think that you are very naive!! They may like to think they do!

Not a very helpful post. I have no clue what happens in the endurance world as its not my thing, I am slightly aware however that there seems to be an undercurrent of controversy surrounding this area of equestrianism. Calling someone naive because they are reporting on what they believe is correct with regards to the ruling body of the sport is a tad childish yourself.
 
It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

But rules are rules. I thought it was odd that we didn't hear straight away that he was disqualified though - as surely the stewards saw the blood when he came out of the ring. I can't help thinking that they were hoping he would be put out of the running by someone following him and that they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy. Would they have bothered to disqualify him if he was seventh? I think it was awful for him to watch and with every horse think he was closer to winning - only to have it taken away.



I got the same reaction from my OH.

Also, no-one seems to be commenting on the fact that there are three separate holes in the horse, all with blood on them. This isn't some gentle brushing of an easily marked horse. This is a spur which somehow got caught in a bit of skin and was dragged across two ridges of skin which formed behind the first point of contact, making three marks in total.

I think the decision was correct.
 
It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

.



I got the same reaction from my OH.

Also, no-one seems to be commenting on the fact that there are three separate holes in the horse, all with blood on them. This isn't some gentle brushing of an easily marked horse. This is a spur which somehow got caught in a bit of skin and was dragged across two ridges of skin which formed behind the first point of contact, making three marks in total.

I think the decision was correct.
 
Not a very helpful post. I have no clue what happens in the endurance world as its not my thing, I am slightly aware however that there seems to be an undercurrent of controversy surrounding this area of equestrianism. Calling someone naive because they are reporting on what they believe is correct with regards to the ruling body of the sport is a tad childish yourself.

It was tongue in cheek and the only comment the poster had made was in response to my earlier comment so I dont think it was childish just a different sense of humour. Endurance does its own thing much to the FEIs embarrassment!
 
Utter rubbish. Watch the round on video, and see this fence as it was taken. A more fluid and enabling rider, you will unfortunately almost never see. These days. If there were indeed marks on this horse, they were not made during this stunning round.

Have a look at the photos on the previous page of this thread. The marks appear where his heel meets flank, due to his jumping leg position.

Orca, how sad it is that you're pleased someone is eliminated. It's happened. He's taken his punishment. He's not an axe murderer, nor has he gouged holes in his horse's side nor ripped it's mouth to shreds.
I think Michael Whitaker has shown much more generosity of spirit than you have.

Several are displeased. I am pleased, therefore displeased his horse was harmed. I feel no obligation to show generosity towards someone who blames his horses ' sensitivity' for it's injuries, rather than, with awareness of that sensitivity take steps to avoid causing harm. So, yes, I am of course pleased that welfare procedure was adhered to and that he was eliminated ��.
 
Last edited:
I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification.
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.

Spurs are banned in endurance, period. Current controversies aside, as a rule endurance horses tend to be ridden in minimal tack, quite often they are bitless, and you don't get the OTT tack that you see elsewhere if for no other reason that a) it will rub and b) the horse needs to be able to eat and drink freely.
 
Geoff Billington should be ashamed of himself. When you start calling people *********g idiots on social media you loose the moral high ground imo. Totally disrespectful to all those stewards who give up their time foc across the country week in week out to make sure the shows that he attends run smoothly. If anyone should be disqualified it's Mr Billington.

I agree. He of all people should realise he's taking it out on the wrong people - stewards are only there to make sure the rules are adhered to. He should be ashamed of his comments, without those people the shows wouldn't happen. Maybe it's easier for him to take it out on someone who won't bite back like the FEI could - bully boy tactics.

I steward at RC events and there are things that happen that make me wonder why I bother. I do it not because I like doing it, but I am trying to put something back into the sport for all the years fun I had.
 
Last edited:
Just to give a different take on the possible cause of the marks.....

Does anyone else remember some years ago a rider eliminated at Burghley (I think) for spur marks and it turned out that it was the corner of the part of the spur where the strap goes through rather than the actual spur? (Hope that makes sense!)

I noticed on the photo on here http://e-venting.co.uk/2015/12/save-it-for-the-fei/ of the rider’s foot that where the strap goes through is square whereas other spurs are oval here (eg. http://www.robinsonsequestrian.com/riding-apparel/footwear/spurs/shires-ball-end-spurs.html ).

The photo on e-venting doesn’t appear to be the same horse as it hasn’t got a sheepskin girth like the one in the photo of the marks, nor does it say that it is Bertram Allen’s foot anyway. But if his spurs have the ‘square’ rather than the ‘oval’, then is it possible that that’s what made the marks rather than any use or misuse of the spur itself?
 
Personally I think the ruling was wrong. I appreciated the rules being there and, yes if I horse is bleeding from the mouth or it's tongue is blue then that's an obvious issue. However, a small nick from a spur I don't believe warrants disqualification. A warning maybe but not disqualification.

Some horses mark easier than others - mine can get a rash after clipping, does that mean his welfare is compromised? No, it means he has sensitive skin. Maybe Betram should have followed suit and left an unclimbed square where his heels would be. I noticed a few had so that suggests this ruling has caused issue before.

Spurs are a useful aid as they make the aid clearer and avoid the need for kicking. Yes, they can be misused and misuse should be tackled but I don't think that was the case in this instance. I think some common sense should be applied (hey, maybe it was. I wasn't there so can only speculate). However, what would have happened earlier had the horse nicked itself on its leg or something? Would he have been disqualified then?

I just think it all seems rather ott even though I fully appreciate the thought process behind it and the rules that exist. I hope they get to show their skills again without anyone finding a way to take away their glory!
 
On this forum, I repeatedly read about how people are against rollkur and other forms of cruelty etc and the comments generally veer towards "the riders should be banned" or "something needs to be done about it". In this case, the stewards did take action and appear now to be being criticised for it. Perhaps the marks on the horse were accidental, but you can't let one person get away with it and then take action against another one. Now that would be unfair! The stewards were doing the job they are there to do and took action accordingly.
 
Just a question for those who ride at a 'level'; When I see the top riders, holding on to horses with the most surprising arrangement of ironmongery in their mouths, and an array of strap-on aids which have me grateful that I don't ride, and then considering that most of these high octane horses are being 'held-back' only to be released at the right moment, then what is the point to an aid, a spur which is likely to only up the anti?

Genuine question, and I'd like to know the answer. When I'm working a serious and hard going dog, the last thing that I need to do is kick its arse and bring on a lunatic! :)

Alec.
 
Top