Controversy at Olympia...

suffolkmare

suffolkmare

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 August 2012
Messages
805
Location
...Suffolk
Visit site
As I'm just watching on Red button I'm wondering if anyone knows more about why the young Irish lad has been disqualified? His jump off round was amazing, so what was wrong? Glad to see MW do so well though.
 
Horse welfare issues, apparently, although evidently not serious enough for there to be a clear-cut decision about whether he should be DQed or not.
 
Yes me too! Apparently it was a welfare issue! So can only assume spur marks or blood in the mouth! But horse n rider jumped super round as he did last night! N really looked amazing and happy in collecting ring! My issue is all horses checked coming out of ring so why was he not told then! He was totally shocked to here prior to prize giving! And y not tell us! All that Scott Brash has done for British Show jumping will be blighted by this n no more show jumping on BBC! Hx
 
I have seen people walloping the horses and ponies at BS shows-no one says anything-if they are going to disqualify over this they should up their welfare standards across the board.
 
horsemadmum1 said:
I have seen people walloping the horses and ponies at BS shows-no one says anything-if they are going to disqualify over this they should up their welfare standards across the board.
Click to expand...

Yep. And I think certain riders who yank on their horse's mouth etc should be spoken to as well - far more potential for lasting damage than an accidental jab with a spur (not that that shouldn't be ruled against!)
 
Agree with you, Indigoice45! Can't help thinking it wouldn't have seemed so bad if Michael's round had been earlier, i.e. he had actually been in the lead at one point...probably illogical...
 
Thank you ! Obviously there are rules n welfare to be taking into account! But what a super rider n happy horse to jump that round, at no point war that horse put under pressure! I agree with earlier comment we see more abuse in collecting rings at local BS, which gets no reprimand then this! Totally ridiculous a super young guy n lovely horse! Such a shame gx
 
Olympia have said on twitter they will be making a statement.

There's photos floating round of the apparent spur marks, but I'm not sure how real they are.

Imo, it's time to look at the rule books, and define what is included under 'horse welfare/abuse of horse' and severity of punishment. Not saying Bertram shouldn't be punished if the horse was bleeding, but that some of the other riding I have seen definitely looked much much worse than his, and that there needs to be much more consistency and a press/procedure to be followed at shows when this situation arises that lets the public and spectators know what is going on and why the delay is happening without letting rumour and speculation arise.
 
I agree totally! Let's see what transpires n hopefully a true account will be forthcoming other than the usual rumour and speculation. Although still think under no point did that horse look under duress or pressure! But I wasn't there to see inspection! But the indecision n time it took has to be questioned. Gx
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Indigoice45 said:
I agree totally! Let's see what transpires n hopefully a true account will be forthcoming other than the usual rumour and speculation. Although still think under no point did that horse look under duress or pressure! But I wasn't there to see inspection! But the indecision n time it took has to be questioned. Gx
Click to expand...

the story so far is that spur marks/blood was seen on his horse, which seems to be viable but the truth is no statements have been made and no one is 100% sure as of yet.

I feel the show should have had something in place to explain to the crowd, even if it was 'Bertram Allen has been disqualified due to an ongoing investigation into rule x regarding x'
 
Orca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your leg position is always perfect over 1m60 is it?

He rode fantastically there is no 2 ways about it! I've seen terrible riding all week & he is disqualified.

Having ridden a chestnut who I had to cake in vasaline when she was clipped because she got rubbed so easily from boots & spurs I can see how easily it happens! There was a guy in the puissance who had actually left patches on the sides where his legs sat because he obviously had the same issue on his chestnut.

Such a shame for the sport !
 
I missed this however Geoff Billiington has commented on FB saying the rider rode a beautiful round and the Stewards are very much in the wrong - his wording is slightly more extreme than mine! Everyone seems to be in agreement with Geoff, apparently it was a travesty that the win was taken from him.
 
Michael Whitaker gave him the rosette, I doubt he'd have done that if he thought it fair.

Considering some of the frankly rough hands we've all seen this week, it does seem harsh, but rules are rules.

Of course, I'm not saying for one second I could do any better- I definitely couldn't.
 
I really dont get why ALL of them wear spurs anyway. Hopefully this sort of thing will encourage less spur usage. No matter how nice his round, if there was blood then thats totally unacceptable and the right decision was made, no matter what Geoff Billington sprouts off!
 
It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!
 
Old Bat said:
It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!
Click to expand...

Yep it was the first thing I noticed having owned a chestnut & had exactly this issue!! I thought what a good idea it was!

If the picture that is going round is correct it is so similar to the marks my mare used to get & she got those without me having spurs on as well as when I used them! Hence why she got coated in vasealine to avoid it happening.

I think its 1 thing when the public think its a wrong decision but when other riders are backing him so clearly having been there I think we can put it down to bad decisions.

When I watched the round I remember thinking I wish more riders rode so positively & just let their horses run & jump & yet he had perfect control at the touch on its mouth to make the turns unlike some of the other riders.
 
I think it was right he was disqualified. A cut from a spur is still a cut - how would you feel if you got off of your horse and saw a cut on it's side from when you were wearing spurs, even if it was accidental? I like to think most people would at least feel slightly guilty! I'm fully aware some horses are more sensitive than others and my answer to that would be put vaseline or grease on the horses sides for a little bit of protection or even more simply - do not wear spurs if the horse is that sensitive to them (In the sense that they bleed/rub after use).

It's a real shame for Bertram as he is a very talented young rider and rode a super round but at the end of the day, rules are rules and should be adhered to, especially at this level. What message would it send to riders in lower BS (And BD for that matter) levels if he was allowed to get away with leaving spur marks on his horse?! I do think that there needs to be a real overhaul in rule books as to what the true definition of a welfare case is though as there have been some shocking examples in recent years of unhappy horses being socked in the mouth, booted over jumps and hit far too hard/riders not using the whip appropriately where the rider has gone unpunished. If Bertram was penalised for this, I really do believe that the Italian rider in the puissance who was socking his horse in the mouth before/after every jump should have been too as that was shocking.
 
Last edited:
I watched Bertram's jump off round and thought it was really inspiring and enjoyed it immensely. The horse and he were an incredible partnership and no amount of rough riding will ever make a horse try for you like that horse did for him.

Obviously I don't know the full story but I was quite saddened to hear the many people criticising the stewards. They are given a job to do and they are there to report on horse welfare. If it is a spur mark then these things can and do happen but I personally believe that it would be a sad day if this was just completely ignored.

I do think that Bertram should not have been disqualified but Olympia could maybe have taken a similar approach to racing and given some sort of ban or fine if indeed the horse's welfare had been compromised.
 
Old Bat said:
It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!
Click to expand...

Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!
 
Wimbles said:
I watched Bertram's jump off round and thought it was really inspiring and enjoyed it immensely. The horse and he were an incredible partnership and no amount of rough riding will ever make a horse try for you like that horse did for him.

Obviously I don't know the full story but I was quite saddened to hear the many people criticising the stewards. They are given a job to do and they are there to report on horse welfare. If it is a spur mark then these things can and do happen but I personally believe that it would be a sad day if this was just completely ignored.

I do think that Bertram should not have been disqualified but Olympia could maybe have taken a similar approach to racing and given some sort of ban or fine if indeed the horse's welfare had been compromised.
Click to expand...

I agree, some kind of fine and a warning, what ever he did was surely not deliberate and he was not rough in any way.
 
stencilface said:
Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!
Click to expand...

I watched a local BSJA competition a few weeks ago and noticed a couple of riders that had these patches and thought what a good idea it was. Both were wearing spurs so it was obvious as to what it was for. If a horse is sensitive and you MUST (I rarely believe in the use of spurs I must admit) use spurs, surely this is a sensible idea? Vaseline/grease behind the riders leg is also a good protective barrier too.
 
stencilface said:
Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!
Click to expand...

One of the riders in the Sunday class had some sort of very wide stretchy band round the horse (like a super wide girth) which looked to cover where spurs would touch, I assumed it was for this very reason - that the horse was sensitive skinned and it was to help stop marks. However, if the horse is THAT sensitive, I still wonder why they need to use spurs full stop. Personally, I dislike spurs and don't use them. I'd be horrified if I saw ANY mark on my horses sides caused by them. The ground jury were correct IMO, they followed through on a rule that is in place and applies to all riders. I do agree though, that the Italian rider yanking his horse in the mouth in the puissance should equally have had something done about him.
 
MagicMelon said:
One of the riders in the Sunday class had some sort of very wide stretchy band round the horse (like a super wide girth) which looked to cover where spurs would touch, I assumed it was for this very reason - that the horse was sensitive skinned and it was to help stop marks. However, if the horse is THAT sensitive, I still wonder why they need to use spurs full stop. Personally, I dislike spurs and don't use them. I'd be horrified if I saw ANY mark on my horses sides caused by them. The ground jury were correct IMO, they followed through on a rule that is in place and applies to all riders. I do agree though, that the Italian rider yanking his horse in the mouth in the puissance should equally have had something done about him.
Click to expand...

I think you're reading my mind this morning, couldn't agree more!
 
Anna Ross has written a good post on her Facebook page with a photo of Bertram's horse's sides, a photo of her horse's mouth (who was also disqualified due to blood in the mouth) and a photo of an endurance horse with a bright red mouth (which was not eliminated). I have to say, I struggled to see the blood on hers or Bertram's horse in the photos - although appreciate you do really need to see these things in the flesh.

Obviously the blood rule is there for good reason and should be upheld in all cases imo. However, the FEI need to seriously look at the consistency of their tolerance for welfare issues across all equestrian sport. It's pretty disgusting that they will deal with incidents like yesterday's with such a firm hand, yet turn a blind eye to much more serious issues in other parts of the world.

I feel bad for Bertram, as it is the tiniest of grazes and I'm sure it was totally unintentional. But the fact remains that the graze was caused by his spur. I imagine he feels bad for the horse and devastated at losing out after such a cracking round.
 
Clare85 said:
Anna Ross has written a good post on her Facebook page with a photo of Bertram's horse's sides, a photo of her horse's mouth (who was also disqualified due to blood in the mouth) and a photo of an endurance horse with a bright red mouth (which was not eliminated). I have to say, I struggled to see the blood on hers or Bertram's horse in the photos - although appreciate you do really need to see these things in the flesh.

Obviously the blood rule is there for good reason and should be upheld in all cases imo. However, the FEI need to seriously look at the consistency of their tolerance for welfare issues across all equestrian sport. It's pretty disgusting that they will deal with incidents like yesterday's with such a firm hand, yet turn a blind eye to much more serious issues in other parts of the world.

I feel bad for Bertram, as it is the tiniest of grazes and I'm sure it was totally unintentional. But the fact remains that the graze was caused by his spur. I imagine he feels bad for the horse and devastated at losing out after such a cracking round.
Click to expand...

The FEI dont run endurance anymore hence the bending of the rules! ;-)

The stewards are in an impossible position because whatever the cause there is no defence to disqualification for blood in FEI sport. I know its crazy,most people know its crazy but thats the rules they have to work to,they cant exactly turn a blind eye at a high profile show like olympia where things like this easily show up on HD television footage everybody is watching.
 
Last edited:
FEI has different blood rules for different sports though, discretion is permitted in driving and Eventing for the presence of blood.

I think I sit on the rules is rules side, but not with any additional vilification, or that how it is appalling that over these sorts of fences someone's legs might swing going over the fence. Gingers are particularly prone to rubs, I am not sure whether keeping longer patches works as they have to be in the right place (over the jumps the chestnut I saw with them they would have been too far forwards) and IME longer hair can tend to rub more (my lad is better clipped) but it may work to cover an issue up more.

In the world cup one was naked in the first round and came back with a belly band for the jump off so obviously the start of an issue was spotted maybe by steward on way out?
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top