Eliminated for being barefoot at Blair

N

NZLass

New User
Joined
25 August 2013
Messages
3
Visit site
[h=5]BHT organisers have enforced a rule at this years event bought in 3 years ago by SHB (GB) as follows:

Para 48 (H) – In relation to shoes - All Ridden Hunters must be shod all
round. No pads or surgical shoes are allowed.

It resulted in the humiliating removal of barefoot and partially shod competitors from the working hunter ring, at least one of which had completed a clear round. It has caused much confusion and uproar as nobody seemed to know about it, including BHS and all agree it is completely ludicrous.


BHS have stepped in and although were unable to overturn the rule for this event, will be taking action in support of it's many barefoot members for future events and i'm quite sure the outcome will be favorable.

Please contact your local BHS committee in support of this endeavor.

[/h]Cheers.
 
Go BHS.

It's laughable really but then some showing people think horses should move with a toe first landing and of course it is apparently unsafe in the ring unshod. rofl
Just shows, many want to see man made horses not real horses. I can't wait until they can breed them born wearing shoes.
 
It's the responsibility of the competitor to know an abide by the rules of the competition in which they are competing. Am not saying not allowing shoeless horses is correct but it's the competitors own fault if they were embarrassed!
 
amage said:
It's the responsibility of the competitor to know an abide by the rules of the competition in which they are competing. Am not saying not allowing shoeless horses is correct but it's the competitors own fault if they were embarrassed!
Click to expand...

This ^^

Is it not the same as riding in the ring with a bit less bridle when it's against the rules? Or not having your horse vaccinated when it should have, or competing at a BD comp with your horse in a grackle?

It is an odd rule. But until changed its still a rule.
 
amage said:
It's the responsibility of the competitor to know an abide by the rules of the competition in which they are competing. Am not saying not allowing shoeless horses is correct but it's the competitors own fault if they were embarrassed!
Click to expand...

Quite. Hopefully if they are going to enforce this rule, then competitors can vote with their feet, as it were.
 
Totally agree with those who point out that the competitors should know the rules.
I suspect there's a safety issue behind the rule - ride judges don't want to ride horses on slippery ground if those horses haven't been kitted out in such a way as to give them maximum grip. After all if studs didn't make a difference no one would use them..........
 
I do agree but there seem to be a few issues in this particular case. Re studs, hasn't it already been established though that they require shoes but don't have any guidelines on studs? There also seem to be a lot of people who don't know of the rule and have in fact competed in the interim period without penalty. While is it certainly up to competitors to know the rules, it is also up to organisations to enforce them in a clear and fair manner.
 
TarrSteps said:
I do agree but there seem to be a few issues in this particular case. Re studs, hasn't it already been established though that they require shoes but don't have any guidelines on studs? .
Click to expand...

I was just using that as an example of improved grip....sorry if I gave the impression that studs were compulsory as well.
 
I think this rule is utterly ridiculous. I watched the girl who had jumped a lovely clear round in the WH at Blair get told afterwards she was eliminated, extremely unfair IMO. Its a joke of a rule and certainly not one I would have known (and had my horse been sound, I would have been trying to qualify for these finals). I've been competing prior in working hunter classes unshod all round. Cannot believe they brought in such a stupid rule! Blair HT, you're a fantastic event but please do not enforce this rule in future as you will alienate a lot of people!

Re: grip. Anyone should be capable of jumping round a course of jumps with no shoes let alone studs. I have jumped many a horse on grass unshod with no issues, the only time I've normally shod is for eventing at novice BE level where the horse has to stop / turn much more sharply than in a nice flowing working hunter ring...
 
Last edited:
Zebedee said:
I was just using that as an example of improved grip....sorry if I gave the impression that studs were compulsory as well.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I think that is the issue people are struggling to understand though. If the ruling is to counteract the risk of horses slipping, which seems to be behind both the origin and the current enforcement, then why are studs not compulsory since flat shoes are actually less "grippy" on some surfaces than bare hooves.

Doesn't change the point about knowing the rules - and it's not like showing doesn't have all sorts of rules with no current practical basis ;) - but I can see why members feel there has been a somewhat capricious creation and enforcement of the rule. Clearly BHS feels similarly so there issue will be resolved either by the rule being examined or, if the argument stands up, people will vote with their feet.
 
I'm not sure it's fair if its one of those rules that's there but not enforced, to be suddenly enforced, ESP after you've already been round. If it has been made clear at the start of the day the unshod competitors may have had chance to get some shoes on if their horses would cope with it. Rules are rules yes, but seems a bit unfair the way it was done on face value IMHO
 
I guess some people think this isn't a big issue, which if you DO have your horses shod as standard then you won't care. But why on earth should people have to nail shoes on perfectly decent hooves just to do working hunter nowadays, which lets face it isn't even particularily big (ranged from novice 2'6 height to 1.15m at Blair). I certainly wouldn't chuck shoes on my horses just to do it.
 
I agree rules should be kept to but they should be kept to consistently and why are horses allowed to compete if they are going to be eliminated afterwards? That makes no sense whatsoever.

ps. Agree with MagicMelon it is a big deal for barefoot horse owners and their horses. Shoes aren't a piece of tack, the hoof has to be trimmed to take the shoe which may lead to problems after removal for a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
Well the BHS have no jurisdiction over SHB GB who are the governing body for Ridden / Working Hunters & Sport Horse classes, so it may be better to lobby them, although if you can get the BHS on side it won't do any harm.
 
There is no point having a rule if it is not enforced, this does not mean that I am saying the ruling is correct but if it is not enforced it could cause problems if the classes are qualifiers if the qualification has been awarded to someone who has not complied with the rules.

It could be that someone who knew the rules complained to the show secretary after the class had started?
 
Hi all. Just to clarify a couple of points bought up;

- There was more than one rider affected.
- The rider I personally know qualified barefoot (i'm guessing the others did to). No mention was made of the rule.
- On the day, riders, nor those in the secretary tent or the BHS (whose class it was), knew about the rule, or knew that it was going to be enforced in some classes. Yes it was the riders responsibility to check, but more could have been done to highlight it beforehand.
- The Champion ridden hunter was barefoot. The rule was not enforced in this class.
- Nobody is blaming Blair organisers for enforcing, however it was not consistent across all hunter classes. This and not highlighting it is the issue.
- The rule was bought about as a safety issue, yet competitors were wearing bowler hats and beaglers despite there being a rule to say hats must have chin straps. Again, consistency is a problem.
- Nobody complained to the secretary other than the riders affected.
- The one rider I know of who went clear has competed successfully at Blair for the last 5 years. Last year she was 2nd and her picture is ironically used in this years programme. A reminder the rule has been around 3 years now.
- It might be also worth noting that she actually hunts barefoot and her horses are incredibly sure footed and safe rides because of it.

This rule is not like a tack or bit rule, which can be adhered to easily. It directly affects the way in which a rider CHOOSES to care for their horse. For my friend, this rule is making it impossible to compete unless she goes against 6 years of hard work to produce successful barefoot competition horses. It's not as easy as, just put shoes on, it ends her competing career as she rightly refuses to do so.

This can't be allowed to happen, it's an incredibly slippery slope and that's why the issue has gone viral on social media.

Please lobby SHBGB to overturn and/or support your local BHS in doing so.

Thanks again.
 
It could be that the organisers also think its a daft rule so have not actively looked for unshod horses on previous years or in other classes. However as SO1 points out above it only takes a competitor to mention it to a steward and they pretty much have to act on it hence the sudden reaction maybe
 
I suspect the reason riders did their rounds before being told was because the judge picked up on it and not the stewards so it would have been difficult to warn riders before hand. Nothing to do with Blair just an over zealous judge!
There have been injuries to ride judges in the past down to unshod horses slipping so it became a H&S issue,from experience most shod horses will have studs in a ridden /working hunter if conditions dictate.
 
Sounds like a rule that wasn't terribly well thought out to me, and was possibly enforced in a way never intended by whoever thought it up. Let's hope such a silly rule is soon rescinded. Making shoeing compulsory regardless of need or advisability for a particular animal is surely to be considered a welfare issue, and one that no conscientious farrier could support.
 
A quick word re the application of rules. If you invIte a judge from a panel to judge an unaffiliated class and your rules deviate from those of the parent body the judge must be advised accordingly prior to the event. This applies across all the disciplines, and if qualifiers are being held at local / club level those who qualify shouldn't assume that the finals won't be run under a tighter remit. Beaglers / Bowlers are allowed under SHB rules and I don't think a judge who applies the rules of the governing society is being over zealous. FWIW the BHS do not have a competition rulebook other than for TREC. There are rules for showing in the BRC Rulebook, but they have a fall back (again for all disciplines) that if a situation isn't covered by their rules the rules of the parent body should be refered to. Two wrongs never make a right, and while I'd be bl00dy furious if something I'd done in previous years was suddenly not ok, the fact does remain that competitors need to know the rules for whatever class they're taking part in.
 
Last edited:
Zebedee said:
the fact does remain that competitors need to know the rules for whatever class they're taking part in.
Click to expand...

Unquestionably - but this isn't the issue. There is also no issue with the judge/s.

The issue is the rule itself (which is ludicrous in most peoples opinion), and in the inconsistency of it's enforcement.
 
Another question. Do the ride judges wear beaglers or proper hats that have passed actual safety standards? Just musing really, if they wear beaglers to ride in I think the perceived risk that a horse might slip if unshod is a null point if you are so dictated to by fashion/tradition that you are unprepared to protect yourself properly whilst riding an unfamiliar horse.

I also agree ith Dry Rot too, who knows whose nose might have been out of joint and had a word to the judges? Showing is fickle, which is why I've never approached it beyond a very amateur level, and then with a sense of humour!
 
I was intending on showing my young CBs as hunters once backed next spring.. They are already entitled to show at County Level in breed classes without shoes.. None of them have ever had a nail near them..

I was upset to read this yesterday as I now feel that I will be excluded from the discipline and level I wanted to compete at as I won't shoe for the sake of a rule based on what a panel of people on a board deem to be desireable or necessary..

I'm quite sad about it..
 
Talking about knowing the rules before partaking in a class, I've competed in WH and showing for years (nothing spectacular) but I have never read a rule book on it. I wouldn't even know where to find the rule book for the SHB?! I would have thought though, that as this class in question (the one the girl was eliminated) was a BHS RC final, surely BRC would have their own rules on it?

At the end of the day, I think as most people feel they know the rules in general that anything different from that which would definately apply to some people should be printed clearly in the schedule. Something as simple as "SHB rule number blah blah will be enforced in this class". Its just uncessesary to not do this and its clearly upset several people on the day (and I imagine many many more in the UK) - its not cheap to compete at Blair either so they lost their entry fee, diesal and stabling to get eliminated (and the costs involved in qualifying). This poor girl who I saw eliminated jumped a really nice clear round, one of very few in the class too. To say its a question of safety is just utterly ridiculous. Loads of people dont wear studs especially for these lower levels and shoes with no studs are often MORE slippy than barefoot!
 
Last edited:
spookypony said:
Sounds like a rule that wasn't terribly well thought out to me, and was possibly enforced in a way never intended by whoever thought it up. Let's hope such a silly rule is soon rescinded. Making shoeing compulsory regardless of need or advisability for a particular animal is surely to be considered a welfare issue, and one that no conscientious farrier could support.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Insisting people bang on shoes for no good reason is clearly not in the best interests of welfare?!

If you want to rule against slipping you have to mention studs and they don't so wtf is the actual point of it? It achieves nothing at all apart from peeing everyone off and ensuring horses which don't need shoes end up in them :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top