Eurodressage being sued by Anky/Sjef

[Isobelleizzy]

AVG actions suggest that she is not comfortable with what she pratices. If there wasn't a problem with rollkur as she implies, and it does no harm to the horse, then whats her problem. Why sue ED? I think its very hypocritical of AVG.

I personally think it is far too extreme a practice and a little horrific, like the anky school of torture or something..... Especially for the prolonged amount of time she/and others use it for. I would not feel comfortable watching or using this method. Other 'top' riders obviously disagree!!

 

[Booboos]

Have a look at the following:

http://horsesanddressage.multiply.c...s_ABUSE---Blue_Tongues_at_World_Cup_Qualifier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UwqyMCr_7c

http://www.gerdheuschmann.com/bdp-spann-lang~en.html

Do you know of any scientific studies published in peer review journals? Surely if rollkur is so harmful it would be really, really easy to come up with evidence.

I can't really draw conclusions on the harmfulness of an activity by merely seeing it practiced, as explained above.

 

[the_sophies]

http://www.be-hippy.nl/paard/rollkur 1.pdf

'During (Rollkur), horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks.'

The author does state that further studies need to assess horses’ reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion.


 

[the_sophies]

To be able to say anything about the long term effects of rollkur, scientists would have to look at a large population of horses which had been subjected to rollkur on a regular basis. And a control group would be needed, consisting of horses of a similar quality, which had never been subjected to any form of unnatural head and neck position during training.



Such a study has never been performed – according to a report on the welfare implications of hyperflexion by Dutch scientist Dr. Kathalijne Visser, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture in 2009, it is due to a lack of funding and suitable horses available to scientists as well as - perhaps more notably: “ethical issues associated with applying aversive procedures in research.” In other words, scientists have trouble finding out whether rollkur is cruel, because it might be too cruel to test it out on living horses.

 

[Isobelleizzy]

Do you know of any scientific studies published in peer review journals? Surely if rollkur is so harmful it would be really, really easy to come up with evidence.

I can't really draw conclusions on the harmfulness of an activity by merely seeing it practiced, as explained above.

Surely though, common sense and a knowledge of ethical horsemanship prevails? If a horse is not moving freely, looks truly uncomfortable and cannot see where it is going demonstrates in itself that it should not be an "excercise" that should be used as AVG promotes?

Its all good and well saying to provide an argument where it is stated that rollkur is harmful, however, provide scientific evidence where it states that rollkur is not harmful when used to the extent that AVG does. Because I surely cannot.

 

[Booboos]

http://www.be-hippy.nl/paard/rollkur 1.pdf

'During (Rollkur), horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks.'

The author does state that further studies need to assess horses’ reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion.


This is a fairly poor study for a number of reasons:
- no double blind controls.
- no control group for no ridden exercise. I wonder if horses got a choice between being ridden and being turned out how many would chose to be ridden and what conclusions one would want to draw from that.
- no accounting for the fact the sudden introduction to rollkur may well be harmful, whereas gradual is not (i.e. because muscles build over time which allow the horse to carry itself in this position)
- even if you ignore all this, the study doesn't really show as what is of interest to a horse is entirely different from what in a horse's interest

 

[Booboos]

To be able to say anything about the long term effects of rollkur, scientists would have to look at a large population of horses which had been subjected to rollkur on a regular basis. And a control group would be needed, consisting of horses of a similar quality, which had never been subjected to any form of unnatural head and neck position during training.



Such a study has never been performed – according to a report on the welfare implications of hyperflexion by Dutch scientist Dr. Kathalijne Visser, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture in 2009, it is due to a lack of funding and suitable horses available to scientists as well as - perhaps more notably: “ethical issues associated with applying aversive procedures in research.” In other words, scientists have trouble finding out whether rollkur is cruel, because it might be too cruel to test it out on living horses.

I completely agree with the first paragraph, although the second one makes no sense. A large number of horses are currently ridden in rollkur, surely it would be easy to obtain statistical data as to the rate of injuries as opposed to other highly trained competition horses. Also, many of Dr H's claims about muscular degeneration and bony growths would be easily proven in post-mortems as well as physiological manipulations.

Seeing as rollkur is already being practiced on living horses and the testing does not impose an additional burden, I don't quite see the ethical problem here (and I am a moral philosopher so ethical problems do tend to stand out for me!).

 

[Booboos]

Surely though, common sense and a knowledge of ethical horsemanship prevails? If a horse is not moving freely, looks truly uncomfortable and cannot see where it is going demonstrates in itself that it should not be an "excercise" that should be used as AVG promotes?

Its all good and well saying to provide an argument where it is stated that rollkur is harmful, however, provide scientific evidence where it states that rollkur is not harmful when used to the extent that AVG does. Because I surely cannot.

"Cannot see where it is going" is a physical claim which you should be able to prove. "Not moving freely, looks truly uncomfortable" - not everyone agrees with you here and certainly not the FEI or international judges. And if this doesn't convince you just look at the huge differences in opinion about a horse's way of going between the most respected riders, judges and trainers - when there is so much disagreement on such a subjective topic someone's view is not sufficient evidence. Afterall PETA thinks that all riding looks uncomfortable and harmful to horses, but we don't really want to rely on that do we?

You do not need to show that something is not harmful in order to do it, if that was the case, we would hardly be able to do anything. You do need to show that something is harmful in order to ban it though! The burden of proof is with those who wish to restrict the activity.

 

[the_sophies]

- no control group for no ridden exercise. I wonder if horses got a choice between being ridden and being turned out how many would chose to be ridden and what conclusions one would want to draw from that.

There was no need for a control group for no ridden exercise because the study was an attempt to investigate whether or not horses had an aversion to Rollkur. The purpose was not to discover whether horses had an aversion to ridden exercise; while I suspect that such a study would have interesting results, I'm not sure that they would be relevant to this argument. The point is that the horses exhibited a fear/pain response when ridden in Rollkur.

I can't imagine that anyone openly admitting to riding in Rollkur for extended periods of time would agree to their horses being used in scientific studies of it's ill-effects. Such studies have the potential to destroy their professional career. However, I could be wrong!

Purely for interest value:
http://www.classicalriding.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=291

The FEI state that the dressage horse should be 'a happy athlete':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo8W2fUjdM4

I do accept that, for a horse to compete at this level, not all of his training will be 'enjoyable' from his point of view. What I do find unacceptable is the apparent open disregard for the horse's welfare.

 

[the_sophies]

BHS Release Further Statement.

"As the debate over the use of hyperflexion as a training technique continues, The British Horse Society’s policy may be stated as follows:

The British Horse Society strongly recommends that all riders training horses on the flat and over fences should adhere to the official instruction handbook of the German National Equestrian Federation. Whilst we appreciate that horses are as individual as humans, and that some may require corrective schooling, the BHS’s stand on hyperflexion (by which we mean the extreme flexion of the horse’s head and neck beyond normal limits) remains clear: it is an unacceptable method of training horses by any rider for any length of time.

We recognise that the scientific evidence is conflicting, and likely to remain so as each party seeks determinedly to prove its case. For this reason we doubt that science will ever provide a single, clear, unambiguous and unarguable answer. It therefore falls to humans to do what the horses cannot, namely to follow the precautionary principle: as nature provides no evidence of horses choosing to move in hyperflexion for an extended period of time; and as hyperflexion can create tension in the horse’s neck and back which has no justifying necessity; and as the horse in hyperflexion is, by definition, unable fully to use its neck; and as the psychological consequences of such treatment remain latent (perhaps in an analogous position with horses which are whipped aggressively but which can still pass a five star vetting), we should take all appropriate steps to discourage the use of this training technique, for the horse’s sake."

 

[Over2You]

Why all these studies? Why waste all that time and money when all they need to do is have their chin pinned to their chest, have their tongue flattened to the point of its blood supply being cut-off, and then try and walk and jog about the place. They'd be quick enough to ban it then!!

 

[brighteyes]

Luckily we don't have to only rely on one photo; there's tons of them and a video or 2 too

I think you mean Sadly, not Luckily...

 

[spaniel]

QR.


Why do I feel as though I am banging my head on a wall when it comes to rolkur. Its flippin' obvious isnt it????....If you stretch a ligament/tendon/muscle etc beyond its range for long enough and put enough strain on it its going to break in some way. Why can nobody see this????

It seems to me that there is a worrying lack of basic anatomy/physiology knowledge amongst the large proportion of horse riders both here and in general (and no I wont apologise for that comment - I stand by it).

 

[Isobelleizzy]

QR.


Why do I feel as though I am banging my head on a wall when it comes to rolkur. Its flippin' obvious isnt it????....If you stretch a ligament/tendon/muscle etc beyond its range for long enough and put enough strain on it its going to break in some way. Why can nobody see this????

It seems to me that there is a worrying lack of basic anatomy/physiology knowledge amongst the large proportion of horse riders both here and in general (and no I wont apologise for that comment - I stand by it).

Agreed!

 

[Isobelleizzy]

You do not need to show that something is not harmful in order to do it, if that was the case, we would hardly be able to do anything. You do need to show that something is harmful in order to ban it though! The burden of proof is with those who wish to restrict the activity.

Surely though, with such a high profile case as this, and the effects of rollkur being so questionable. It is up to the supporters and those who use it to prove the non believers wrong. Like with any debate, you need to see both sides. If it's as fabulous as you are claiming it to be why have the fei and bhs had their own investigations and neither with a truly positive outcome? However, whether you like it or not, there is far more substantial and scientific evidence to demonstrate the negetive effects.

Even if rollkur was to be banned there is no effective method to restrict it's use away from a competition environment.

 

[Onyxia]

QR.


Why do I feel as though I am banging my head on a wall when it comes to rolkur. Its flippin' obvious isnt it????....If you stretch a ligament/tendon/muscle etc beyond its range for long enough and put enough strain on it its going to break in some way. Why can nobody see this????

It seems to me that there is a worrying lack of basic anatomy/physiology knowledge amongst the large proportion of horse riders both here and in general (and no I wont apologise for that comment - I stand by it).

How wonderfully put!
I wrestled when younger. To get someone to tap out (ie hurt them enough they give up) we used hyper flexion and hyper extension-it is not difficult to see that stretching or flexing a piece of the body beyound it's norm is dangerous and painfull.

 

[Booboos]

http://www.be-hippy.nl/paard/rollkur 1.pdf

'During (Rollkur), horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks.'

The author does state that further studies need to assess horses’ reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion.

Unfortunately I can't see the link but Occam's razor would suggest here that it is the coercively and sudden nature of the study that caused the reaction rather than the position.

 

[Booboos]

There was no need for a control group for no ridden exercise because the study was an attempt to investigate whether or not horses had an aversion to Rollkur. The purpose was not to discover whether horses had an aversion to ridden exercise; while I suspect that such a study would have interesting results, I'm not sure that they would be relevant to this argument. The point is that the horses exhibited a fear/pain response when ridden in Rollkur.

I can't imagine that anyone openly admitting to riding in Rollkur for extended periods of time would agree to their horses being used in scientific studies of it's ill-effects. Such studies have the potential to destroy their professional career. However, I could be wrong!

Purely for interest value:
http://www.classicalriding.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=291

The FEI state that the dressage horse should be 'a happy athlete':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo8W2fUjdM4

I do accept that, for a horse to compete at this level, not all of his training will be 'enjoyable' from his point of view. What I do find unacceptable is the apparent open disregard for the horse's welfare.

You don't chose your control group in a study based on what you want to study, you chose it to ensure that the results you get are accurate. You need a control group in order to observe behaviour independent of the characteristic you are seeking to study, otherwise it's very difficult to determine what is the result of the characteristic and what would have occured anyway. Hence the speculation that horses may have chosen not to be ridden at all, which would invalidate the results of the study. Studies must be designed to prove their conclusions not assume them.

If this is a welfare issue you need to be able to show the harm.

 

[Booboos]

Why all these studies? Why waste all that time and money when all they need to do is have their chin pinned to their chest, have their tongue flattened to the point of its blood supply being cut-off, and then try and walk and jog about the place. They'd be quick enough to ban it then!!

Good idea! I thought I would ease myself into it so I started with some piaffe and passage, progressed to canter pirouettes, but now my back is out and I can't move! I am beginning to think my body wasn't really designed to be a horse...

 

[Booboos]

QR.


Why do I feel as though I am banging my head on a wall when it comes to rolkur. Its flippin' obvious isnt it????....If you stretch a ligament/tendon/muscle etc beyond its range for long enough and put enough strain on it its going to break in some way. Why can nobody see this????

It seems to me that there is a worrying lack of basic anatomy/physiology knowledge amongst the large proportion of horse riders both here and in general (and no I wont apologise for that comment - I stand by it).

You appear to be claiming that rollkur leads to broken ligaments, tendons and muscles. This is a very serious welfare claim, but luckily really, really easy to verify. Would you care to share with us the evidence that led you to it (other than 'flippin' obvious' and common sense please, torn ligaments, tendons and muscles do not need common sense they can be perfectly well diagnosed).

Many who are critical of rollkur, like Phillipe Karl and Dr H, practice Baucher flexions. Could you please explain why it's not equally flippin' obvious that stretching the same ligaments/tendons/muscles sideways rather than downwads is absolutely no problem? To be fair my knowledge of equine anatomy/physiology is almost non-existent, but please feel free to share yours.

 

[Booboos]

Surely though, with such a high profile case as this, and the effects of rollkur being so questionable. It is up to the supporters and those who use it to prove the non believers wrong. Like with any debate, you need to see both sides. If it's as fabulous as you are claiming it to be why have the fei and bhs had their own investigations and neither with a truly positive outcome? However, whether you like it or not, there is far more substantial and scientific evidence to demonstrate the negetive effects.

Even if rollkur was to be banned there is no effective method to restrict it's use away from a competition environment.

If you want to restrict someone's liberty the onus is on you to provide the evidence. How high profile the activity may be is irrelevant.

If you claim that something is harmful you should provide the evidence for it as this is your claim. If the harm is there it should be easy to point to its effects.

Feel free to point me to the scientific evidence.

I never said that rollkur is fabulous or even any good. You claimed it was not, please provide evidence for your claim. You can't expect me to provide support for a position I do not hold, while entirely failing to provide any support for yours.

 

[Saucisson]

If you stretch a ligament/tendon/muscle etc beyond its range for long enough and put enough strain on it its going to break in some way. Why can nobody see this????

Like ballet dancers, gymnasts, martial artists and many other top athletes? I read somewhere once that the difference between being good at sport and being a winner is the ability to resist pain. I'll happily stay at the bottom of the pile then

I don't know too much about Rollkur, OH does do some flexion exercises for short periods of time with ours but I'm not sure that it's "Rollkur" as such. I do think it is now a label for certain training practices that some people take too far.

OH also does "horse yoga" with his mare to help her recover after hard work which I thinks rather nice and she certainly enjoys it.

 

[falaise]

Just have to say this thread made fascinating reading! Well researched for both sides with some pretty convincing arguments!!!

I personally don't agree with Rollkur. But I probably do things that other people would not agree with. I back my youngsters at 3. Some people do it at 2, or 4, or even 5. All do it in different ways. Horses, like people, are individuals and must be treated as such. Noone really knows what horses feel during Rollkur as, as has been pointed out, we are not in any way anatomically similar to horses. It looks to me to be horribly uncomfortable, and I have always been encouraged to keep my horses soft and round, not force them into maybe unnatural positions.

Have learnt a lot since joining the H&H forums, thanks everyone, why didn't I join sooner?!

 

[the_sophies]

You don't chose your control group in a study based on what you want to study, you chose it to ensure that the results you get are accurate. You need a control group in order to observe behaviour independent of the characteristic you are seeking to study, otherwise it's very difficult to determine what is the result of the characteristic and what would have occured anyway. Hence the speculation that horses may have chosen not to be ridden at all, which would invalidate the results of the study. Studies must be designed to prove their conclusions not assume them.

If this is a welfare issue you need to be able to show the harm.

I agree with the first part of your statement. However, to propose that we might investigate the effects of rollkur using 'turned out horses' as a control
group is ludicrous. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether horses had an aversion to being ridden in rollkur, as opposed to not being ridden in rollkur. So the control group consisted of horses being ridden without hyperflexion of the neck. The issue is not whether horses would prefer to be turned out or ridden.

The harm, to my mind, is evident in pictures and videos of horses being ridden in rollkur. It is my opinion that anyone who has even a slight knowledge of the mechanics of the horse can see that these animals are working under extreme stress.

I think it's easy to see which horse is happier in his work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzG-0TyTuMs&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSVmnHm9tQg&feature=related

Perhaps I am too easily convinced? Yet definitively proving it to be harmful, in the form of post mortem evidence, would merely illustrate further the pain and stress horses are willing to put up with for our benefit. Personally, I don't feel like I need to see any further evidence of that.

 

[Burnttoast]

Many who are critical of rollkur, like Phillipe Karl and Dr H, practice Baucher flexions. Could you please explain why it's not equally flippin' obvious that stretching the same ligaments/tendons/muscles sideways rather than downwads is absolutely no problem? To be fair my knowledge of equine anatomy/physiology is almost non-existent, but please feel free to share yours.

I'm certainly not an expert (on anything much!) but I was under the impression that one of the main problems with rollkur as it's perceived by many people is not that it is beyond the horse's normal range of movement, but that many horses appear to be ridden in it for such long periods (even up to entire sessions, including all the movements, not just the thirty-second stretch that an athlete might perform for a specific purpose). Surely any type of flexion for suppling purposes should be of brief duration, or no strengthening can result, other than by the horse bracing itself against the stretch? As far as the use of Baucher flexions is concerned, you don't tend to see horses being ridden simultaneously in, for example, piaffe and an extreme lateral flexion, as has been documented for rollkur and the higher-level movements.

I've heard rollkur explained by an experienced professional dressage rider in a candid moment as a means mainly to improve *submission* (in the dictionary sense, not the 'happy athlete' sense) in hot, big-moving modern warmblood horses. Not suppleness, note! My own feelings about that are that since we (in a general sense) have managed to breed horses of such immense athletic ability and power it is also our duty to raise our riding ability to meet the horse, not the other way around (or perhaps to settle for not always demanding every inch of what the horse is capable of producing). Perhaps it's breeding practices that need some attention too?

 

[Booboos]

I agree with the first part of your statement. However, to propose that we might investigate the effects of rollkur using 'turned out horses' as a control
group is ludicrous. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether horses had an aversion to being ridden in rollkur, as opposed to not being ridden in rollkur. So the control group consisted of horses being ridden without hyperflexion of the neck. The issue is not whether horses would prefer to be turned out or ridden.

The harm, to my mind, is evident in pictures and videos of horses being ridden in rollkur.

I'm sorry, I am not explaining myself well here. So this study looks into whether horses have an aversion to being ridden in rollkur, and if they do presumably we will conclude that they shouldn't be ridden in rollkur. If there was a no ridding control group this would check whether horses also have an aversion to being ridden, and by the same logic we should conclude that horses should not be ridden at all.

Fair enough, it also seems to be evident to a lot of other people. This is perfectly acceptable for making up one's own mind about rollkur, but it's not acceptable for banning it. After all PETA members think that all riding is evidently harmful simply by looking at it and this is a perfectly acceptable reason for not riding themselves, but not good enough for stopping us from riding.

 

[FrodoBeutlin]

I'm certainly not an expert (on anything much!) but I was under the impression that one of the main problems with rollkur as it's perceived by many people is not that it is beyond the horse's normal range of movement, but that many horses appear to be ridden in it for such long periods (even up to entire sessions, including all the movements, not just the thirty-second stretch that an athlete might perform for a specific purpose). Surely any type of flexion for suppling purposes should be of brief duration, or no strengthening can result, other than by the horse bracing itself against the stretch? As far as the use of Baucher flexions is concerned, you don't tend to see horses being ridden simultaneously in, for example, piaffe and an extreme lateral flexion, as has been documented for rollkur and the higher-level movements.

I've heard rollkur explained by an experienced professional dressage rider in a candid moment as a means mainly to improve *submission* (in the dictionary sense, not the 'happy athlete' sense) in hot, big-moving modern warmblood horses. Not suppleness, note! My own feelings about that are that since we (in a general sense) have managed to breed horses of such immense athletic ability and power it is also our duty to raise our riding ability to meet the horse, not the other way around (or perhaps to settle for not always demanding every inch of what the horse is capable of producing). Perhaps it's breeding practices that need some attention too?

This is a lot of sense.

But what I'd like to know is, was there such an uproar when AVG & SJ sued St Georg, which is a magazine with far more history and prestige than the Eurodressage website, for their Dressur Pervers article? (I can't remember to be honest, maybe there was).

 

[Halfstep]

This is a lot of sense.

But what I'd like to know is, was there such an uproar when AVG & SJ sued St Georg, which is a magazine with far more history and prestige than the Eurodressage website, for their Dressur Pervers article? (I can't remember to be honest, maybe there was).

There was a lot of fuss about it then, and for a lot of people it was the first time the whole idea of Rollkur came onto their radar. For what its worth, that article in St. Georg was far, far more damning than anything Astrid has written. The issue now is that the FEI has said that Rollkur is not allowed, but has not defined it. So to accuse Anky of Rollkur is to say she's breaking the FEI rules, but no one knows what Rollkur is in the eyes of the FEI, so it is a massive great mess (surprise, surprise).

 

[Mearas]

I have only just picked up this thread and really enjoyed the level of debate. One thing I have never had explained to me and I would really really like to understand is what AVG refers to as a Competition Outline, I have no idea what this is?

 

[spaniel]

Booboos I feel a good starting point would be if you spent some time aquainting yourself with how the horses body works. Until then I dont think we have much common ground so any time spent by me here in stating my case is probably either wasted or lost on you.