Patrick Kittell..

[I love my Spanish horse]

I had a horse who was an old hunter of mine. He was a fantastic character and if he'd been human would have been a comedian.
I remember one summer evening he was in the field in front of the house and decided he'd go through the whole gambit of dressage moves. He was 28 at the time and did all this on his own for the fun of it. He looked a million dollars.
That's what its about, all horses can do the moves, of course they can, they don't need showing how to do it.
The skill is getting them to do it on REQUEST, that's the key word, you will never get a decent dressage test by force, ever. You cannot breed it in either, warmbloods are just carriage horses, of course they can do the moves but so can every other breed.
Anyway, with Carl Hester's success, hopefully the European style of training through force, fear and restriction of movement and playing out time will be a thing of the past.
Trainers will be falling over themselves to do things Carl's way, shallow as we all are. Hopefully things will improve for the horse.

/\/\/\this/\/\/\

You cannot force a horse to do these movements, what you can do with rolkur is pull the horses head into an uncomfortable and unnatural position, which would subsequently make the rest of the horses muscles have to work harder to componsate for this and surely be at greater risk of injury. You try running for 10 minutes with your chin strapped to your chest, i bet everything will be hurting like hell by the end of it and im sure after a prolonged periods youd be more likely to have an injury of sorts than the person that ran normally. Of course horses can get injured doing dressage of any level, as with sj, racing, happyhacking or just hooning round the field. Horses are not machines and we cant wrap them in cotton wool, but what we shouldnt do is make there working lives as uncomfortable as possible in order to cut corners in training and score extra marks

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

please note my acknowledgement of the importance of training, in my previous post - "schooled to exhibit those paces" - but I maintain that the excessive range of movement you describe are inherited. They are not forced to perform them, they are bred to do so and encouraged by their training. Completely different to rollkur.

I know all this I was trying to say it but didnt word it well. I know rolkur is different but the damage on the tissue and muscle build up is similar. I study it, I should know.

I dont get why people always shoot those who look into this kind of thing down. We are meant to be researching ways for you to get the best out your horses while keeping injury rates down. I understand the physiological and bio mechanical strains these horses go through during training and competition, not just dressage horses, but all elite competition horses.

They may be bred to move that way, doesnt make it natural, its selective breeding. So while they horse moves that way genetically, doesnt mean its body has fully caught up to cope with the stresses that this bring.

Im not saying it wrong, I love competing and I am all for breeding top competition horses but rolkur is just a different approach to getting top scores from horses. I am also not saying rolkur is right either..... I am looking from an on the bench scientific perspective. I dont care if its how it moves by itself or under saddle or what your horses do, none of that affects the bio mechanical mechanisms of the horses body

If that makes sense this time?

 

[Jesstickle]

I think, badgermyers, with the greatest of respect, that the literature pertaining to rollkur has been thoroughly discussed already in the thread. Unless you happen to have a relevant study you would like to share with us about the bio mechanics of rollkur that we have all missed somehow I'm not sure you have any more evidence than the rest of us?



Also, I wouldn't argue with JFTD about genetics. Just a heads up

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

I think, badgermyers, with the greatest of respect, that the literature pertaining to rollkur has been thoroughly discussed already in the thread. Unless you happen to have a relevant study you would like to share with us about the bio mechanics of rollkur that we have all missed somehow I'm not sure you have any more evidence than the rest of us?

Also, I wouldn't argue with JFTD about genetics. Just a heads up

I am not arguing anything :S I dont think people understand me. I do think rolkur is wrong, I am just pointing out any sport puts strain on the body that can cause discomfort or injury.

I dont have to present studies what I am saying was just a simple thing to consider. Not an argument, I dont do arguing over forums but I do enjoy putting some of my degree and study into conversations if relevant.

That is all I was trying to say in a rather long winded way :s

I can see why people dont post on here Its quite sad

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Also I havnt read the whole thread as I have been busy today. I am sorry

 

[Jesstickle]

O golly. Ok. Go and read the whole thread. It has almost exclusively been about what does and doesn't constitute scientific evidence...

ETS: that and a bit of philosophy. The philosophy part is really rather interesting

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Fair enough. I cant be bothered now to read it as I must go finish the horses off. I appreciate it may say the same as me but I didnt realise that if I repeated it I would be shot down.


Enjoy your debates and your evenings I shall only read next time

 

[Jesstickle]

It doesn't say the same as you.

 

[ichliebepferd]

There's a reason I won't support the Dutch or the Germans et al in competitive dressage. In fact, I'm not comfortable watching a lot of the horses on show today, if I'm honest.

I am sorry, but I am slightly offended by this.
I currently live and train in Germany, and although I have never trained in the UK or in the Netherlands, I can say please do not tie us all with the same brush!

There are many things I don't agree with, but there is the good the bad and the ugly in every horse 'world' or country.

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Okay I am misunderstood then. I shall go back and tell my degree it was a waste of time (which tbh it is!)

I just thought I could add some light/knowledge to those who care.

I know my degree is a pile as in the real equine world (I run my own business along side uni) half what I learn people dont give two tosses about, right or wrong!

I just try to be helpful on situations and give my educated opinion.

Dont want falling out I just dont get why people get defensive about a topic and dont let other people have their say

 

[Jesstickle]

You can have your say. You can think what you want. You can say what you want. It's nothing to do with me. But, as I said, in a thread which is all about what constitutes real, solid, scientific evidence, you can't say 'I study it so I know' and not cop flak. Fair enough, you haven't read the whole thing, that's up to you too but you know how it is on here. This things go off on tangents and often the thread swings onto something it was never about. This is one of those and if you choose not to read a long thread you risk saying something that seems a bit weird to those who have followed it start to finish.

Anyway, who cares because team GB won anyway

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Haha I didnt say I know I said I study it, and study using the papers mentioned (just had a quick flick back) Im not sure there is any solid evidence yet as with many things, very debatable still!

The only thing I think solidly doesnt work is magnetic therapy! But thats another thread

Anyway we did win and it was great

Fingers crossed for individual show jumping tomorrow

 

[Jesstickle]

Would love for Nick Skelton to win it.

 

[Nightmare before Christmas]

Yes my money is on him too!

 

[JFTDWS]

I know all this I was trying to say it but didnt word it well. I know rolkur is different but the damage on the tissue and muscle build up is similar. I study it, I should know.

I dont get why people always shoot those who look into this kind of thing down. We are meant to be researching ways for you to get the best out your horses while keeping injury rates down. I understand the physiological and bio mechanical strains these horses go through during training and competition, not just dressage horses, but all elite competition horses.

They may be bred to move that way, doesnt make it natural, its selective breeding. So while they horse moves that way genetically, doesnt mean its body has fully caught up to cope with the stresses that this bring.

Im not saying it wrong, I love competing and I am all for breeding top competition horses but rolkur is just a different approach to getting top scores from horses. I am also not saying rolkur is right either..... I am looking from an on the bench scientific perspective. I dont care if its how it moves by itself or under saddle or what your horses do, none of that affects the bio mechanical mechanisms of the horses body

If that makes sense this time?

For heavens sake. I used to work at the RVC, yes in equine molecular medicine, very vaguely speaking. I do NOT, and have never said anything against equine scientific research.

My issues have been with your logic and your (slightly wild) scientific assertions. You are not tackling this from a scientific perspective - you're tackling it from a very dodgy scientific perspective which leads me to assume you are very, very early on in any scientific career you have.

 

[JFTDWS]

I am sorry, but I am slightly offended by this.
I currently live and train in Germany, and although I have never trained in the UK or in the Netherlands, I can say please do not tie us all with the same brush!

There are many things I don't agree with, but there is the good the bad and the ugly in every horse 'world' or country.

Please don't be offended - I was referring to those on the international scene, who as far as I'm aware have all been associated with rollkur. I am equally against riders from any country who use rollkur and if I knew a German dressge rider whose style and training methods I agreed with, I wouldn't have made such a sweeping statement.


I love Arthur Kottas. He's Austrian, but he's the closest I can think of off the top of my head

 

[Booboos]

Great result Team GB! What a day!

And nothing tops of a world-beating record than a bit of philosophy, so allow me to harp on!

jesstickle: on the question of the law's extent in limiting matters of personal morality the choice is pretty much between Hart (liberals) and Devlin (an actual term doesn't really exist here, perhaps the social cohesiveness argument?)

BeesKnees: there are three separate questions/areas of questions here (in philosophy understanding the question is often the most important bit and often no one gets round to considering answers):

1. A question of metaethics: what is the nature of moral truth? If you think moral truth exists you are an objectivist. Examples of objectivist theories include deontologists, consequentialists, virtue ethicists, etc. If you think moral truth does not exist you are a relativist (examples include emotivists, subjectivists).

2. A question of moral theory: Deontologists argue that the right action is the one that proceeds from the right motive (the motive of duty). Consequentialists argue that the right action is the one that results in the best consequences (Utilitarians define 'best' consequences as those which bring about the greatest amount of utility for the greatest number). Virtue ethicists argue that it's all about having the right character rather than concentrating on right actions. Emotivists argue that morality is mere expressions of moral sentiments, the 'boo - hurrah' theory of morality. Subjectivists also argue that moral judgements describe how we feel.

3. There is a particular debate about the extent to which the law (rules, restrictions and regulations) should limit morality and the expression of personal liberties. This is where Hart and Devlin developped their arguments. This debate can perhaps be characterised as a question in applied ethics.

So we have the three areas of moral philosophy, metaethics, moral philosophy and applied ethics.



BTW I was briefly the most famous philosopher rider, until Laura B did her degree in philosophy and politics at Bristol! My only claim to fame ruined!

 

[Jesstickle]

I think I must be a Devlin then

Thanks Booboos. It's all very interesting

 

[tallyho!]

Ewwwww.... my head's just exploded into my coffee.................... it's all over me iPad an'all.

 

[SusannaF]

Bloody hell, Booboos. I haven't even had my tea yet.

 

[Booboos]

On further reflection I retract the word 'proof' from the earlier post on the success of rollkur, can I replace it with 'some evidence'?

Never too early for philosophy!

 

[camilla4]

On further reflection I retract the word 'proof' from the earlier post on the success of rollkur, can I replace it with 'some evidence'?

Never too early for philosophy!

'course you can! That was what I felt was appropriate - in all other respects, I agree with much of what you say and have been fascinated by the philosophical discussions. As a scientist by academic achievement, philosophy is a new field for me

 

[RuthM]

On further reflection I retract the word 'proof' from the earlier post on the success of rollkur, can I replace it with 'some evidence'?

Never too early for philosophy!

Absolutely.

My issue with the 'evidence' is based on the abundance of confounding variables. In assessing any world class competition horse it is nigh on impossible to extract a single part from the mix that creates success, more so in competition where 'judgement' has a strong element of opinion.

*Rollkur is not used to the exception of all else, in other words it is not the entirety of the training and therefore, unless all elements in each horse being compared are accurately known AND the balance in terms of time and degree to which each element is used, the success of the mix cannot demonstrate efficiency of any single training element in isolation.

*Cultural factors will exist, they pretty much always do, before a conclusion as to the validity and reliability of evidence one would need to check that rollkur isn't skewed in it's use amongst say the wealthiest which would impact on the quality of horses bought. In fact one would need to make sure there is no other clear difference in this group which has led to more frequent use of rollkur and could explain success. If use is statistically different in distinct groups such as nations, then other differences from fodder to turnout between those groups needs to be taken into account.

*Judges bias would need to be accounted for. If (no idea whether this is true) a significant proportion of dressage judges approve of rollkur and feel it is under attack they may (with or without cognisance) mark those who publicly defend and use it higher than those against.

*We have almost no data re the extent to which it's used, daily, monthly, for 5 mins or 2 hours, there's no means to gain this data across large enough number to test statistically whether differences are by chance - and that's even if the above points were accounted for first.

That last point, the numbers needed to produce a study and the accuracy needed regarding extent of use, in and of itself has a profound effect on the levels of data regarding the impact of rollkur. For example a horseman wishing to disguise the harm may claim rollkur is used for an hour a day when in reality it's being done for 10 minutes once a week - if that volunteer believes that 10 minutes is vital then they are motivated to cook the books. Of course one could argue that the answer is to apply rollkur just for study in horses kept by the researcher, but the number needed in order to show statistical significance where there are considerable numbers of variables (breeding, age, lifestyle, other aspects of training, judges bias) are huge. No matter how long vets may have known of an issue it's factors like the above that can determine what data exists, more so than actual existence of effect when dealing out in the real world, away from controlled labs.

Back to underpants! Summer bum may make you wriggle and squirm, changing pants to cotton may stop this and the horse may go better. Changing a saddle for one the horse moves freely in can cut the effort required to move the horse forward, in turn this may reduce sweat (old enough to remember when nigh on all jods were nylon?), the new saddle may improve the summer bum! However, realistically, yes the saddle probably improves the horse and the pants probably improve the bum. This is more likely, not proven but more likely.

So on to rollkur, what is likely to be felt in a horse's mouth held so tightly that the chin is forced to the chest? We know there are nerve endings in a horses mouth. Horses, like us, are mammals, as such we have some shared concept of what mouth might (probably) feel like. We are able to use biology of sight to determine whether a horse in rollkur is able to see. We are able to ask human subjects, even athletes, what it feels like to hyperflex muscles. There is of course the chance that it feels radically different to a horse, but we are talking about which is most probable rather than what is certain. We know with certainty that horses are prey animals, in turn that lead to probable conclusion re the psychological impact of losing vision, and having a head effectively tied to the chest.

So quick flip back to philosophy. What is the stance when the balance of probability (in the absence of proof), suggests that harm is highly likely? Couple that with the absolute lack of consent and a democratic wish to avoid the probability of harm - in that circumstance do you not think it reasonable for a group to act to reduce the reasonable likelihood of significant harm?

 

[Kittykins]

Ruth, in reply to your post (which I won't quote for reasons of brevity), what would you be trying to prove here? That rollkur is cruel, or that it's effective?

[QUOTE _GG_]How could the commentators not be rapturous over a three time Olympic Gold Medalist without getting into the whole debate. They are commentating to a much wider audience than just the horse world.

As for the judges, no, I don't think they liked what they saw. Her test was almost faultless in its execution. As the untrained eyes of my other half said...it looked much better than the tests in the first group this morning...but she got a 74 and Carl Hester got an 80.

If Anky is a three time Gold medalist, and she uses rollkur, then clearly it is a method which can produce results in the ring. Or at the very least, she feels it is, when thrown into the mix with things like the horse's breed and general care and training.

If it's now NOT producing results because of a change in fashion towards a more natural way of going, then it will fall out of favour because the horse's way of going under those riders who use it won't catch the judge's eye. And hoorah for that.

Ultimately, what Ruth has said is that it's very difficult to prove anything about the effectiveness of rollkur because you can't seperate it from other variables in the real world. Scientific practice does have it's limits! Therefore it's always going to be a subjective issue - if people feel that using it produces a way of going that's likely to win they'll use it, and if they don't they wont.

I'm fully with Hart on the liberal / social thing. Unless someone is clearly causing harm to another being, let them do what they will.

 

[RuthM]

Ruth, in reply to your post (which I won't quote for reasons of brevity), what would you be trying to prove here? That rollkur is cruel, or that it's effective?

I would not be so ill educated to seek to prove anything with regard to a single training method applied so diversely and so utterly impossible to isolate. In fact what I am arguing is that where proof, or even reliably controlled evidence, is so ludicrously implausible one must look at probability, what is the probable experience of a horse undergoing such force through it's mouth as to bind it's chin to chest?

I am also arguing that it is reasonable for a group of people to exclude such a practice from the sport in which that group indulges. This is not about human rights, excluding rollkur from affiliated sport does not equal making it illegal, it does not prevent the practice it merely clarifies that as a group those choosing to affiliate with governing bodies who have decided it is outside their rules thereby break those rules if they continue the practice. I am also defending the right of a group to evaluate the way animals are treated for their own sport, and to be allowed to take reasonable account of probability in the absence of availability of 'proof', in fact I would argue that to not do so would be remiss in regard to a duty of care.

I believe a more compelling case would need to be made in order to make the practice 'illegal' - but that is totally my opinion, not a statement of fact.

Are you still unclear?

 

[Kittykins]

Nope, got it now. I completely concur.

 

[RuthM]

Nope, got it now. I completely concur.

Phew!

 

[Stilldreamin']

Just had to say that I was most amused at the comments during Mr Kittels freestyle today- our commentator noted that the horse was lacking in self carriage and leaning on his forehand quite a bit... wonder why eh?!

 

[inamac]

Wow, I only just signed up and my word what a start, lol.

Rollkur will continue to be used as long as the judges award high scores to those that use it. So, instead of focussing on the negatives, focus on the fact that the judges at London 2012 are marking these tests brilliantly. They are marking up for correctness and marking down for horses going behind the vertical, showing tension, poor angles etc. THAT is what will make the Rollkur users change their training methods!

So, that's my first post on these forums over with. Hello everyone

GG, welcome from another new member.

I do agree. It was judges who started rewarding the 'rollkur outline', and it is judges like those at 2012 who have the ultimate power to discourage its use.

More power to them.

 

[Booboos]

There were quite a few rollkur horses at the Olympics, Salinero, Parcival, Painted Black, Undercover, Scandic, to name but the ones I know and I am hardly in the know about people's training methods, but I don't think they all had the same way of going or the same strengths/weaknesses.

Presuming the classical breeds were trained classically then not even Fuego (a bit tense at first but getting better and better), Grandioso (nothing to write home about in this company) or Rubi (frequently BTV especially in his GP) had the same way of going or the same strengths/weaknesses.