Patrick Kittell..

[Booboos]

So basicly dont think for yourself wait until an expert tells you what to think!!!!

As a professional philosopher my entirely life is dedicated to reasoning and helping others reason. I can't think what basis you would have for making the above claim, it doesn't seem to relate to anything I have said.

 

[Vizslak]

booboos, to liken Rollkur to racism or homophobia is ridiculous IMO. The rest of us could just as easily flip that on its head and use it comparitively for our view but to do so is rather crass.
Purely, objectively, it is banned, to use it is cheating/unsportmanlike/rule flouting, therefore no matter what your stance on whether it should or shouldnt be FEI banned from a scientific view or any other is irrelevant. Kittel, and others using the technique in the warm up should have been disqualified or heavily penalised for their blatent disregard of the rules they know are in place.

 

[Jesstickle]

Anky et al have proved the efficacy of the technique through their success, their horses tend to do very well, they also tend to have long careers and not seem to suffer from any problems, not any more than horses in general. How much more positive proof do you need?

I think perhaps you don't understand scientific evidence as well as you purport if you think that anecdotal evidence from a totally non controlled environment counts as a significant result.

 

[Booboos]

Let me elaborate my reasoning as I was on my phone earlier but I'm not ensconced safely in the lab and can type a bit easier.

I work at a diagnostics company.We have a new technology my CEO invented. We think it's really neat, better than what is out there at the moment. That's our gut instinct from working with it every day.

However, before we are allowed to go forth and tell the world to use our test and sell it to people we have to, rightly, prove our gut feeling is correct. There is potential harm involved ( someone might get the wrong diagnosis and receive delayed or no treatment) so we have to go through clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety.

In the world you propose Booboos, we could sell our test, confidently assuring people it works a treat and there is chance of us getting it wrong. And it would be up to the rest of the world to prove that wasn't the case. Doesn't that seem a little off to you? Imagine if we were wrong; the consequences whilst we waited for someone somewhere to decide it was worth their while to do a study in to it.

Lets try another one. A doctor somewhere thinks it would be beneficial to all children to remove half of one of their legs at birth. That's his theory. Lets imagine he has a reasonably sound reason for thinking this. Do we just let him go off and do this or do we impose rules on him? Do we ask him to provide a reason for his thinking, if we can see merit in his thought process he then has to ask us permission to perform a trial which is strictly regulated and present the data to us. The onus is his to prove this theory is right. We don't wait for the rest of the world to be so horrified they prove him wrong.

That is how science works. We aren't talking about someone's innate sexuality or race, which they have no choice in, we're talking about someone's theory they have concocted. They are two very fundamentally different things and you can't possibly say singling someone out for something they can not possibly change about themselves is the same as singling someone out for a belief they hold. If you want to make it about science that's up to you.

I just object to an obvious breach of rules, as previously mentioned

What I have said has none of the above implications.

Let me try explaining the argument one more time:
In a free society people should have the freedom to do as they please with themselves and with consenting others. The only limit to such freedom is where it affects others, and the effect has to be significant, e.g. substantial harm. For liberals, as long as choice is free, individuals can do whatever they like to themselves, i.e. expose themselves to risk (e.g. riding), expose themselves to harm (e.g. S&M) or even extreme and irreversible harm (e.g. suicide). They cannot, however, cause harm to non-consenting others, so my liberty does not extend to harming you. Harm is interpreted as substantial physical or emotional harm and not mere offence or disgust. This reasoning has been used in the UK to de-criminalise prostitution and homosexuality, which is why I referred to these kinds of examples.

If one wishes to restrict an activity one needs to prove that it is harmful. There is no evidence whatsoever that rollkur is harmful other than people's upset feelings, despite the fact that this question has been in the air for a while and a number of vets have considered it. Therefore there are no grounds to restrict the practice of rollkur.

Your example of diagnostic intervention involves the introduction of an unknown factor into health care. Clinical trials are appropriate in order to establish whether this is indeed a health care intervention (i.e. efficatious and safe) or a waste of time or a huge risk to health. This is not a liberty question as there is no right to sell untested diagnostics to an unsuspecting public (since this is not about what you are proposing to do to yourself or consenting others (patients cannot consent to an unknown treatment/diagnostic method because the information requirement cannot be satisfied). The only liberty question here is the patient's right to refuse this treatment.

 

[Vizslak]

Booboos, the pain is not scientifically measurable nor the psychological harm, and once again you seem to be missing the actual point, the FEI banned it, on welfare grounds after thorough investigation, therefore it doesnt matter what you or I or anyone else think of their decision, merely, they made it, the rule is being flouted, therefore Kittel as well as others are WRONG in their actions because it goes against the rules. If someone was caught rapping before the SJ they would be disqualified, because it goes against the rules, the same should apply here

 

[Jesstickle]

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a debate about science. I'm not philosopher (nor would I wish to be) and am completely unqualified to comment from that perspective. I would end up looking foolish and I don't think one should enter into arguments without a reasonable understanding of what is going on. I can interpret scientific papers and I can offer insight into how the scientific world turns but that is about all.

ETS: what vizzy already said. I object as it is against the rules. There is foul play a foot here. There is no liberty to practise rollkur in FEI warm ups as it is banned. IF you choose to compete in their events you choose to play by their rules. Right?

 

[JFTDWS]

Booboos, I'm not a philosopher, so perhaps I am missing something crucial here, but you repeatedly refer to "consenting" others. Now the infringed party in the rollkur debate is the horse - not the spectator who views it with horror. I feel that where substantial force is required to perform something to / on a horse, that horse is not consenting - quite the contrary. The tail swishing, mouth opening, unhappy body language all indicates that the horse is not a willing participant in that activity.

One could, I am aware, extend that argument to say that a horse doesn't consent to being kept in captivity, ridden or worked at all, as the horse never truly "consents" to that either. I'm also aware that when I ask something of my horse, he disobeys, and I insist he performs (by spur or whip, used lightly) I am infringing his liberties by my own standard. I would also argue, though, that my horses' willingness to approach me of their own volition in the field, their relaxed, confident body language around me and under saddle and the infrequent and very limited requirement of the use of force (in comparison with rollkur) indicate some level of consent. I'm aware you're not making the argument against riding at all, I'm just making you aware that I'm aware of the limitations and flaws of my own argument

This, of course, all assumes that you believe that a horse is worthy of some of the rights of a human, in a free society.

 

[fburton]

Booboos, I am not a philosopher either, but you will surely recognize that there are also activities that do not cause "substantial physical or emotional harm" but which are nevertheless banned because they offend Society's morals, or at least an overwhelming majority of its members. For example, any form of sexual contact with horses is illegal even in cases where there is no demonstrable harm. It is simply not acceptable to most folks, not only because of the massive yuck factor but also because it is rightly considered extremely demeaning to both perpetrator and victim. It offends dignity as well as arousing disgust. This is a counterexample to your assertion that "The only limit to such freedom is where it affects others, and the effect has to be significant, e.g. substantial harm." [my emphasis] It shows there are valid / accepted criteria for restricting freedoms other than purely preventing harm.

While Rollkur is not prohibited with the same force of law as the example above (apologies for any offence caused) or reviled by quite as overwhelming a majority, it could be said to come into a similar category. It is an activity which has not (yet!) been proved to cause substantial harm, but which still offends the morals of enough horsepeople to be outlawed in the microcosm of competitive dressage.

And quite right too, imho... The problem seems to be one of enforcement.

 

[fburton]

Talking of enforcement...

I personally would love to see rein tension monitoring becoming a standard part of the dressage test, if the technology could be miniaturized and made completely unobtrusive. That would allow riders to be rewarded for showing real lightness in the reins, measured objectively. It could also be used to detect and penalize use of "aggressive force". It would not prevent force being used where necessary for safety reasons, but would draw attention to (and hence discourage) maintained high levels of force.

There will no doubt be some people who argue that high levels of force are needed to produce outstanding performances. However, I believe the fact that horses can be ridden very well on light contact shows that they are wrong.

 

[no_no_nanette]

Talking of enforcement...

I personally would love to see rein tension monitoring becoming a standard part of the dressage test, if the technology could be miniaturized and made completely unobtrusive. That would allow riders to be rewarded for showing real lightness in the reins, measured objectively. It could also be used to detect and penalize use of "aggressive force". It would not prevent force being used where necessary for safety reasons, but would draw attention to (and hence discourage) maintained high levels of force.

There will no doubt be some people who argue that high levels of force are needed to produce outstanding performances. However, I believe the fact that horses can be ridden very well on light contact shows that they are wrong.

What a great idea!

To contribute to the debate (which is a really interesting one btw, not often HHO strays into the realms of philosophy!), here's a link to a recent study wich does seem to indicate that the training causes distress. :

"A recent study by Dutch and Danish scientists on the impact of Rolkur, realistic as it was done under full training conditions": http://​www.horsesandpeople.c...;364-hyperflexion-ises2012-s​tress.html

Presumably the FEI would not have banned it after an in-depth investigation if their vets had not discovered that it did cause the horse pain and distress. It seems to me to come down to two issues : the appearance of many of the horses trained using this method is tense, BTV, with a lot of body language indicating discomfort. (Ears pinned back, swishing tail, muscle tension). Where this is happening during a test, WHY are the judges not marking it down? If riders were being penalised - as they should be - for having a tense and btv horse, then this would instantly discourage the approach. So judges marking correctly is one issue.

The other, as many have said on here, is that the use of Rolkur and incorrect use of related approaches, have been outlawed by the FEI. Yet we saw evidence of more than "a few seconds" both in the warm up photos and actually in the arena of the over-use of enforced bending. The FEI needs to enforce its own rules. Simples, as a certain meerkat would say.

 

[Marydoll]

Boo boos i find youre comment astonishing, have you looked at the faces and eyes in the pictures and videos of horses in rollkur ?
While Anky et al might be doing well and winning, does that make it alright to train a horse in a way that causes, tension, discomfort, pain and psychological distress ? Is that what we as equestrians have become ? f eck the comfort of the horse do this and youll have success, the horse will still work, who cares if it has a **** life where everytime a bit is put in its mouth we can cut off his air, reduce circulation to his tongue, never mind the pain we're causing throughout his body forcing him into an unnatural frame, modern dressage has allowed itself to be slip so far from classical natural movement, half the judges couldnt spot it if it was sat in their lap, the marking at most dressage comps are testimony to that.
Somewhere along the way in dressage the true beauty of a horse moving properly with horse and rider working in harmony has been sadly lost ...., and god help the horses if the equestrians in this world just sit back and accept it because its been proven to get you rosettes, medals, and lets not forget the root of all evil MONEY .

 

[RuthM]

Anky et al have proved the efficacy of the technique through their success, their horses tend to do very well, they also tend to have long careers and not seem to suffer from any problems, not any more than horses in general. How much more positive proof do you need? But in any case, I am not trying to convince you to practice rollkur (which is the case that needs positive evidence), merely not to stop others from doing so.

(emphasis added)

This is shoddy and shows a lack of scientific understanding in the extreme. First of all 'proof' is a huge word, like 'never'. To get to a place of proof a technique would require study in it's own right, and then for that study to be open to peer review, to be repeated, criticised, criticisms rebuffed with compelling evidence, further repetition, and so on. What you offer as compelling evidence would not even clear the first hurdle. To begin with there's no account of the confounding variables involved in highly bred horses that lead exceptionally different lives from the average ned, nor those variables involved in the full breadth of their training, nor is their any attempt to account for the judges bias, nor account for the validity and strength of evidence regarding the practice of the technique, nor knowledge of the extent (time/severity) to which the technique is used.

It's difficult to overstate exactly how wide of the mark it is to say 'Anky et al have proved the efficacy of the technique'; however I hope I have answered the question 'How much more positive proof do you need?

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Talking of enforcement...

I personally would love to see rein tension monitoring becoming a standard part of the dressage test, if the technology could be miniaturized and made completely unobtrusive. That would allow riders to be rewarded for showing real lightness in the reins, measured objectively. It could also be used to detect and penalize use of "aggressive force". It would not prevent force being used where necessary for safety reasons, but would draw attention to (and hence discourage) maintained high levels of force.

There will no doubt be some people who argue that high levels of force are needed to produce outstanding performances. However, I believe the fact that horses can be ridden very well on light contact shows that they are wrong.

You mean a lighter version of this ? http://www.reintension.net/. Wonderful idea, not only for competition but as standard equipment in training establishments.

 

[kerilli]

Booboos, what is your opinion of rapping, using chemicals to make horses' legs ultra-sensitive, use of spikes inside boots, invisible metal poles above the height of the wooden pole, etc etc? You could I suppose argue that they haven't been proven to be detrimental to the horses in the long run, that ultra-careful horses trained using these methods are very successful, that their careers are no longer or shorter than horses trained without using these methods.
Does that make it alright to use these methods, then?

 

[Jesstickle]

Booboos, what is your opinion of rapping, using chemicals to make horses' legs ultra-sensitive, use of spikes inside boots, invisible metal poles above the height of the wooden pole, etc etc? You could I suppose argue that they haven't been proven to be detrimental to the horses in the long run, that ultra-careful horses trained using these methods are very successful, that their careers are no longer or shorter than horses trained without using these methods.
Does that make it alright to use these methods, then?

I asked that and apparently unless there is scientific evidence to to suggest it is harmful it's fine to use them

Yes I do think that if you want to make rapping or trotting 3 year olds on the road illegal you need to prove that they are harmful.

 

[perfect11s]

Boo boos i find youre comment astonishing, have you looked at the faces and eyes in the pictures and videos of horses in rollkur ?
While Anky et al might be doing well and winning, does that make it alright to train a horse in a way that causes, tension, discomfort, pain and psychological distress ? Is that what we as equestrians have become ? f eck the comfort of the horse do this and youll have success, the horse will still work, who cares if it has a **** life where everytime a bit is put in its mouth we can cut off his air, reduce circulation to his tongue, never mind the pain we're causing throughout his body forcing him into an unnatural frame, modern dressage has allowed itself to be slip so far from classical natural movement, half the judges couldnt spot it if it was sat in their lap, the marking at most dressage comps are testimony to that.
Somewhere along the way in dressage the true beauty of a horse moving properly with horse and rider working in harmony has been sadly lost ...., and god help the horses if the equestrians in this world just sit back and accept it because its been proven to get you rosettes, medals, and lets not forget the root of all evil MONEY .

I think well I hope BooBoos is just bored and hence the devils advocate posts ??Im sure anyone who sees horse riding as a partnership and wants to try and work with horses rather than
dominate and force them to do things for you,
We had the answers in god knows what BC from a greek called xeophon and since then Mongs have come up with gadgets and short cuts to train horses draw reins and alsorts of other ***** to force a horse into what we think we want ...
Anything forced and misundestood can never be beautifull- Xenophon 400BC..

 

[Keen]

... Anything forced and misundestood can never be beautifull ...

Forced and misunderstood? Like your one remaining braincell, perfect11s?

 

[tallyho!]

I suppose, since the wheel cannot be reinvented, some people feel they must reinvent riding horses what haven't changed since the branch of evolution they last emerged from...

Use hands. No! Use legs! Actually, use legs, then hands. Thinking about it, use leg and hand alternately. How about, just hand? Yes, just hand and bend the neck left and right and down repeatedly! Brilliant! We got a rosette for that!!! Ooh, can the horse breathe? Um, it's tongues gone a bit blue... Yes but is it still alive? Yes. Brilliant! We shall carry on!

 

[fburton]

I believe the blue tongue has since been retracted.

 

[SusannaF]

I believe the blue tongue has since been retracted.

It's still up.

http://epona.tv/uk/news/show/artikel/blue-tongue-video-faq/

 

[tallyho!]

Sorry fburton, that went completely over my head...

 

[RuthM]

I believe the blue tongue has since been retracted.

^^ if it hadn't it'd have dropped off! I can't believe I'm about to say this but... I think the blue tongue ended up a bit of a red herring that offered wiggle room to a slippery eel!

 

[Marydoll]

I think well I hope BooBoos is just bored and hence the devils advocate posts ??Im sure anyone who sees horse riding as a partnership and wants to try and work with horses rather than
dominate and force them to do things for you,
We had the answers in god knows what BC from a greek called xeophon and since then Mongs have come up with gadgets and short cuts to train horses draw reins and alsorts of other ***** to force a horse into what we think we want ...
Anything forced and misundestood can never be beautifull- Xenophon 400BC..

While what you say may be correct, You let yourself down using your derogatory descriptive terms, please dont use them in reference to my post

 

[KellyJoArnold]

I'd like to say, I didn't intend for this to become a debate.. but a good one its become! Tehehe.

 

[Booboos]

I shall do my best to reply to all the ideas raised, apologies if I miss any points, it's getting complicated! (btw I am never bored by a lively intellectual debate! Nothing better than intelligent people exchanging views! Nor do I see intellectual disagreement as a personal slur).

1. The liberal position certainly has it's opposite. The debate is enshrined in the writings of philosopher H.L.A. Hart (on the liberal side, developing the views of J.S. Mill) versus Lord Devlin (High Court Justice). Devlin's argument is that no man is an island and the distinction between private and public sphere on which the liberal case rests is false. He argues for social cohesiveness through moral uniformity. His views are also still evident in English law in the prohibitions against bestiality and incest (essentially harmless but disgusting activities). The views I try to defend are very much on the liberal side, but of course, counter-arguments exist.

2. Horses cannot consent. Consent has three requirements: rationality, information and choice. As such only rational adult humans can consent, and other groups, e.g. children, animals, the severely mentally disabled cannot consent. We (rational adults) make decisions on behalf of these groups sometimes based on their interests (mainly the case with children) sometimes based on a mix of our interests limited by welfare considerations (mainly the case with animals which we eat, use, work with, take pleasure from, etc.).

3. I think it is indeed correct that if any rider does not comply with the rules then he/she should be penalised. However, I see a number of problems here. The FEI guidelines are vague. They do NOT say that the positions in the diagrams are the ONLY acceptable positions. They seem to allow for extreme flexion if it's not achieved through force and not held for more than 10 minutes. That is my interpretation of them but I could well be wrong. The reason I suspect I am not wrong is that the Olympics is being stewarded by very experienced people with a lot of integrity like Jenny Lorriston Clarke, who have not seen fit to raise any violation of the rules. Some threads on HHO lately seem to suggest by implication that the stewards are either idiots, incompetents or corrupt - that is just rude. Some threads also make bizarre points, e.g. why didn't the jury penalize Cornelissen when she was in rollkur before entering the ring?

4. If the question is "Is rollkur effective in producing winning horses?" then the success at international level of rollkur riders is appropriate proof, no scientific study is needed. The type of proof appropriate to each case is related to the kind of question one asks. If the question is "Is rollkur harmful to horses to the extent that it should be banned on welfare reasons?" then "I can see it in the horse's eyes" or "I have a gut feeling it is", is not sufficient proof. While the experience of pain is to an extent subjective there are certainly physical markers of pain such as elevated heart rate, changes in respiratory rate, sweating, etc. Given the claims of those who worry about rollkur (e.g. horses cannot breathe, they cannot see, they have deformed ligaments, inappropriate muscle development, bony growths), there is plenty there to messure in an objective manner with simple diagnostic and post-mortem techniques.

 

[camilla4]

Actually, Booboos, I would have to take issue with that last point. The success at top level of horses trained with Rollkur is not PROOF of it's effectiveness, merely evidence that could be refuted. There is no way of knowing that these horses would not perform as well, or better, if trained without this system!

 

[JFTDWS]

4. If the question is "Is rollkur effective in producing winning horses?" then the success at international level of rollkur riders is appropriate proof, no scientific study is needed.

The type of proof appropriate to each case is related to the kind of question one asks. If the question is "Is rollkur harmful to horses to the extent that it should be banned on welfare reasons?" then "I can see it in the horse's eyes" or "I have a gut feeling it is", is not sufficient proof.

In blue, utterly untrue. That would be the same as giving holographic discs to 25% of the olympic horses and saying that those holographic discs are proven to be effective in the producing of Olympic level horses. Complete nonsense - it's entirely possible to train a successful GP horse without rollkur, and there is no evidence at present that rollkur will improve the horse's success, relative to a non-rollkur trained animal of similar level, schooling and breeding.

Just because rollkur coexiests with success in some horses is NOT, and never will be, proof of causation.


With regard to your latter assertion, "I can see it in his eyes", is a pretty blinkered way of looking at things. There is a lot more in non-pathological behavioural observation than fluffy platitudes of that sort. Body language can tell a trained individual a great deal about whether an activity is a welfare concern - tail swishing, ears flat back etc - can be measured empirically and are valid scientific observations.

 

[tallyho!]

Your last point about rollkur is effective in producing winning horses is subject to judging from human opinion.

 

[RuthM]

If the question is "Is rollkur effective in producing winning horses?" then the success at international level of rollkur riders is appropriate proof, no scientific study is needed.

Poppycock!! This is the kind of twaddle faith healers rely on! If five out of ten top sprinters wore red pants I presume you'd believe it proven that red pants make you run faster!

Edit - typed too fast 1st time!

 

[Jesstickle]

Actually, Booboos, I would have to take issue with that last point. The success at top level of horses trained with Rollkur is not PROOF of it's effectiveness, merely evidence that could be refuted. There is no way of knowing that these horses would not perform as well, or better, if trained without this system!

I'm afraid I have to agree.To you the type of evidence depends on the question. To a scientist the type of evidence has to be the same for all questions. The study must contain a control group, the study will ideally be blinded, the result should be reproducible, data must be analysed to confirm any finding is significant, the reporter should report all results not cherry pick data.

We don't know if these horses win because of rollkur, despite rollkur, whether the use of rollkur relies on other things as well. We don't know how many horses trained with the technique don't win because we never hear of them, nor do we know how many horses break down and in a study involving animals it is very important to know the fate of all the animals that entered the programme, the study has no control group as comparison to other riders is no help due to complexity of the study and the number of variable factors.

I still don't understand the logic that one side may function on conjecture alone whilst the other must provide carefully collected evidence which is methodologically sound and directly related to the question in hand. Perhaps I am too much of scientist but I just do not see the logic here Told you I was no philosopher