Tilda
Well-Known Member
That is the first time I have ever seen a video of rollkur and it bought tears to my eyes
that poor poor beautiful horse it is heartbreaking the lengths some people will go to absolutely disgusting behaviour!
The FEI has banned all forms of rolkur, so be it, thats fine, but it is up to them to enforce that ruling, not camera nazi's with clever editing to slur a particular rider. That video has been edited, no question in my mind.
Yes, my mare puts herself into rolkur, she uses it to evade all contact and run off, its part of the reason she is retired, as she uses it against me. Her head comes to the vertical, and her tounge goes under the bit, therefore evading contact and rendering rolkur an act against me...not her.
You absolutely can use hyperflexion as a positive training tool, to be working in the LDR, and then hyperflex momentarily and the drop again into LDR is a very effective way of getting the horses hind legs under him and working over his back.
According to Roly Owers of WHW, hyperflexion on its own can't cause a blue tongue
That's possibly true. As we have already stated in our editorial Necks, lies and videotapes, rollkur is probably not the main issue. The main issue is the use of excessive and/or relentless pressure from the bit(s) which is necessary to maintain the hyperflexed position for prolonged periods of time.
I have read this FAQ and I still don't understand. If your camera was off for some of the time you witnessed Kittel's ride and you were filming other riders too, how can there be 120 minutes of footage just of Kittel, as I have read elsewhere on the World Wide Web
That's because other equestrian journalists and members of the public as well have extrapolated on what they have read on our website or on something they have heard. We were indeed standing by the warm up ring in Odense for two hours. And we did witness that Patrik Kittel was riding for that period, but as stated further down in the FAQ, we were not filming him the entire time. When we switched on the camera, we obviously didn't know for how long the session would go on. So when we saw something else worth documenting, we did just that. Not until Mr. Kittel had finished his ride, did we check the time and discover for how long the training had been going on.
But you said two hours. You should be able to document this with your footage.
Our material more than justifies our editorial representation of the incident, and only subsequently to the story going global did Patrik Kittel deny having ridden for two hours with his horse in various stages of hyperflexion. During Mr. Kittel's telephone interview, which - contrary to media reports - he was prepared for, he made no attempt to refute this claim. Nor did he do so in response to the emailed questions he had requested, and so far, Mr. Kittel has not asked us to correct any facts of the story as would constitute normal procedure if it was felt that members of the press had misrepresented events.
Someone did try to get the clip on YouTube removed as a violation of privacy, but this person was unsuccessful.
I really really hope you know, as you are such an expert, that the horse's tongue is SUPPOSED to go under the bit. If it goes over the bit you have a problem...
As I said before, a horse in that position but not being forced is NOT in rollkur.
If the head is at a vertical, with the chin on the chest and the ears/poll at the highest point, as the horse in the video, then what is it if not rolkur?
Rollkur or hyperflexion of the horse's neck is a practice in equestrianism defined as "flexion of the horse's neck achieved through aggressive force"
"I don't have a clue," she confesses. "Time flies when you're having fun."'
If rollkur is "by accident" as some are adamant then how come the Bristol Vet school found abnormalities in the parotid glands, trachea and bone structures in the head when they investigated rollkur claims back in 2009?
Extraneous bone doesn't just grow where it shouldn't in a mater of seconds does it? Oh and, muscles growing where they shouldn't... Do they spring up instantly too?
I don't know. I am not a professional dressage rider so I can't know anything.
Not that Wikipedia is the font of all learning, but the article there defines rollkur as:
If your horse is putting herself into a 'rollkur-like' position with no deliberate action on your part, no "aggressive force" has been used. It's no more rollkur than if she drops her head onto her chest to bite at a fly!
Hi GG *waves* you will stay won't you?
If it helps I think a lot of people understand LDR is useful. Several people have posted the FEI's official stewarding diagrams saying they can tell the difference between LDR, long and low and the dirty R word.
I did notice some weirdo on the FEI page saying a horse being jogged for the judge shouldn't have a flash on as it was cruel. I ignored it but it took all my might not to call them a wally. We're not all completely mad bunny huggers I swear!
Could I please have references for this study? Many thanks
So a "rolkur-like" position held in that position, without force, is not considered rolkur?? And how do FEI intend to police that? I would be kicked out of every show I went to with my retired mare, as she puts herself into that position when excited, and holds it. Would it be that I - as the rider - would be prosecuted in some way for riding in rolkur when I am infact not putting pressure on the horse to hold that position?
There are many grey area's.
It's physically impossible for the face to remain vertical with the chin on the chest. Whatever you are saying you use, it's not rolkur.If the head is at a vertical, with the chin on the chest and the ears/poll at the highest point, as the horse in the video, then what is it if not rolkur?
It's physically impossible for the face to remain vertical with the chin on the chest. Whatever you are saying you use, it's not rolkur.
Behind the vertical then. Does it really matter, I would have thought you would know what i am trying to say, or am I speaking in a foriegn language? I often feel that I am not understood on here, whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with whatever is being posted about.
I dont know why I bother to be honest.
So the argument goes: The evidence of your own eyes, and the feeling that this looks horrible is quite good enough to decide rollkur is abusive, but if someone else feels the same way about a flash he is a weirdo, wally, mad bunny hugger? It seems to me that we either require strong scientific evidence before making any welfare decisions, or we base all of them on how things look and feel to all of us in which case people who find all riding upsetting have an equal claim on having them banned.
Given it's potential to be harmful wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and ban it outright until such a time as studies can be effectively completed? Which is effectively what has officially happened already.
.