Patrick Kittell..

[Tilda]

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!

 

[Jesstickle]

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.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Godwin's law in action. Argument is over

 

[kerilli]

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.

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.

 

[galaxy]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one!!!

LDR is fine in my eyes, but Rollkur intentionally (not the horse doing it to itself) is not right and I just cannot see how this could lead to getting the hocks underneath. Look at all the photos of Rollkur, not one looks an uphill picture, infact the back end looks psoitively blocked! Therefore how can the hocks be coming under????

 

[Vizslak]

well I bow to rosehips clear superior knowledge on training....... her tongue goes under the bit?! Really? Never?! I would love to see some pics of you riding rollkur/hyperflexed/LDR however you are blooming riding, its unclear from your posts.

 

[tallyho!]

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.

 

[SusannaF]

Epona TV have an FAQ about the blue tongue footage for the sceptics among us. You can read it here:

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

Some highlights:

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.

If Scandic was "only momentarily" or "voluntarily" in hyperflexion and this was manipulated by clever editing, then he would have had to be in momentary/voluntary hyperflexion in umpteen different positions and somehow in the same bit of the ring by the same horses to provide continuity. So he really would have been in the warm up ring for HOURS if the total time edited down to four minutes...

 

[Rosehip]

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.

Again appologys, a slip of the keys. Yes, her tongue goes over the bit.
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?
I dont claim to be an expert - in none of my posts have I said that, all I am saying is that in my own experience I find momentary use of hyperflexion a useful tool in training.
I do not condone constant use of it, just as I dont condone constant use of draw reins, over use of spurs or constant flicking with the whip.
It might be pertinent to point out that I rarely use a curb, I prefer snaffles if at all possible.

 

[SusannaF]

Furthermore:

a) they contacted Kittel before they broadcast the footage and he said he believed he was using hyperflexion according to FEI guidelines (I believe these were clarified/altered after this incident)

b) five independent vets verified that the horse's tongue was blue.

c) 'Anky van Grunsven herself has confirmed to EPONA.tv that she does not in fact know for how long at a time she will hyperflex a horse. "I don't have a clue," she confesses. "Time flies when you're having fun."'

 

[pookie]

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?

Not that Wikipedia is the font of all learning, but the article there defines rollkur as:

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"

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!

 

[StrawberryFish]

"I don't have a clue," she confesses. "Time flies when you're having fun."'

This quote made me so sad, nice to know she's having fun whilst her horse is in pain. I do hope the tone I read the quote in (ie that she enjoys hyperflexing her horses for extended periods...) is entirely innacurate.

 

[tallyho!]

Yes, such fun, riding a disconnected horse that can't see where it's going, can't swallow and it's tongue hurts and is covered in its own spit most of the time, whilst it's head has more leather on it than a cow.

 

[Booboos]

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.

Could I please have references for this study? Many thanks

 

[Rosehip]

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!

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.

 

[Booboos]

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!

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.

 

[tallyho!]

Could I please have references for this study? Many thanks

Here is one of many. Is your google broke?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhljcsuudd4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[tallyho!]

Actually I feel very strongly about flashes too. Rollkur as cruelty is fact. Not fiction.

 

[pookie]

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.

Presumably the FEI could police contraventions of a rollkur ban by being able to recognise the difference between a horse being coerced into a position and one adopting it all on its very ownsome. Such things are possible.

I've no idea how long your mare held/holds her chin to her chest when excited, but (whilst this is a very small sample) you might want to read this synopsis of a rollkur study out to her?

 

[Fidgety]

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.

 

[Rosehip]

Pookie - thanks for the link...I will explain to Melly that the way she holds her head makes her more afraid and excitable. I dont think she will listen!

Im bowing out, Im outnumbered a hundred fold, so no point trying to explain any further my thoughts or experiences.

 

[WoopsiiD]

Hmm seems someone is listening:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rian-fans-threaten-boycott-2012-Olympics.html

 

[Rosehip]

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.

 

[tallyho!]

That says january 2010 though...

 

[Fidgety]

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.

Yes it does matter. You say 'on the vertical' and then 'behind the vertical and somehow I'm (and others are) supposed to know what it was you want to say. You're not speaking in a foreign language, but you don't seem to understand what it is your advocating?

 

[Jesstickle]

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.

It's Friday night, I cba to trawl pubmed. If you wait until Monday I will speak to a few vets and do a literature search. I expect I'll turn up completely conflicting studies as it is a new and difficult to assess issue and no consensus will have been reached yet. Especially as there are probably only about 5 decent papers on it I expect.

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.

I really don't care if they ban flashes or remove equestrianism all together from the Olympics, they can ban riding and keeping dogs too for all I care. Probably better that they do frankly as I'm sure there are millions of miserable horses out there because they belong to rubbish owners and I don't just mean in the upper echelons either.

 

[Munchkin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhljcsuudd4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Good video.

 

[pookie]

It's Friday night, I cba to trawl pubmed...

I've already mooched pubmed and you're right about the conflicting (and tiny number!) of studies reported. However, I found this an interesting commentary about some of the studies often referred to

 

[WoopsiiD]

Ah so it does...oops
Can't find the video on youtube that was excellent at describing rollkur. Its been taken down
It wasn't a total propoganda piece either it was quite a balanced piece.

 

[joeanne]

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.

.

*Passes Jess "Post of the evening award"*
Common sense....plain and simple!

 

[millimoo]

This should not be a thread directly aimed at Patrik Kittel, and should not become a witch hunt.
The whole of the Dutch team are at it, with Ankys husband / team trainer being at the centre if it all.
I think Rollkur is gross abuse, and the extended periods it is used are just dreadful.
If Valegros new home is true, then god help him as the new riders trainer is Anky..... I just pray he's established enough that they have to stick with the Charlotte/Carl methods - and you never know,'they might start applying it to their own (how I wish)