Poor dressage scores and increases risks

[clinkerbuilt]

Here's a link to the pre-publication paper for those who want to scrutinise (and are better at statistics than me):
https://beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/evj.13934
Select quotes:
"Following data cleaning, the study population contained a total of 749,534 starts in the cross-country phase of eventing competition in the UK from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2015"

"Of 749,534 cross-country starts included in analysis there were 2,633 horse falls recorded, with 3.5 falls per 1000 starts. These data included 52,083 unique horses and 23,664 unique riders. There were 81,407 unique horse/rider combinations. Table 1 shows the final multivariable model for the outcome horse falls."

The tables at the end seem to show that scores over 70 are very rare. ETA it may be most of interest to read all the other variables they analysed.

 

[Goldenstar]

My best horse was not good in the dressage and I could get a 40 out of her most days she was not a good horse between the white boards but she never scored a 70 ,that I remember but perhaps I have blocked the memory .
She was a great jumper though .

 

[Apercrumbie]

Tbh whenever I've looked into most (obviously not all) equine studies of this nature, the science has been dubious at absolute best. Certainly wouldn't hold up in any other scientific field.

On this particular topic, the proposed rule change would affect very few, but I can't say that it seems like a bad idea in general. I've had a horse evade to the point of rearing in an eventing test and we still got 48 so god knows what you have to do to get 70 and surely that isn't a combination that would be safe cross-country. In theory no harm in applying the rule, other than risking that a vocal minority might get annoyed and campaign against it? That feels unlikely though.

 

[Gamebird]

I honestly don't think my suggestion is a bad one -

• over 60 - automatic CR, not allowed to participate in jumping phases.
• over 50 - watched by stewards/jump judge in SJ, any doubts about jumping safety then no further participation, not allowed to start XC.

Back in the day this might have been tricky as scores were not always done before you show-jumped (although even 20 years ago it was not unusual to have your dressage score read out at the start of your SJ round, so it was possible even in pen in paper days), however these days with all the scoring technology employed the scores should almost always be available. There are BE stewards available at events (I know, they hunted me down to give me a talking to on two occasions), so no problem with getting them to watch a SJ round - and there won't be many to watch as scores between 50 and 60 are rare. You could go several events without even getting one. You also might find that people chose to withdraw after a >50 score anyway if you put these rules into place, which would cut down on the workload!

 

[Ambers Echo]

I definitely think the rule should be applied. I just think 70 is the wrong cut off. It’s automatic elimination if you fall
Off in dressage. I can imagine a scenario that horse spooks/spins, takes you by surprise and you have a silly unintended dismount. And that’s your day over before it’s begun While someone else is on a horse that they really can’t control at all, and is allowed out XC. I’m amazed people on 70 aren’t withdrawn anyway!
I think the fall rule is good. I just think falls aren’t the only criteria they should use.

 

[quiteniceforacob]

I feel like they know they need to apply this rule, but have put such a low bar on it that they won’t need to enforce it.

I agree you can be awful at dressage and still jump, but I don’t know of anyone who has done a dressage test of 30% (and I’ve seen many a terrible dressage test)

 

[Widgeon]

Do you know how bad 70 is? That is not forcing a horse to be a dressage horse. 70 penalties is a horse that has absolutely no basic obedience or a rider with absolutely no basic control.

Personally I was pleased to see that they're doing something that at least attempts to be evidence based. 70 may be dreadful but given that this is the start of the research, really, they can't wade in too high and risk p***ing everyone off and losing all support for the idea. Presumably as they build a more comprehensive data set and start to understand the "why" behind the apparent risk factors*, they will be able to refine the rules to make them more effective at only pulling out the combinations who pose a genuine risk.

*I am assuming they are planning to do this!

 

[Widgeon]

I feel like they know they need to apply this rule, but have put such a low bar on it that they won’t need to enforce it.

I suspect / hope that they just needed to start somewhere.

 

[TGM]

I feel like they know they need to apply this rule, but have put such a low bar on it that they won’t need to enforce it.

I agree you can be awful at dressage and still jump, but I don’t know of anyone who has done a dressage test of 30% (and I’ve seen many a terrible dressage test)

I wonder whether this is the initial plan, as the bar is so low hardly anyone will make a fuss. Then when it has been operational for a while and people are used to the idea they will change the figures.

 

[Ambers Echo]

I wonder whether this is the initial plan, as the bar is so low hardly anyone will make a fuss. Then when it has been operational for a while and people are used to the idea they will change the figures.

That would be a good way of doing it.

 

[Orangehorse]

The needing 14 days between events needs clarification too. Going to an event a couple of hours travelling is different to one 10 miles away. I would take a horse out to an event two weekends running sometimes, but not for the whole season. Depending on lots of other things too of course, but I wouldn't rule it out. One of my most successful days ever was going to an event on Sunday after going someone the day before.

I don't know if anyone remembers Lucinda Green's autobiography of her very early days eventing when one day she had a fall with a mare and the real old timer judge gave her a good telling off "Can't you tell that your horse is exhausted?"

 

[teapot]

Tbh whenever I've looked into most (obviously not all) equine studies of this nature, the science has been dubious at absolute best. Certainly wouldn't hold up in any other scientific field.

It wouldn’t be accepted in the Arts world for the quality of writing either, but don’t get me started on the standard of equestrian articles (that aren’t veterinary ones).

Also worth noting they failed to include one massive variable when it comes to eventing - ground conditions!

 

[Cragrat]

Also worth noting they failed to include one massive variable when it comes to eventing - ground conditions!

Because ground conditions throws responsibility back on the organiser? Or might lead to organisers to scared to run the competition at all - even more abandonments? 'Eventing' only held on all-weather surfaces?

I agree ground conditions will have a massive effect, but it is also down so much to the horse - just as some racehorses like firm or soft, so do eventers. It's up to the rider to know what their horse prefers. The rider also has to know how stud correctly, if at all, how to prepare the horse for riding/ jumping in all conditions, and how to ride at a speed /enegery appropriate to the ground conditions. Sooo much of this type ofknowledge, for the both the horse and the rider, used to come from the hunting field, but sadly that's less and less now. Lucinda Green is trying, with her Rough Ground Training etc, so plug some gaps.

 

[Denali]

Because ground conditions throws responsibility back on the organiser? Or might lead to organisers to scared to run the competition at all - even more abandonments? 'Eventing' only held on all-weather surfaces?

I agree ground conditions will have a massive effect, but it is also down so much to the horse - just as some racehorses like firm or soft, so do eventers. It's up to the rider to know what their horse prefers. The rider also has to know how stud correctly, if at all, how to prepare the horse for riding/ jumping in all conditions, and how to ride at a speed /enegery appropriate to the ground conditions. Sooo much of this type ofknowledge, for the both the horse and the rider, used to come from the hunting field, but sadly that's less and less now. Lucinda Green is trying, with her Rough Ground Training etc, so plug some gaps.

I read teapot’s in terms how horses react to sloppy conditions, but that’s because my mare absolutely hates slipping even the slightest bit. If the footing is wet, and she slips just a little bit, nothing terrible she bucks to show her displeasure. That means I have to make a decision to scratch or not due to conditions.

My mare also bucks after a fence if she disagrees with me on the distance . It’s how she shows her displeasure so I mostly I trust her judgement. Slipping in sloppy conditions is obviously 100% my fault so a buck every single time.

I have never gotten a 70 in Dressage but I would worry that the bar could be lowered so much that the solid x-country horse could be penalized or a horse not conditioned appropriately for x-country.

 

[teapot]

Because ground conditions throws responsibility back on the organiser? Or might lead to organisers to scared to run the competition at all - even more abandonments? 'Eventing' only held on all-weather surfaces?

I agree ground conditions will have a massive effect, but it is also down so much to the horse - just as some racehorses like firm or soft, so do eventers. It's up to the rider to know what their horse prefers. The rider also has to know how stud correctly, if at all, how to prepare the horse for riding/ jumping in all conditions, and how to ride at a speed /enegery appropriate to the ground conditions. Sooo much of this type ofknowledge, for the both the horse and the rider, used to come from the hunting field, but sadly that's less and less now. Lucinda Green is trying, with her Rough Ground Training etc, so plug some gaps.

I read teapot’s in terms how horses react to sloppy conditions, but that’s because my mare absolutely hates slipping even the slightest bit. If the footing is wet, and she slips just a little bit, nothing terrible she bucks to show her displeasure. That means I have to make a decision to scratch or not due to conditions.

My mare also bucks after a fence if she disagrees with me on the distance . It’s how she shows her displeasure so I mostly I trust her judgement. Slipping in sloppy conditions is obviously 100% my fault so a buck every single time.

I have never gotten a 70 in Dressage but I would worry that the bar could be lowered so much that the solid x-country horse could be penalized or a horse not conditioned appropriately for x-country.

Yes, that was more my point - some horses become bog snorkelers, others spend their dressage test on two legs because the brown grass looked at them funny. While I do not wish in any way for BE to become an all weather surface sport, but to not even consider ground conditions in a study like that is poor research frankly, because ground is the variable you cannot control.

You cannot say for certain that geldings have more falls or older women do unless all those falls have happened on the same level playing field, and when it comes to cross country that doesn't exist.

 

[Denali]

Yes, that was more my point - some horses become bog snorkelers, others spend their dressage test on two legs because the brown grass looked at them funny. While I do not wish in any way for BE to become an all weather surface sport, but to not even consider ground conditions in a study like that is poor research frankly, because ground is the variable you cannot control.

You cannot say for certain that geldings have more falls or older women do unless all those falls have happened on the same level playing field, and when it comes to cross country that doesn't exist.

I didn’t touch on how they came to the decision because I have no words for that level of stupidity. I’m all for studies and implementing rules from the studies, but that study and article is just no.

 

[rara007]

For once driving is ahead of the curve! Anyone getting under 50% (with our Co-efficient that’s over 80) it’s up to the ground jury to decide if safe to continue. That certainly used to be the case though not checked the rules recently. When the qualification was relaxed for the world championships, anyone getting over 65 (under 59%) was up for discussion about continuing XC. And that’s after being signed off as safe to compete before your first event, and following a structured sign off process to progress up the levels.

 

[abb123]

For once driving is ahead of the curve! Anyone getting under 50% (with our Co-efficient that’s over 80) it’s up to the ground jury to decide if safe to continue. That certainly used to be the case though not checked the rules recently. When the qualification was relaxed for the world championships, anyone getting over 65 (under 59%) was up for discussion about continuing XC. And that’s after being signed off as safe to compete before your first event, and following a structured sign off process to progress up the levels.

This seems really sensible. Getting a high score does not necessarily equate to a combination being unsafe to jump but it should raise the question. Anyone watching my 70 score test could not have said that we would be unsafe to proceed but it still allowed the judge to pass their (harsh? biased? odd?) opinion.

 

[Katieg123]

It wouldn’t be accepted in the Arts world for the quality of writing either, but don’t get me started on the standard of equestrian articles (that aren’t veterinary ones).

Also worth noting they failed to include one massive variable when it comes to eventing - ground conditions!

I would imagine they didnt bring in ground conditions as its hard to put a number on it! Research like this is usually done on a strictly quantifiable basis.