Shocking! And this from the guy who opposes rollkur

I didn't put him in the same camp with Parelli, I merely said that he has experienced a similar situation with regard to a "cooling of relations" with some very established "mainstream" horsemen who had originally encouraged his work. :) I think Balkenhol's comments are very telling - maybe there is more behind it but that's a big red flag and I'd be inclined to trust his opinion of someone's riding.

Our of curiosity, does anyone have other footage of his riding? Seahorse, has your trainer watched him ride much?

My primary point relates to your comment re what your instructor has learned from him. Personally, I don't think that very valuable information is negated by the fact that he might not be the worlds best rider. BUT the implication of not only the photos but the discussion of the incident is that he ignored his own "first, do no harm" mandate. As suggested by the post above this, that's confusing! Does that diminish the useful things he has to say? I think not, but then I'd apply that to any other rider/trainer as well, including some of the rolkur practitioners - I think Anky and Sjef know a bit about training horses, too - and even Parelli.;)

Maybe the real question is should people with useful theoretical knowledge be required to demonstrate it without exception? Seems a bit unrealistic. That said, what makes me go "hmm" is not simply how the horse is positioned in some of the photos but how he looks as a rider. It's true that everyone has bad moments but if he's putting himself forward (don't know if he is or isn't) as the equal of Balkenhol and similar, that's a pretty tall order to fill.
 
TarrSteps said:
There was a discussion at one point about studying the effects of rolkur and related subjects but all I ever heard about was the one letting horses chose to go in one direction or the other. I wasn't privy to the intricacies of how they organised the study but there seemed to be a great many variables involved, not the least of which was potential bias on the part of the riders involved, so I couldn't take it too seriously. I haven't seen anything analysing medium or long term effects on development, although I think there may have been something done regarding breathing rates and other indicators of stress.
Click to expand...

There is a summary of the behavioural study here: http://www.voicesforhorses.co.uk/adviceandinfo/read_79_Do-horses-prefer-Rollkur?.html
It seems very poorly done, e.g. no control group, no double blind methodology, no study of horses ridden long term in rollkur, no differentiation between what is of interest to an animal and what is in that animal's interest, etc.

If you are interested, this link has most references to rollkur studies. http://www.slideshare.net/guest29fcc4/rollkur The most annoying thing, for me, is that there are no studies to back up Dr H's empirical claims on muscular and skeletal degeneration.
 
There is also a brand new study showing breathing is restricted during rollkur (although this is not a claim that Dr H was ever involved in, at least not in the book) http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242675

I haven't read the German version, but from the summary, this seems full of holes. Again no control group, no check on differences between horses new to rollkur and used to rollkur (which may have adapted their breathing to the technique), no study of horses working in other positions, e.g. hollow (which is much more common in terms of everyday riding and therefore could potentially be a much greater welfare issue than rollkur), etc.

On the whole it's pretty shocking how poor the methodology of these studies is.
 
Seahorse said:
Google chrome translated it for me, but not very well, from what I can gather the horse refuses to accept the bit or the leg and is a very argumentative creature!

My classical instructor is a big fan of his and has been to several of his lecture demo's, she teaches me things that she has learnt from him and I can assure you that if she saw him doing something cruel to a horse she would walk out.

yes he is flexing it to the side, and in a few photo's he looks to be riding it very deep almost rollkur like, but we don't know if the horse was being very strong at the time and possibly p***sing off with him.

He was only on the horse for 25 minutes.

I am shocked that people are putting him in the same camp as pat parelli!!
Click to expand...

OK, so to put this into perspective... it is OK for GH, because he is classically minded, to ride the horse "deep, almost rollkur like" provided he had a good reason (which you suggest may be that the horse was being very strong), and it is also acceptable because "he was only on the horse for 25 minutes"? I find this difficult to understand because the general consensus at the time was that it was UNacceptable for Patrik Kittel to ride Watermill Scandic in this position at all, yet it appears GH can be excused for it because the horse may have been being naughty?

I'm sorry but as GH is so outspoken against rollkur then he shouldn't be riding like this at all, especially not in a public forum. Does as I say, not as I do, springs to mind...
 
The whole thing, Dr H, Anky, Patrik Kittel, etc., is a total mess, but this is what happens when people are allowed to criticise others and their way of riding, to call for bannings and FEI intervention, without proper evidence.

If there had been clear scientific proof that rollkur causes a welfare problem, then anyone doing the things that cause the problem would be subject to the same censure and penalties - period! No need to ask who is this person, or which side of the debate they are on. If they are causing an animal suffering, they should be made to stop.

Dr H is just getting a dose of his own medicine as far as I am concerned and I couldn't be more pleased about it! :)
 
Booboos said:
There is a summary of the behavioural study here: http://www.voicesforhorses.co.uk/adviceandinfo/read_79_Do-horses-prefer-Rollkur?.html
It seems very poorly done,
Click to expand...
I acually think this study was done reasonably well considering the difficulty of such studies in general. I'd be interested to hear what you would have done differently to improve it.

e.g. no control group,
Click to expand...
What would have been the proper control group in the preference test? A completely separate group of horses that weren't subjected to Rollkur at all is the obvious one, but then all that would have showed is whether horses have an intrinsic laterality or not, an effect that was "controlled" by randomization in the experiment.

In the fear test, the two groups were "normal riding+fear stimulus" vs "Rollkur+fear stimulus" and behaviour and heart rate responses were measured. The control was the pre-stimulus period. Arguably there could have been a third group that was not subjected to the fear stimulus at all, but I'm not sure what information would be gained from this beyond what was actually obtained or what "confounding factor" would have been controlled for.

no double blind methodology,
Click to expand...

For me, this is the only serious criticism of the experiment. It isn't made clear whether the "trained observer" knew whether the horse had previously been ridden in Rollkur or not. But even if they were "blinded", it is almost certainly the case, given the small number of riders and the fact that swapping wasn't mentioned, that the riders knew which side meant "ride in Rollkur" and so could have, deliberately or subconsciously, influenced the horse to choose the non-Rollkur side. One could would out how many of the riders would have to have done that to make the results statistically significant, assuming that the horses really had no preference between Rollkur and non-Rollkur.

no study of horses ridden long term in rollkur,
Click to expand...
That's not really the fault of this study, which didn't set out to address that issue. Clearly, there is more work to be done on long-term effects.

no differentiation between what is of interest to an animal and what is in that animal's interest, etc.
Click to expand...
I think that is completely outside the scope of a single experiment. What's in the "animal's interest" would need some measure of long-term harm, as you point out. Whether "interest to an animal" is important or not is more to do with people's attitudes to use of animals and the degree to which inflicting a procedure that can be shown to cause discomfort or distress (with or without measurable physical harm) can be justified in the interests of how a horse is subjectively assessed in the dressage arena.

So, while I'm not entirely disagreeing with you regarding this study, I do think you are judging it a little too harshly.
 
Booboos said:
If there had been clear scientific proof that rollkur causes a welfare problem
Click to expand...
Even with hard scientific evidence of effects, can we all agree on what constitutes a welfare problem? I don't think so!

Some people would need to see painful pathological changes, while others would consider e.g. the restriction in horses' forward vision that Rollkur undoubtedly entails as evidence of a "welfare problem", with a range of beliefs in between.

Sometime we have to do things to horses which are unpleasant, even painful at times, but usually we have very good reasons for doing so - like saving life, or preventing further harm or suffering. However, where convenience or fashion are concerned, inflicting unpleasantness is harder to justify, in my view.

Dr H is just getting a dose of his own medicine as far as I am concerned and I couldn't be more pleased about it! :)
Click to expand...
I agree, he is - though I'm not sure schadenfreude is the proper response, even given Dr H's nationality. ;)
 
Interesting points all, here is what I think, although I have not read the study in detail so maybe some of these concerns were addressed:

fburton said:
What would have been the proper control group in the preference test? A completely separate group of horses that weren't subjected to Rollkur at all is the obvious one, but then all that would have showed is whether horses have an intrinsic laterality or not, an effect that was "controlled" by randomization in the experiment.

In the fear test, the two groups were "normal riding+fear stimulus" vs "Rollkur+fear stimulus" and behaviour and heart rate responses were measured. The control was the pre-stimulus period. Arguably there could have been a third group that was not subjected to the fear stimulus at all, but I'm not sure what information would be gained from this beyond what was actually obtained or what "confounding factor" would have been controlled for..
Click to expand...

This tends to assume that there are only two options, normal riding=good and rollkur=bad. A control group could have been set up to challenge this, e.g. a group where there was no riding, or hacking for example.

Also there are many other parametres that may have led the horses to choose the 'non-rollkur' arena, e.g. perhaps it was lighter or less dusty or on the right and more horses turn right than left (let's say) - a control group should have been used to discount these possibilities. It would also have been useful to repeat the study but reverese the arenas to discount some of these factors.


fburton said:
For me, this is the only serious criticism of the experiment. It isn't made clear whether the "trained observer" knew whether the horse had previously been ridden in Rollkur or not. But even if they were "blinded", it is almost certainly the case, given the small number of riders and the fact that swapping wasn't mentioned, that the riders knew which side meant "ride in Rollkur" and so could have, deliberately or subconsciously, influenced the horse to choose the non-Rollkur side. One could would out how many of the riders would have to have done that to make the results statistically significant, assuming that the horses really had no preference between Rollkur and non-Rollkur..
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is a really serious fault. The rider's seat can easily influence the horse's choice, whether they rider intends this or not. It would have been very easy to have riders who knew nothing about the purpose of the experiment, other than 'get on this horse and do nothing, allowing it to choose where it goes'.

fburton said:
That's not really the fault of this study, which didn't set out to address that issue. Clearly, there is more work to be done on long-term effects..
Click to expand...

What I meant by this is that perhaps horses that are ridden long term in rollkur prefer it because their muscles have had time to adjust to the position. It's a bit like going to the gym for the first time and doing so intensively every day for a week - you are bound to ache a lot at the weekend, whereas if you go twice a week for a year, you may look forward to it more. We won't really know unless this group of horses was considered as well.

fburton said:
I think that is completely outside the scope of a single experiment. What's in the "animal's interest" would need some measure of long-term harm, as you point out. Whether "interest to an animal" is important or not is more to do with people's attitudes to use of animals and the degree to which inflicting a procedure that can be shown to cause discomfort or distress (with or without measurable physical harm) can be justified in the interests of how a horse is subjectively assessed in the dressage arena.

So, while I'm not entirely disagreeing with you regarding this study, I do think you are judging it a little too harshly.
Click to expand...

But it goes exactly to the heart of the point of the experiment. The experiment shows that horses do not choose to be ridden in rollkur, from which people draw the normative conclusion that therefore horses should not be ridden in rollkur. By extension if horses choose not to be ridden at all, then horses should not be ridden at all. The entire premise the experiment sets out to test is spurious for those reasons.
 
Booboos said:
This tends to assume that there are only two options, normal riding=good and rollkur=bad. A control group could have been set up to challenge this, e.g. a group where there was no riding, or hacking for example.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean here, sorry. How could "not riding" (for example) incorporate a Rollkur vs no-Rollkur test?

Also there are many other parametres that may have led the horses to choose the 'non-rollkur' arena, e.g. perhaps it was lighter or less dusty or on the right and more horses turn right than left (let's say) - a control group should have been used to discount these possibilities. It would also have been useful to repeat the study but reverese the arenas to discount some of these factors.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misread the paper, but my understanding is that both sides of the arena were used for both Rollkur and no-Rollkur, in a balanced design that should cancel out any inherent preference for one side over another when all the results are taken together.

What I meant by this is that perhaps horses that are ridden long term in rollkur prefer it because their muscles have had time to adjust to the position. It's a bit like going to the gym for the first time and doing so intensively every day for a week - you are bound to ache a lot at the weekend, whereas if you go twice a week for a year, you may look forward to it more. We won't really know unless this group of horses was considered as well.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point - and one worth investigating. If (some) horses still showed a preference for not doing Rollkur despite a decent period of intensive training, that would strengthen the argument against the practice (though probably not enough to recommend banning it altogether).

But it goes exactly to the heart of the point of the experiment. The experiment shows that horses do not choose to be ridden in rollkur, from which people draw the normative conclusion that therefore horses should not be ridden in rollkur. By extension if horses choose not to be ridden at all, then horses should not be ridden at all. The entire premise the experiment sets out to test is spurious for those reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, once again it comes down to where to draw the line - personally and in terms of organizations making rules. It is easy to argue that the clear benefits to us, and to an extent to horses, of riding outweigh the costs in terms of inconvenience to horses. Certainly, when horses enjoy working - as many do - it's a no-brainer. What happens, though, when you have a horse that doesn't enjoy his work to the extent of showing continuous and overt avoidance behaviour? Insist that he works all the same? Change the management and/or exercise regime to reduce sourness? Find some other activity that he enjoys doing? Turn him away indefinitely? At least there is a range of options to consider.

In the case of Rollkur, it's harder, for me anyway, to argue in favour of the practice because the costs appear not to be trivial and the benefits are much less obvious.
 
just spoken to my instructor, she said that she has seen him ride before and didn't like the way he rides. She likes the way he teaches but said he shouldn't ride because he's not very good!!
She saw him do a clinic with a vet that specialises in kissing spines and back problems.

He teaches the exercise he is doing but in a very different way, using the high rein aid and turning your hand over is very effective with most horses, it obviously isn't with that one because he's having to pull hard. I think the horse is pissing off with him which it looks like it's doing in the pics where his head is tucked right in, and why he is facing it towards the wall.
He always rides in light seat, which is why he looks to be tipping forward in most of the pics.
He apparently never used to ride but is doing so more and more now, my instructor was going to walk out within the first few minutes of him riding the first time she saw him, but had stayed to see the outcome, he does the same things with every horse he gets on because he doesn't know any other way of riding. He is almost obsessive about getting the neck out in front of the horse.

He also does a lot of stuff at TTT and they never let him ride there, only teach!!

Anyway she wasn't surprised that this has happened!!
 
V interesting, Seahorse, thanks. That seems to be the general consensus. Very unfortunate because, as discussed, I think he has good things to say and this has the potential to make people throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were.

Btw, just as a fine point, even though GH has a jumping background, I wouldn't call what he's doing in the photos in question a "light seat". (Not correcting you - I know why you're saying what you're saying - just a general comment if anyone looks at the photos and attempts to emulate GH.) In fact, that's part of what I find disappointing. :( He's certainly not balanced over his lower leg, with a soft but stable upper body, flat back, and flexible hip/knee/ankle joints. There are some truly superb examples of jumper riders who assume not only a great light seat, but can move seemlessly through a range of positions as the circumstances and horse's way of going demands.

This looks more like a "not dressage" seat, rather than a seat for another specific purpose. In some ways it's close to the way many people who do a lot of young horses/backing ride, although even then, it's more exaggerated and doesn't look nearly as fluid/stable as you'd expect.
 
fburton: I thought the non-riding group should be included because asking "do horses prefer rollkur to non-rollkur riding?" immediately raises the next question "do horses prefer non-riding to riding?". If there is some merit in figuring out the horse's preference with respect to rollkur, then there is some merit in figuring out the horse's preference with respect to riding. For me, this is what makes this kind of approach worrying, because it can easily be expanded by people like PETA. If we ban rollkur (partly) because horses don't like it, we may need to follow with a ban on all riding because horses don't like it.

Re the arena, thanks I had not realised that. Not to be pedantic but my lot always prefer one side of the arena to the other, so I would slightly wonder whether the non-rollkur side was closer to the stables, the exit, etc. Would have been interesting to give the horses a break and repeat, reversing the sides of the arena used.

Seahorse: thanks for this, very intersting.
 
Oh, totally agree! I've seen his explanation as well.

It was just that I can see someone looking at those pics, reading "light seat" and thinking that's what the traditional light seat looked like. Maybe that speaks to the heart of the fuss, actually. There is a defined "light seat" that many very good horsemen/coaches teach for a specific reason. That is not a good example of it, yet he's using the accepted term. Maybe that's the underlying theme - "incorrect" riding is just as potentially damaging as "brutal" riding . . . but that's a whole other can of worms.:confused:
 
LizScott said:
Yes I get it - and don't understand the problem either :) Yes it would be lovely if horses instantly understood what we meant and we could sit on them looking elegant and still BUT in reality we have to let them know what we want and sometimes this means exagerating movements so that eventually aids can be subtle. I don't think the horse is being forced by bodyweight etc, in fact I think he is being very correct in his position. Just my opinion :D
Click to expand...

Only just found this thread, very interesting. I really like much of what he's written, but am SO disappointed to see how he rides. I don't care if the horse was being difficult, I don't think it warranted the use of such force, particularly in a public demo where he is supposed to be showing less experienced people how to do it...
as for LizScott's comment, she must be looking at totally different pictures to me! Yeuk. Really not a nice position at all. I agree with TarrSteps, he looks unbalanced. And those hands are NOT nice, I don't care if it's a snaffle or a double, you can still do immense damage to the mouth with that much force imho.
:( :( :(
 
To me he looks like he's had a bit of a battle with the horse.
Today I had a similar one, my horse decided he was heading for the gate, I was having none of it, and I had to pull on the reigns tighter and tighter to stop him and turn him, if caught on camera it would have looked bad - very similar to these pics maybe, and would have been taken completely out of context.
If I'd let my horse have his way, he'd be bolting for the gate any time he felt like it and that would make riding him unsafe, so he has to learn to go in the direction I tell him. Typically trying his luck, thats all.

I've no idea about the man himself, I've never heard of him, but I think this is a classic case of events taken out of context x
 
missyme10 said:
I've no idea about the man himself, I've never heard of him, but I think this is a classic case of events taken out of context x
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be such a big thing if he hadn't made such a big thing of pointing fingers at others. Thing is, he's based a career on saying certain things are wrong and damaging, so he's basically not practising what he preaches.
 
I think he along with a lot of people in the public eye (pat parelli and such) are getting a bit above themselves and are beginning to think they are invincible, along with arrogance that they can 'sort out' any horse.

Like my instructor said he is going against everything he teaches and has written about, but she has seen him ride several times and wishes he wouldn't as (in her words, he's ****!)
The exercise he is doing I have done on my horse, where you turn your hand over (it does have a proper name) and put the rein up high to gently flex the horse to the inside, but he is using it in the wrong way, it is not working on that horse but he doesn't use any other method other thank this on every horse he rides.

Unfortunately he has negated everything he has said in these few minutes of riding.

When my instructor goes to see him she watches him teach and lecture then goes home before he rides!
 
Well having read all of that I would pay money to see the two of them in the same room! Talk about over inflated ego.

Ridiculous.
 
Men....they both need their legs slapped to be honest. They both DO have very valid and sensible thgouht processes, both have much to teach anyone who cares to listen....and both need a good slap down.

There are hundreds, thousands probably, of great riders on this planet. They quietly get on with doing their thing and make no fuss, dont find the need to blow their own trumpet or preach or take money for knowledge.

PK and GH need to remember that self promotion may not be the best way to go!
 
I've always thought that men could definately be bitchier than women.....what a pair of twits, but having said that I would pay a fortune to watch or have a clinic with PK.
 
spookypony said:
According to the text, the photos were taken at a workshop during which he spend ca. 25 minutes working on a "problem" horse. The article's authors take issue with what they perceive as an attempt to accomplish in one session, using brute strength, what Dr H. himself has often acknowledged will generally take many sessions.

I would not get too wound up by this. These are moments captured during what looks like rather a large argument with the horse in question, and the choice and placement of these particular photos suggests a certain agenda on the part of the author. I do not believe that we are seeing enough of what happened to come to any particular conclusions.

I'm no fan of Rollkur, and if anything, I tend towards far too light a contact. Yet I'm sure that someone with a high-speed camera could capture moments where it looks like I'm yanking my pony's teeth out, as he tries to evade me by tucking his head somewhere it shouldn't be.

Tempest in a tea-pot, in my opinion! :)
Click to expand...

very true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top