Should BE tag body protectors after inquest?

God no , I don't agree with hat tagging either the responsibility rests with the individual .
There's no evidence at all that a BP could have saved that rider and he was an adult and made his own choices the BE official ought to have attended though .
 
Last edited:
Goldenstar said:
God no , I don't agree with hat tagging either the responsibility rests with the individual .
There's no evidence at all that a BP could have saved that rider and he was an adult and made his own choices the BE official ought to have attended though .
Click to expand...

I guess for me that's the discrepancy. If we think it's right for them to tag hats, then the logic should extend to BPs as they're the two bits of safety kit there are rules about. Doesn't seem too logical to me that it's one or the other. Personally I don't see a problem with tagging both.

Of course no evidence it'd have made a difference, though if you read the fuller details of the coroners' report they DO think it MIGHT have made a difference to the feasibility of proper efforts at resuscitation given Jordan's specific injuries.

But my point was more one of detached logic - why hats and not BPs?
 
Tagging is all well and good to provide an easy check for stewards that you are meeting standards before going XC, however the responsibility is with the rider. You can easily have a hat tagged which is correct standards but if it doesn't fit you correctly or if it has taken a heavy knock in a previous fall then it may not be up to scratch. The same with body protectors.
 
bounce said:
Tagging is all well and good to provide an easy check for stewards that you are meeting standards before going XC, however the responsibility is with the rider. You can easily have a hat tagged which is correct standards but if it doesn't fit you correctly or if it has taken a heavy knock in a previous fall then it may not be up to scratch. The same with body protectors.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Tragic accident.
 
Nicnac said:
Absolutely. Tragic accident.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree, but I'm thinking objectively about the logic of thinking checks / tagging make a difference in one area but wouldn't make a difference in another. There are so very many risk variables in our sport, and awful accidents will always happen whatever we do... So where is the right line for intervention which will actually be responsible and effective and achieve the right balance with personal responsibility...?
 
It is a difficult one - RC/PC check BPs and tag hats; BE only tag hats. How would a BP tag be visible without getting in the way of riding when a large number of people have an air jacket over the top plus their number. Lots now wear their XC top over their BP as well.

There are rules about which hats and BPs (especially from 1/1/16) can be worn for various activities. I think it really is down to the rider to take responsibility. In this case the BP was legal in the riders own country (Canada) but not the UK. Competing under UK rules, there is no excuse for not knowing what the rules are.

There are stories, maybe unfounded, of people modifying their BPs by removing padding so although up to standard are no longer as manufactured.

As somebody said earlier in the thread, hats are tagged at BE but who knows if that hat is still 'safe'? Only the rider knows if they have had a crashing fall in said hat.

Insuring a BE event is already hugely expensive for the organisers - would they be able to continue to insure if taking even more responsibility for rider safety.

The only way would be to produce a unmodifiable (sorry that's not a real word) BE body protector and a BE hat taking away all choice/personalisation.
 
A tragic accident. However I am against tagging of BP s and Hats . The problem is exemplified by the hats. They meet a standard that a number of (but not all )hat manufacturers set . The standard avoids some very important areas because the current design would not meet them.Other designs which might be significantly better in those areas are banned . There is too much of a vested interest amongst the manufacturers .
 
I think the main thing that will come out of this is hopefully people will check that there BP meets the right standards for the event they are doing. Although it is up to the rider to know if there equipment meets standards, there are so many different standards it is hard to know for sure if you have the right ones.

Hat tagging I feel is needed, with different country having different standards. It is very easy to have a hat that you assume is right when in fact it just isn't.

I also think we need to have two hat tag colours, one for correct for all phases and one for correct for dressage and SJ. Stewards especial at XC don't have time to see if a hat with a tag is actually has a small fixed peak or a small peak that collapses.
 
I am astonished that the coroner is suggesting more safety checks be carried out. He was an adult, I don't know if a professional or not but at the end of the day it was his decision not to wear an up to date body protector. I have been out of BE for some years but I assume the standard of body protector required is in the rulebook. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame everyone else.

I get this too in my job and I have got to the point where I am ready to chuck it all in, I'm weary of it all.

I worry that people will stop running events and riding clubs because the ever increasing costs and red tape will become too much, specially for the smaller clubs.
 
I don't think tagging body protectors would help. Unfortunately they don't really protect from crush injuries as they are somewhat flexible. Maybe an air jacket could of helped if he was thrown from the horse initially but again, that might not have been a possibility. The other option would be saying everybody has to wear those body cages that lock but then that would mean a whole new logistical problem of keys to open them in case of an accident.
At the end of the day, it is down to the rider to take into account their own safety and they should always wear the correct equipment to the highest of safety standard that they can afford.
It was such a sad and tragic day for eventing loosing two riders in one day and the atmosphere at Nunney that afternoon was surreal, nobody could believe that it had happened. All we can do is learn from this horrid accident and hope it doesn't happen again.
 
Certainly not due to this inquest!

The horse fell on him...... No body protector except perhaps the discontinued Exo would have any chance of saving him , unless of course he had been wearing an air jacket on top , which wouldn't have been considered in any tagging as it is always additional to the body protector in BE!

Very tragic though and a cruel reminder of how dangerous our sport is.
 
People do wear exos now and keys carried by both them and medical parties on site (they notify the secretary they are wearing one). I'm not sure re tagging. I suppose technically all BP display the beta standard much more visibly than the inside of a hat (hence tagging the latter?).
 
This was a very unfortunate accident, but we shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to it. Accidents could be caused by other things too - girths too loose, tack breaking. Should BE be checking tack at every stage? Of course not.

Personally, I think that each rider must take responsibility for their own safety equipment - after all, it's ourselves that we're protecting.
 
Surely BPs already have to be tagged ie the Beta level 3 label !"
Air jacket in my opinion would not save anybody a normal BP wont as the forces exerted will be very similar.
I think the coroner was eluding to the new BP rules coming in rather than the current rules.

I am astonished and totally shocked that the safety official did not even turn up at the inquest ,I for one hope he never stewards another event for BE it is unforgivable as surely they would want to know everything that happened on their watch and report back to BE. Why was there not the paid safety representative there also or do BE not care about these things
 
Last edited:
I'm not clear which steward was the one who wasn't at the inquest..the steward on the day of the event?? If you read the BE statement they did have representatives at the inquest.

I have also had it pointed out on another post elsewhere that this body protector did meet the standards required in Canada.

A tragic accident for sure and hopefully will make everyone think more carefully about their equipment and standards etc.
 
I agree with Philamena that it is illogical to tag hats but not BPs when both are compulsory. But I think Nicnac is right and it wouldn't be easy to check given that BPs are often covered by other bits of kit. I also agree with her that a piece of kit being tagged doesn't mean it's in full working order. And I think smja has a very good point in that other bits of kit can also cause issues. And, as several people have said, it sounds like this rider would not have been saved by any available BP with the possible exception of the Exo. Presumably Canadian standards are similar to British?

So on the whole I have to agree with those who say that riders need to take responsibility for themselves. Apart from much else it would be dangerous to hold people's hands and wrap them in cotton wool and then send them off XC on their own - it's a dangerous sport and it becomes more dangerous if people aren't paying regard to their own safety. So if there is a lesson coming out of this it's that riders need to make sure they have the appropriate safety kit.

The steward not turning up to the enquiry looks bad, and I do think it's a bit disrespectful, but it isn't clear how significant his abscence actually was - what useful additional evidence could he have supplied?
 
According to the BBC report it was Health and Safety Steward, Major Jeremy Langlands. I respect BE for sending officials to the inquest, but if that was his role then he should have been there.

For me it's the principle. If a coroner asks you to attend an inquest, you should attend if at all humanly possible out of respect for the importance of the process for the grieving family. You certainly shouldn't leave it until one day before the inquest to tell them you can't attend because you're on holiday two hours down the road, leaving them with no time to issue a court summons requiring your attendance, or the only other alternative of adjourning the inquest and causing further delays to the family. It's easy to be dispassionate about it, but I've been to an inquest for a very close family member and you don't take it lightly. Even for those family members who don't or can't attend it's an important and emotional event to be respected.
 
I think it is a pretty poor show, saying there were other people from BE there does not exonerate anyone who was requested to be there not attending at such late notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top