XC safety - an illusion, or do you believe it?

[jumptoit]

It's the element of risk which makes eventing what it is! Perhaps they just want us to feel they put our money to good use and safety seems a good thing as we all care about it (to a certain extent) and it can always be improved, can't it?

Before anyone tells me I apologise for the wrong there, their in my previous post!

x

 

[HairyHatMan]

Coming into this discussion very late, it seems there are two sides being considered here.

Firstly most of the serious/fatal accidents one hears about are at the higher levels of eventing, where the majority of competitors are "professionals" and one would hope they know their job by this point. What the answer to this is I have no idea.

Secondly the discussion over "bad" riding/rounds one commonly sees at intro/PN level. This I believe is down to the individual or their trainer (one would hope) knowing their limits and not moving up until all was well.

In my case I am one of the second here. I hoped to get up to PN last year...it didn't happen. We had 99% good confident flowing intro xc's, but one mid-season our xc I felt was not good. She was very backward into every fence...you can get away with this to a point at intro. Despite this we got placed.....

However until we have a row of 100% confident xc rounds I personally am not going to risk it. But I'm older and wiser and fear for my safety and that of my horse, and continue to have training to achieve this.

Others may take the view, yeah we get placed regularly, we must be ok, and unless they or someone else (trainer/BE) etc says "no" accidents will happen.

 

[kerilli]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the element of risk which makes eventing what it is! Perhaps they just want us to feel they put our money to good use and safety seems a good thing as we all care about it (to a certain extent) and it can always be improved, can't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

umm, apart from the frangible pins, which i think are very good, i don't think it can. for instance in 07 the Burghley mushroom jumped badly. Mark Phillipps, one of the most experienced course designers in the world, took quite a few steps to make it jump better in 08 - moving it, filling in the take-off, etc. It caused MORE problems, it tricked a lot of very good horses (clear to that point) and caused repeated horrible falls.
I don't think BE can improve safety, it is purely up to riders, and their trainers to some extent, to improve themselves in order to make themselves and their horses better equipped to cope with the things they'll encounter.
edited to add: and to be responsible enough to not move up the levels until they are truly ready, and to go home if they walk a course and feel it is beyond their level at present... no shame in that. (yes - i've done it a few times, because there was one fence on the course that, for whatever reason, i was very unhappy about.)

 

[jumptoit]

Didn't mean it was all bad, but I think they risk taking all choice out of the competitors hands in a bid for safety, or spend lots of money in a bid for perfection that's impossible to achieve.

The mushrooms did cause nasty falls, I thought it was the downhill area with the trees myself, but I have heard they won't be making an appearance again anyway.

 

[Wiz]

[ QUOTE ]
Something to make people want to stay at a level until they had 'cracked' it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is something that coudl be thought on. The grassroots champs may help a bit but at the end of the day you're going to have to be fairly good at dressage too for qualifiying and we're perhaps more concerned about those not so good at the jumping. I know of people who have yet to jump a double clear at intro and I think rarely jump clear xc and are starting at PN this year - "cause intro was what they did last year and its time to move up" Not sure what incentive would work other than that you had to get intro points before you were allowed to do PN and so on.

 

[TarrSteps]

[ QUOTE ]
OK so we're all agreed that we all know our limits, would withdraw if we felt the course didn't suit our abilities or the horse didn't feel up to it, none of us are the dangerous people who gallop flat out at fences, miss and ride badly and if we don't feel that our horse is coping we've all got the perspicacity (Tarrsteps

) to realise and drop it (or us!) back a level

.

BUT what do you (we/I) do to guard against the rider who goes clear and thinks they're doing really well but is in fact borderline dangerous. The ones who DON'T realise it's going wrong. Who gets to burst their bubble? Obviously their mum/dad/trainer/best friend/husband/great-aunt Nellie can't have done or they wouldn't be all there congratulating the rider on another clear round. But someone has to say something at some point, surely

.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooooh, GB, double points, at least!

I only have "homogenous" thus far.

Back to the discussion, I think the second paragraph is the point of this discussion. There may be a limit to what BE can do and there are obviously significant risks inherent to the sport (although not as dangerous as taking drugs, obviously

) but I do think there has to be some attempt to help people make the correlation between what they are doing and the managing the risks involved. Yes, it's all well and good to "have a go", but I really do think there are people out there who take that as the word from on high that mistakes, especially at the lower levels, have no consequences, that luck is a big part of finishing the day standing up. I do think a great many people eventing at the lower end think that the sorts of accidents that happen at 4* level has nothing to do with them, that the miss that usually ends in a heart stopping moment is really no different than the one that ends with the air ambulance stopping play.

Btw, I think some people - lots actually - LIKE that feeling. Adrenalin is a VERY powerful drug. Having a "hairy" moment and surviving feels like a victory and an accomplishment, not a warning. They may not consciously choose to have those moments but the incentive to avoid them may not be as obvious as those of us who have suffered the inevitable end result might think. I do think what some people class as "losing confidence" after a serious scare is really just good sense reasserting itself.

Ludger Beerbaum said something in an interview once which fits well here, "Success is the sum of good decisions." I think it is important to remind people of the chance of getting hurt (or worse, hurting their horse) and that some of that risk goes with the territory, in part because none of us will ever get it all right, all the time, BUT that each good decision - getting the right instruction, having the right horse and equipment, remembering ELBOW, training the right responses, knowing when to push and when to call it a day, and so on and so on - vastly increases the chance of success (as in everyone finishing standing up).

Sometimes you have to scare people a little to make them listen. It might not be bad for business but then it's not always all about business.

 

[kerilli]

more good ideas.
hmm, adrenalin doesn't work like that on me. i get a great feeling at the end of a good, smooth, fun, round, but if i've had a couple of oops moments they really stick, and i dissect and analyse them exhaustively. still! to the point where, years later, i can clearly remember the 1 bad stride i got round a 3* track, etc etc. I bet i'm not alone in this, i can think of at least one other HHOer (Obsessive Perfectionist's Club) who is the same. Any others? Do people just forget the bad bits in the euphoria of survival?!

Okay, to discourage the "moving on up because Novice gives points" (which I totally understand, I remember the excitement of Getting A Point (!) and "moving on up because I've done a season of PN", or whatever, types...
How about:
Points for PN as follows: 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd.
If you do Intro at all, 3 double clears at Intro before going PN.
If you do PN, 3 double clears at PN before going N.
How about a real-time Questionnaire on the BE website to be taken by all riders who have not competed at Intermediate or above, or all new riders. Real-time so no time to go and check answers etc - must be completed in under x minutes (depending on number of questions), and questions such as:
"How would you approach a downhill upright fence, and why?"
"At what speed would you approach a pallisade-to-ditch fence?"
etc
(okay, these need some work! i don't think multiple-choice would work, it would be too obvious and easy to guess. someone would have to check them, but it shouldn't be impossible to work out who has a clue, and who doesn't, surely?!)
thoughts?

 

[Baydale]

Nope, adrenalin doesn't work like that on me either. I love the feeling when I've finished (lots of pony patting, jabbering to anyone who'll listen etc

), but you can be damn sure the first comment I'll make will be about the less-than-perfect

stride/approach/jump/depart I got at such and such a fence. (My name's Nicky, and I'm an Obsessive Perfectionist). It's not always a good thing to be that way, but it automatically puts me in the "Ever So Cautious" category rather than the "Winging It" category of cross country riders, therefore I'd like to think I'm self-regulating.

What about having a probationary period of say three events - imagine the pressure

- when you will be assessed and hopefully given the go ahead to enter more events? Obviously BE would refund you your considerable costs of registering if you were found to be sub-standard. Or maybe assessments should be before you even register? Hmmm, this is all getting a bit Big Brother-ish when really the onus should be on the individual to suss when he/she is risking his/her neck on a regular basis. Maybe more frank talking from wise and experienced people with clout at BE who spot the accidents waiting to happen? The more I think about this, the more difficult it is to find a workable solution.

 

[TableDancer]

[ QUOTE ]
What about having a probationary period of say three events - imagine the pressure

- when you will be assessed and hopefully given the go ahead to enter more events? Obviously BE would refund you your considerable costs of registering if you were found to be sub-standard. Or maybe assessments should be before you even register? Hmmm, this is all getting a bit Big Brother-ish when really the onus should be on the individual to suss when he/she is risking his/her neck on a regular basis. Maybe more frank talking from wise and experienced people with clout at BE who spot the accidents waiting to happen? The more I think about this, the more difficult it is to find a workable solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it's difficult to see a solution. The assessment route would necessitate someone actually watching each rider in detail which would be a huge commitment of resources - just looking at the result would fall into the trap we're all trying to avoid. Also, puts a huge responsibility on the person making the assessment: who else can see a scenario (inthe States if not here

) where someone is assessed as being safe to compete, goes and has a nasty fall and sues the assessor

I think it does come down to those in authority at BE and the FEI being a bit braver at events about coming off the fence where they see dangerously poor riding. Easy for me to say, I realise, I'm not the one who'll have to face irate riders/parents receiving a few home truths and taking it badly

But I think it needs to happen. One more thing, I think some (not all) of these officials can be guilty of being a bit gung-ho themselves and not exactly applauding but at least failing to sanction those who are going too fast at the lower levels - seemingly admiring their bravery and attacking attitude, sort of taking a hunting mentality to modern xc riding which tbh is a quite different activity whether you like it or not. Some of these officials date from the times when eventing was much more of a "kick-on and shut your eyes" sport and haven't necessarily moved with the times: I'm not talking about the top professional or semi-pro officials here, more the enthusiastic amateurs who the sport relies on to keep running... Also, what about those events who set ludicrously tight optimum times for PN and N level to make their event "Not a dressage competition"? Doesn't that encourage people who don't know any better to gallop flat out? Don't get me wrong, for every ignorant lower level rider who is going recklessly fast there is at least one, possibly more, numpty hooking and dumping their horse at the bottom of every fence - I'm not acting as advocate for these either

One thing I would take issue with - I think it was O_B who said "missing" had the same consequence whatever speed you are going. That's not strictly true: if you are going flat out the horse has a longer stride pattern anyway so the miss is "greater" and has less time to get his legs out of the way at the moment of impact. So if you are going a bit slower theoretically a miss is less catastrophic. A good example of this is my daughter on her pony: she's 12 and has little idea about seeing spots etc yet, leaving all that to the pony: fair enough

Competing last season at Intro, mostly he just sorts himself out, popping a little stride in or standing off as necessary, but there was one event last season (Stonar, actually) where she was going far too fast into a fence and he didn't have time - he half-banked/walked all over it but it was an extreme "hairy moment" which would never have happened if she's given him a little more time...

 

[Jul]

So many good points here and so much to say/comment on, I wouldn't know where to start!
Something that has definitely hit home with me though, are the comments about the pressure to move up through the levels.
I'm not one to compete again and again at a level once I feel I've 'cracked it' so I definitely put a certain amount of pressure on myself (as per the other interesting thread on this subject). But I won't move up unless I feel the current level is getting almost easy for me.

Yet the reaction I get from people is almost unfailingly one of near disapproval if my plans don't include moving up. For example, we started PN last year and when our very first one went well, one comment was 'so are you going to take her novice now?' Umm... No! I haven't ruled it out for the future but just because we've got round a few PNs fairly well it doesn't by any means mean I think we're ready for novice - I'm not sure we'll ever be ready for novice but it's hard to admit that to a lot of people who are scornful about my lack of confidence.

Now I know what people think doesn't matter and I refuse to let it get to me and will continue with PNs until (if) I am walking courses thinking 'this is too easy' which is what happened with the intros. However, that's me and I'm sure there are plenty of people who DO let it get to them and are easily persuaded to 'have a go' at the next level based on a couple of successful rounds. Therein lies one of the problems.

Lots more to say but this will get too long!

 

[EmbarrassingEllie]

Really hope you don't mind me putting some of my thoughts in as one of the very very grass root riders who probably in some people's eyes shouldn't be eventing.

I have come to eventing fairly late in life having not been lucky enough to have come up through the pony club/hunting ranks, I had been a riding school rider who then was really just a happy hacker whilst career took the priority, once that changed and I had more time on my hands and my goals came back into focus I decided that my aim was to event, I had a decent enough horse but sadly the rider was lacking. The first step on my goal to eventing was to get myself a BE accredited trainer. This lovely lady who (had competed at Badminton on a number of occassions) after a few lessons when I finally felt that I knew her well enough to let her into my secret aim informed me that I still wasn't too late to enter an intro that was coming up within a month. For a moment I thought wow she actually thinks I can do it, maybe I can before realisation hit that either a) she wasn't actually interested in me enough to care whether I made a laughing stock of myself or b) intro is deemed so dumbed down that some trainers think that absolutely anybody can attempt it - obviously a few people on here think that is the case but I think this is a valid point in the question of safety and standard of riding at a lower level.

So I personally would like to see some sort of test before you can affiliate or as someone I think has already suggested you have to be nominated by an accredited trainer before you can compete. Maybe if reckless/bad riding is continually noted from riders nominated from the same trainer then questions could be asked.

Please forgive me for grammar/punctuation/rambling have just finished nightshift

 

[kerilli]

This is a really good point which I'd not realised until it was pointed out in the thread. I'm guilty of always wanting to go onward and upwards, but I have, so far, known when to stop.
I think it's human nature to want a bit of a challenge, to want to do bigger stuff (with associated kudos of course, which is inevitable) if we think we and our horses are up to it. the difficult bit is teaching/showing people what feeling they should be getting, consistently, the whole way round at least a few courses, before going up a level.
It shouldn't feel dangerous or out-of-control. It should feel like harmony between rider and horse, agreeing on speed, pace, turns, slowing down. (kind of like driving a car you know well, when you don't have to think at all about changing gear etc, it just happens while you're listening to the radio!) The fences should feel like puzzles that your riding tells your horse how to deal with, and it goes according to plan, if that makes sense. Any other things I've missed?!

 

[kerilli]

bebe, thanks for input. tbh i think you need to go and walk an Intro course if you haven't already, they are very nice and inviting. I doubt your experienced trainer would have said you should have a go if she thought you weren't up to it.. maybe not winning, but not being a laughing stock either. IF you are xc schooling and sj with confidence over the same height, and the dressage is reasonable, and an experienced person has watched you and thinks you are up to it... go for it.
this thread wasn't intended to put people off having a crack at BE!

 

[EmbarrassingEllie]

Sorry Kerilli I should have said that was 5 years ago, I luckily found a very good instructor who took the time and energy to be honest with my faults but to also be encouraging with goals. Intro's are very encouraging but there is still bad/dangerous riding to be seen as people are witnessing and I honestly at that point would have been guilty of one if not both of them. With some guts on my part and plain honesty on my horses part I may have got round a few intros and then thought great I will move up to PN, and from there it just gets more and more dangerous.

I don't think this thread will put people of eventing but as of most subjects on HHO it does make you think and that is a very good thing

 

[kerilli]

sorry, misunderstood, thought you meant that was last year!
interesting that a very experienced person was so casual about Intro though, hmmmm. more food for though there.

 

[SuperHorse]

Yes there's some dubious riding at the lower levels - but I don't think that's a major safety issue. Any horse should be capable of jumping round a PN and most would be easily able to sort themselves out over a 1m track if the rider makes a mistake.
It's not intro and PN that are the problem - how many riders have been kiled at these levels (none that I've heard of, although please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I think a major issue is that the dressage has become so influential that people are using a different type of horse which is less suited to cross-country. Also, as the sport has become more popular and accessible there are more amateurs taking part. This isn't an issue at the lower levels, but as higher level tracks have become more technical these riders lack the experience to ride them properly, and are more likey to make mistakes.

 

[Baydale]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there's some dubious riding at the lower levels - but I don't think that's a major safety issue. Any horse should be capable of jumping round a PN and most would be easily able to sort themselves out over a 1m track if the rider makes a mistake.
It's not intro and PN that are the problem - how many riders have been kiled at these levels (none that I've heard of, although please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I think a major issue is that the dressage has become so influential that people are using a different type of horse which is less suited to cross-country. Also, as the sport has become more popular and accessible there are more amateurs taking part. This isn't an issue at the lower levels, but as higher level tracks have become more technical these riders lack the experience to ride them properly, and are more likey to make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]



I agree that it's not intro and PN that are the problem, but I think this thread has already established that many competitors feel if they're getting round those ok they should therefore be able to move up to Nov, Int etc. Intro and PN should be the building blocks to establish good cross country riding; that riding will then be tested to the max further up the levels. If a rider is (pardon me for using my favourite phrase again) "winging it" at intro and PN then yes, they are likely to get away with it. However someone needs to point out to them that are unlikely to have incident-free rounds at Novice and above if they try and wing it there.

The jury's out with me as far as the dressage v cross country debate goes, but I wonder if it may well be the type of horse that's more often used to event nowadays needing more skill from the riders. Again, eventing has evolved so much that it's not as if you're comparing like with like when you look at the 80s and current day, so who's to say that our current "modern" horses couldn't have been good eventers in the 80s?

 

[Rosiefan]

Presumably the people who are riding badly/dangerously don't know they are or they wouldn't do it so how do they get to find out? Would there be any mileage in BE trying to produce a video of real disasters/near disasters at real events. Then you'd need some kind of commentary explaining what's going wrong. Mind you, it would be quite a difficult video to produce I suppose. But then it could be including in the welcome pack for new registrees (is there such a word).

Also, are minor accidents fully investigated? If you could identify the most common mistakes people make, trainers could maybe concentrate on those areas.

Probably talking c**p - feel free to ignore me.

 

[TableDancer]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably the people who are riding badly/dangerously don't know they are or they wouldn't do it so how do they get to find out? Would there be any mileage in BE trying to produce a video of real disasters/near disasters at real events. Then you'd need some kind of commentary explaining what's going wrong. Mind you, it would be quite a difficult video to produce I suppose. But then it could be including in the welcome pack for new registrees (is there such a word).

Also, are minor accidents fully investigated? If you could identify the most common mistakes people make, trainers could maybe concentrate on those areas.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think this could be a good idea if it could be managed. Years ago, again as a result of some nasty accidents, BE organised some xc clinics which were supposedly for 2* and above riders. These included video analysis of 2/3* xc riding, both good and bad - it was a debate situation, ith people like Yogi/Lucinda Green/Pippa F facilitating and contributing. I found it very useful and there are things which I still remember from it now

As far as investigating is concerned, I believe all falls are now analysed to a degree and the data goes into BE's overall survey.However, it would be good somehow to analyse the near misses too: after all, probably only 10% if that of the hairy moments actually result in a fall. That Goodyear fence was supposed to help in this respect but I don't know if we are going to get anything useful out of it

 

[dieseldog]

Are the deaths happening at Novice? At present a rider can't go Intermediate unless they have 5 clears XC, so safety has been built into the jump up to Intermediate.

You lot all comdemned the idea of people being allowed to stay in PN indefinatley, but now it seems that that is what you want. Maybe it would be a good idea to canvass event organisers to put on more Open classes. If a horse has jumped out of a class and there is no opens what do you do? You move up because you have no choice.

 

[PaddyMonty]

Riding XC will never be safe

haven't read all replies but a few things come to mind
1) Far fewer horses and riders hunt these days. No matter what a persons views of hunting it does develop both horse and rider.

2) XC training. Most folks have regular Dr and SJ training but what about XC training? Jumping XC is very very different toi SJ but how many people rely on their SJ training to get them round an XC course? Far to many. Attending a couple of 1 day clinics will not save your neck. Sure most will go XC schooling but are they really training appropriately? which brings me on to my next point.

3) How often do you see people practicing or worse, being trained for XC and told to jump a fence from a 10 yard approach? Is that really what will happen on the day?
So they learn to jump obstacle A from a nice short approach then have to face same obstacle on the day but this time approaching much longer and faster?

As an aside, I often help out in XC control. We tend to dread intro as it generally involves a lot more holding of course due to pile-ups etc.

 

[Baydale]

I don't think "us lot" did DD, we were too busy complaining about ex-Advanced horses being allowed to run in PN classes.

You're right about more open classes being needed though. However if your horse has won a couple of PN, and they are pretty competitive, I'd like to think that a) I wouldn't move up to Novice unless I was 100% happy with our progress, and b) that winning at PN would be some indication of the ability of the horse, and c) that if I was at all unsure I would run HC in a class rather than move up and mess up.

 

[TableDancer]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the deaths happening at Novice? At present a rider can't go Intermediate unless they have 5 clears XC, so safety has been built into the jump up to Intermediate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there have been deaths at Novice

And all grades above that... Safety isn't built in because results are by no means an indication of ability/safety to progress. I believe you are SJ DD?? If so you must have frequently seen rounds where you go "OMG how the h*ll did they manage that?" well it's exactly the same xc except if a SJ goes to the next level when they're not up to it they get eliminated/get a cricket score; with fixed fences xc it can be quite a lot messier

 

[flyingfeet]

How about not letting people go Novice before having 5 clears Pre-Novice?

 

[connie1288]

I wouldnt have been allowed to go novice i doubt then!! she was a nappy moo in 07 but jumped clear xc every time out in 08 inc novice and CIC*. I think the biggest problem with horses is that they are not all the same, so one rule which means 1 horse will be safe does not mean it will be the same for another, like the compulsory retirement rule for too many faults SJ, my mare is poor sj but amazing xc, just because she is careless over coloured poles does not mean we are not safe xc.

 

[kerilli]

[ QUOTE ]

You lot all comdemned the idea of people being allowed to stay in PN indefinatley, but now it seems that that is what you want. Maybe it would be a good idea to canvass event organisers to put on more Open classes. If a horse has jumped out of a class and there is no opens what do you do? You move up because you have no choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a horse that has won 2 PN should only be allowed to run in OPNs from then onwards. We need a lot more OPN classes as well, I believe.

I agree with M_M on her last point - I, too, have a horse which is casual over the sjs but a totally different matter on the xc. In the past I have not run xc if a horse hit more than 2 sjs (because with that particular careful horse, it was an indication that something was wrong) but this mare will tap 3 or 4 down sj but then be careful, rideable and great xc. The score is not always indicative of how the round went... i've had (and seen) terrible rounds that were somehow clear!
must admit, if it was down to "x double clears before moving up a level" we'd be stuck for a long time!

 

[TarrSteps]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, misunderstood, thought you meant that was last year!
interesting that a very experienced person was so casual about Intro though, hmmmm. more food for though there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I'm not. If a trainer errs towards caution and, if pressed, the dispensing of hard truths he/she will likely lose the occasional client over it. If he/she takes an even firmer line and walks away from people who are determined to make bad choices/not listen to reason/take unnecessary chances then he/she will almost certainly loose a client or two. Unfortunately, these are also often the most enthusiastic, ambitious clients, willing to spend money, buy nice horses etc. I am not condoning turning a blind eye but some people have huge mortgages, strings of horses to run and ambitions of their own. I would not guarantee every decision is made with the best interests of the client at heart.

As a note, I know this to be because I have spoken what I feel to be the truth and lost clients to trainers who speak a more attractive truth. I have also walked away at least once, in part as a last ditch wake up call, in part because, honestly, I didn't want to be the run responsible when it all went wrong. We makes our choices, we takes our chances. But I don't think assuming only/all BE trainers are immune to a** patting is completely reasonable.