When eventers unite

The Great Shepherd Debacle?

Although it may be a disadvantage to be an early ride in a situation such as this, I strongly support removing an obstacle causing falls. Horses and riders are hopefully prepared when attending an event, especially at this level. I understand there are some situations where the rider or the horse may be over faced. This certainly is the rider's, or their trainer's, responsibility to responsibly assess the ability of each. When you have several falls at one obstacle, I believe it is the ground jury's responsibility to evaluate and eliminate a failed question on behalf of the riders and the horses. I also believe the riders have the right to come together and respectfully request an obstacle be removed, without the consequence of elimination.

While it doesn't happen in the US in eventing, at the h/j shows the riders and trainers are very quick to let show management know when they want a course change for whatever reason. I am often dismayed at how we just "suck it up".

At Fair Hill a few years ago 3 horses fell at one jump and one horse died there. The ground jury did not remove the jump from the course.

Red Hills in 2008: the second water jump on the one star course had repeated riders stumbling in the water..turns out that there was a lost stirrup in the water jump causing the stumbles...so I vote for listening to the finishing riders for safety's sake...they should be able to tell officials what's going on...and I trust that they would do it reliably, and the officials should listen to them.

We as riders are responsible for our horses' safety. If there's a fence that is riding poorly consistently and posing a risk to our mounts, then it's our responsibility to say something. There's a big difference between a fence that's causing trouble/stops/run outs/etc. and a jump where it looks like something is just going wrong and putting horses and riders in danger.

Leaving the fence in puts the riders in a very difficult position where they may have no choice but to scratch, but taking it out is unfair for the riders that went first. Unfortunately, this is a case of things just having to be unfair. You can't risk future horses and riders just to make sure everyone had the same level of difficulty (or in this case, the same level of danger).

More regulation is not the answer (removing a jump after number ofnfalls) good officiating is. Also, if riders in a warm up in the US refused to start en masse, I think the officials would want to take note rather than endure the bad publicity in the aftermath of scratching concerned riders.

Also, I agree with the earlier comment that eventers tend to view showing concern as being whiny, which is absurd, concern for the horse should take over.

The risk isn't always at the highest levels. I was walking a course at an event while the TD and her helper were measuring cross-country fences(at 8pm Sat night none the less-shouldn't that be done well ahead of time?) Anyway, I was near the bank complex when they measured the BN drop and acted horrified by it, said it was too big, and then just shrugged their shoulders and walked away. It stayed as it was. Makes me really confident about our officiating.

Oh yeah, forgot about this one: about 10yrs ago at an event on the prelim course was a ditch and brush that we ALL thought was way too big and not very well thought out in terms of course design. I don't think anyone said anything and it caused several serious falls, incl. one that involved screens being put up. They left it on the course for the remainder of the day, but it was torn down and filled in by Sun. Hmmmm......

I observed the 4th fall at the Barbury water. By this time there had been several prolonged holds. One was a 1/2 hr + hold because the 2 horse ambulances were in use, never a good sign... I should preface I am a event rider, event veterinarian, and I love our sport, but there were NO choices but to remove the fence. Coolys Luxury jumped with a correct bold effort and was unfairly rewarded. I have observed such occurrences with certain fences on different occasions, none are rewarding. Whether it was missing that final element, which was my thought at the time, or lacking on some other level you cannot stand by with a knot in your gut and keep hoping they will not fall. Did removing that water change the course, sure it did.

I'm going to be very careful how i word this because i wasn't there and didn't see the fence, but unless a distance is totally impossible, there WILL be a way that a fence can be safely negotiated. it may need a true 'coffin canter' approach, for instance, or even, say, trot... to, say, a huge drop with short distance to an upright, just for example.
i've been told that some riders made the water jump look easy... Toddy, for instance. (had he gone already? have i been misinformed?)
the fence tested something fairly major - could you have the power (and, if necessary, pace) to jump a huge table, related distance to a biggish log (turtle), and have enough control to lose that speed/excess of power (on the way to the log?) and just pop down over the (smallish) 2nd log down the big drop into the water.
from what i've heard, the horses were powering in over the big table, and then coming so strong/fast that they were ballooning hugely over the little log and down the big drop. Someone said that 1 of the riders who fell was yelling "whoa" as his horse went to the log... if so, he realised it was too quick. (i know sometimes the reactions of the horse aren't as fast as we'd like or we need...!) last year the table wasn't there (if i've been told right), so the approach was different, hence it didn't test the same thing (quite as much? or, at all?) and caused far fewer problems.
I think when you ask "what is the best way to handle whether or not to remove a jump that is riding poorly?" that the language is the problem here, it's passive, surely the question is "what is the best way to handle whether or not to remove a jump that IS BEING RIDDEN poorly"... maybe because of the infelicitous positioning of the previous table, maybe because of lack of control, i really don't know, but i am sure that SOME experienced combinations made it look fine, and more would have. i don't think it would have been passed if it had been an unjumpable/impossible question...
i hope that is cagey enough. this isn't a 'holier than thou' post (god forbid), but it still comes down to Rider Responsibility... to train enough, to have their horses responsive enough, to recognise the question posed and how to solve it, to realise if their horse wasn't up to that question YET and withdraw, or whatever.
knowing to just drop into water is something they learn. I knew someone with a top 4* horse and he said he always felt him rap/rub down the fence into water with his hindlegs (this horse was a Grade A sj'er as well, not a casual horse!) - the horse knew that that was the safest way to 'let himself down' into water... this horse was silly bold elsewhere btw. he'd learnt.
horses have to take the cue from their rider, when they can unleash their power, and when to power down and just pop the fence and land waiting for instruction, not accelerating. if they get it wrong, things go wrong...
there have always been fences which tested this. the ski-jump at Badminton the year that Lucinda Green and Ginny Leng came to grief (the latter from Murphy Himself, when instead of popping the log on top he ballooned it), the jetty in the water at The Lake at Badders some years ago (claimed some very notable scalps), tight turning questions, bounces, all sorts. fences which 'punish' over-boldness have always been there... it's the riders' job to read it right and make sure they get it right (or, accept that their horse is not quite ready for that question yet, w/d, train more, and wait for another day - loads of us have done that.)
fwiw i've been eventing since 1988 in the U.K. incl LF 2*s and 3*. (text above already posted on HHO board on similar thread.)

Unlike other horse trials, x-c at Barbury Castle is run in reverse order of go, and if it had been run like a regular horse trial, would those 4 falls have just been scattered throughout the day? I looked thru my photos and all 4 riders who fell had slightly different approaches to the drop into the water.
I was glad the officials removed the water jump. The first time I went to Burghley in 2004 a British rider was killed at a water jump and it was not removed form the course and other riders had similar falls (where the horse just fell other the rail in the water). A top British rider wrote an emotional editorial in Horse and Hound the next week, but how vocal where they during x-c when this disaster happened?
I remember when Jersey Fresh had a new water jump and it did not ride well at all-- I recall 2 horses were held on course and riders were told to switch to the 2 star water jump.

Fairness is a fundamental and essential tenent of competition. When a competition ceases to adhere to the principle of "fairness," where all competitors have the same chance, then it morphs to something other than a competition. I think that maintaining fairness, giving all riders the same shot at the same obstacle, is a judgment call, and what these highly experienced officials MUST do -- make a judgment. They need the hutzpah to make the call, and then need to provide some way of allowing the previous riders an absolution of time penalties, for instance, or some other fair way of going forward -- a 4 penalty window going into show jumping, forgiven time penalties on XC, a bonus point or something that brings the competition back up to fair for all. Jumps do go wrong, sometimes with no rhyme or reason to it -- we all fail and we all make mistakes, course designers are no different. The most brilliant designers ever will admit to many failures. So I think that is where the officials decision making power comes in, and where they must step up and make a call in the interest of the competition, the horses, and the riders.

From the video of the 2** water, it looks as if the horses were having depth perception issues with the edge of the out bank because it looked as if they jumped to a spot they expected to be solid only to have their feet either miss completely or glance off the front lip.

Who knows, maybe all 4 of the 3*** riders who had horse falls were over faced, but maybe the non superstar riders who made it through without issue were just luckier. They made the right decision to take it out. Otherwise, what do you do-ask 4 average riders to go next and if they all make it through, leave the jump up, but if someone falls, thank them for being the guinea pig and then take it out? I don't think you can assume 4 horse falls is rider error given the way it jumped for some of those who did make it.

I've seen some of the best riders in the US absolutely bungle the Jersey Fresh main water multiple years. Sometimes there's something funky about the water that people can't see or feel.

Lucinda Green wrote a very good letter in H&H magazine this week. To paraphrase - the main change from last year was an easy table which needed to be jumped in a small canter. By riding the distance instead of the fence some arrived on too open a stride and paid the price. Any huge drop at 4* is ridden at trot or at fastest a mini canter. Horses need time to look at the fence as have not walked the course. Open strides and speed are not the answers. It ends with LG mentioning that we are too obsessed with strides and instead should be helping horses to read the question and making sure they are suitably balanced and powered to negotiate.
LG then mentions that instead of riders accepting they are at fault the fence is taken out and the demise of cross country's influence continues.