|
Active Riders
AECs
Area Affiliates
|
Lexington Safety Summit…Notesby Duncan MacRae, Area II Chairman posted June 9, 2008 *****Important Disclaimer***** Some introductory discussionDavid O’Connor. Opening remarks. 2% of rider falls result in injury. Few of those are serious. 50% of horse falls result in serious rider/horse injury. Plainly, reducing horse falls will go a long way to reducing catastrophic injury for both horses and riders. The focus of the summit should be on how to reduce horse falls. Kevin Baumgardner: Praised Jimmy Wofford and Danny Warrington’s editorial pieces. Expressed a need for us all to unite and become “evangelists” for safety. Frangible PinsOnly 4% of jumps are built with frangible pins. Frangible fences are only useful to the horse and rider who are already in deep trouble! When the question was put to the group; “Should all fences be frangible?” the answer was a resounding NO! (There was some confusion about whether the 4% number was for US or UK courses. I think the end result was that since the UK mandates all fences that fit the frangible guidelines use frangible pins, the 4% refers to UK. I think that the US has far less than 4% frangible fences.) The question was raised would the riders ride less carefully if they knew that the fences would fall/deform. No answer was found. CMP noted that British research found that a 2 foot diameter log, suspended in free space, theoretically has enough mass to cause a rotational fall. (He did not specify how long that 2’ diameter log would be!) Limiting Elements v. DistanceThe topic of number of jumping elements v. distance. The proposed standard is one jumping element per commenced 100m. Currently, FEI courses average: 1* 1/135, 2* 1/145, 3 & 4* 1/160-178m. It was deemed more important that the ratio would prevent having max # of fences in min distance rather than a specific distance between fences. Speeds on courseCMP made the point that it is a uniquely US phenomenon that riders feel they should make the time. Not so in other countries. Watches for the lower levels. A fairly strong sentiment against but that was tempered a bit. (Ed. If the LL are using a watch, it would seem to me that they should HAVE to wheel the course and find minute markers. Otherwise they ride blindly and look at their watch at the end and slow way down to avoid speed faults. Teaches nothing about pace.) Current study by John Staples identified a BN rider going 500 MPM and a 4* rider doing 900 MPM. His technology has the ability to track a horse and rider over an entire course and plot their speed on a google map. Can also see speed at any given point as well as averages. Useful data for CDs. Technical difficulty of coursesDorothy Crowell noted that after a 10 year absence from 4* level, she felt that the courses had not changed much at that level. Courses at lower levels have changed significantly. Sally O’Connor strongly pitched a return to 2002 and before course specs. Ease the Training courses and make them friendly and inviting for the horses. They are too much like “mini prelim” courses and not good, safe, inviting courses. Scare developing horses. CMP and Tremaine Cooper both voiced the opinion that size needs to be at or near max on the majority of fences. (softer at more difficult questions is OK.) USEA is working on an online addition to each events Omnibus listing which will list specifics about the particular course to help Comps evaluate if the course is what they are looking for. (NOT course ratings! Just info about your course to get away from the old “Average for horses with some experience at the level” useless bit of info. There was a renewed call for course advisor checks of training and prelim courses. Qualifications 2009(As best I understood the conversation.) Prelim: 4 qualifying results as follows: Dr. <50 PP// XC zero jump PP & < 90 secs over OT// Stadium Not more than 16 Jumping PP. Within 2 years. Intermediate and advanced: As above but ONE XC score with 20 jump PP allowed. Danny Warrington noted that some pairs could be well prepared for the next level with 3 qualifying results, other pairs might not be ready with 20. This began a long discussion of qualifying criteria, without any real resolution, other than that the group was basically in favor of the above as a good starting point. This was also a trigger for the discussion about prepared vs. qualified. We should be chasing education, not qualifying scores!! Others suggested that coaches and trainers should also be licensed. (ICP???) Many agreed that they have all had to look away from some of the things they see going on in warmup. Shelley Lambert noted that the students of one trainer produced virtually all of the injuries at her spring event. Rider licensing was discussed at length. It seems like a pretty good solution but there is currently no plan on when or how to implement. Consensus was to start by licensing 4* riders and go from there. “This is a long term process so don’t be disappointed if you don’t see immediate results. Results will take some time. No matter what else, the USEA and USEF are to be congratulated on taking the initiative to host such a meeting. Make sure you support them in this process.” Another suggestion was to deal with those that have stood on the sidelines and thought they were watching “An accident looking for a place to happen” kind of rides. In UK, there is an informal but pretty effective method to get word to a rider that they are…not at their best, shall we say????? Also a watch list of riders who bear greater scrutiny from the GJ and TD. NOT PUBLIC INFO. There was a discussion of yellow and red flags and their meaning. As I got it, today a red flag means pull up. Rider is eliminated. Several said that they (or students) had been eliminated but never received an explanation as to why. This does not benefit the sport. Rider licensing/eligibility was hot topic, as expected. The best solution I heard was one where riders accrued positive points for good rides and lost points for faults, eliminations and falls. A certain number of points would be required to compete at a certain level. If one fell below that number of points, you would have to move back a level. N.B.; NOT A FIRM IDEA YET. UNDER DEVELOPMENT!!!!! Malcolm Hook suggested a program which only dealt with the 5-15% of riders who are a problem. Not essential to involve the majority who are not having problems. The idea of “style points/Awards” is not dead. Dangerous ridingSome riders who have been pulled off course have not received an explanation as to why they were removed. Unacceptable. Gretchen Butts noted that at a recent FEI conference in Sweden, of the FEI officials in attendance, NONE had issued a DR penalty. OfficialsThere were a disturbing number of riders who felt that their concerns regarding a XC course was not being duly considered, much less addressed. Rider Reps need to have more impact, and respect from, competition management, ground jury and TD. There was strong support for paid, professional TDs to be employed by USEF. Orgs might be given a choice of 3 to select their TD. These TDs would work at least 40 events per year and so, would theoretically be more up on what’s happening. Better practiced. They would also be more objective since they would not have to worry about pleasing Orgs. Perhaps TD reports might be more useful. Malcolm noted that current reports are less than ideal. Funding must also be found for education of officials and trainers. Tim Holekamp and others are supporting ICP development. More needs to be done. There are now about 160 ICP certified instructors. A goal of 500 in two years was set. Equine Cardio SystemThere was a lot of consideration given to research on EIPH. Kent Allen is developing criteria for the research with Catherine Kohn. There is a need to identify sources of funding. AAEP may be willing to help. Catherine Kohn said we may be approaching the physical limits of the equine cardio vascular and pulmonary capability. (Ed. Consider Jimmy Wofford’s article about the Grand National. 4.5 miles at race speed. We are asking our 4* horses to do 11+ minutes of XC where the speeds between fences are high, then slow down, jump, then accelerate. It takes a great deal more energy to accelerate than it does to maintain speed. With about 30 numbered elements on a 4* course, the horse must accelerate from 350-400 MPM back to 800 MPM MANY times.) SummaryAt the end, it was apparent that there was no great call to change the sport to something different. Eventing will remain the sport that we all know and love. “We need to preserve what we have but make room for change.” John Long “Change won’t happen overnight” Kevin Baumgardner. There was a pervasive theme of education for riders especially, but also for horses. “Our basics are not good enough.” David O’Connor Howard Simpson asked what we do in the event of another serious accident before we have the opportunity to implement change. David answered that we need to be willing to place blame where it belongs. Much like the NTSB will call a plane crash pilot error if that is the case. If the accident was caused by “pilot” error, we need to be willing to state that. The same goes for other possible contributing factors. He used course building as an example. If I build a jump to test a particular question and it does not get the desired result, I need to be willing to admit I was wrong and learn from the experience. Not repeat the error. CMP warned that it is difficult from a human POV to lay guilt on a rider who may be recovering from serious injury. We need to be compassionate and considerate. USEA and USEF will be supplying frangible pins, no charge, on request. Effective immediately. We need to improve our data collection and analysis. We need to have accident data delivered and analyzed more quickly. All data to be collected at a central point. Causal data to be disseminated broadly. There are issues with HIPPA and liability that must be addressed. The addition of a level between Training and Prelim was met with very strong negative sentiment. Also, a two track system was similarly dismissed. The group felt that the offering of a range of speeds at a level met the need. Also, T/P and P/I divisions are viewed as helping to ease the transition. Riders coming into the sport have a different background than those of the past. They are less likely to have fox hunting or steeplechase racing experience. How do we replace that knowledge? Through education. What that education consists of has not been well defined. Heather Bailey pressed for continuation of the long format. I supported that with a statement of how important that first one star is to the development of the relationship between horse and rider as well as the epiphany that takes place for the rider. (At least for me!) David was “indirectly” in support as he mentioned, several times, the VA CCI* and the lack of participation. Philip Dutton said that he felt that 2 or 3 steeplechase rides did little to educate the horse, but I disagreed with him because of what I said above. Please take the above as one person’s view of what was important and what was said. I am not a reporter and my judgment has been known to be clouded before. I had to leave before they wrapped up the session this morning, so I missed the last few minutes. On the whole I think this was a productive meeting. It has raised a great many questions and hopefully provided a few answers at the same time. This is a long term process so don’t be disappointed if you don’t see immediate results. Results will take some time. No matter what else, the USEA and USEF are to be congratulated on taking the initiative to host such a meeting. Make sure you support them in this process. Sincerely, Duncan MacRae
|
Area II Contacts | Contact Webmaster
© 2008 United States
Eventing Association Area II. No part
of this website may be reproduced without express written permission.
Website Design and Maintenance by
WoW! Graphic Designs. Additional thanks to Kendall Church, Tina McKenzie,
and Diane McBroom