# Adelinde Cornelissen - A Rant!!



## Katikins (10 August 2012)

OK, I've made a point of watching all her tests and I just need to make this post because I feel like I might be completely blind or over-reacting!!  Now living in the Netherlands I support Britain first and the Netherlands second in all sports with the exception of the dressage due to the training methods (I will quickly take Edward Gal out of this equation as I think he rode Undercover beautifully and softly all week).

But, how Adelinde managed to get the scores she did, in my mind, is a travesty!  Parzival  looked tense the entire time in EVERY test especially through his lower neck and jaw and Adelinde was constantly leaning back with arms that looked hard as iron.  In the GP Special he was grinding his teeth so hard throughout the entire thing I wonder if he actually has any left!

Now, for the Kur I made a point of just watching his legs to try and see what everybody else is seeing and he does do all the right things down there and he was almost bang on the music throughout his test but the overall picture just looked ugly to me.  But I thought that Laura's test was leagues ahead of this, Alf was just wonderful and the entire test looked effortless and fluid.  I nearly burst into tears when she finished.

So, could someone please tell me that I'm mad and I'm just seeing things (maybe my prejudices are getting the better of me) as even the H&H editor seems to disagree with me:




			" I just couldn&#8217;t surpress a deep, gnawing feeling that &#8212; to my eyes at least &#8212; Adelinde&#8217;s test was the best today. It was sublime &#8212; those rotating piaffes, the beautifully choreographed canter pirouettes, executed bang on the beat of the music. It left me mesmerised &#8212; and a trifle flat. That&#8217;s it, I thought &#8212; the Dutch may have it."
		
Click to expand...

OK, rant over.  Overall its been a brilliant Olympics for our equestrian team and I'd like to say how proud I am (we all are) of William, Tina, Mary, Zara, Nicola, Ben, Scott, Peter, Nick, Richard, Carl, Laura and Charlotte!  And of course all those associated with all horses and riders.  Bask in the glory for as long as you can


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

Katikins said:



			But, how Adelinde managed to get the scores she did, in my mind, is a travesty!  Parzival  looked tense the entire time in EVERY test especially through his lower neck and jaw and Adelinde was constantly leaning back with arms that looked hard as iron.  In the GP Special he was grinding his teeth so hard throughout the entire thing I wonder if he actually has any left!

Now, for the Kur I made a point of just watching his legs to try and see what everybody else is seeing and he does do all the right things down there and he was almost bang on the music throughout his test but the overall picture just looked ugly to me.  But I thought that Laura's test was leagues ahead of this, Alf was just wonderful and the entire test looked effortless and fluid.  I nearly burst into tears when she finished.
		
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that.
PLUS, I think 'tense' is quite polite about the jaw, it was rigid, and he was over bent for a good bit of the time. I totally agree Laura should have been closer if not above.


----------



## debbier4 (10 August 2012)

I thought it was just me. I felt that Parzival was rigid throughout the test - even in extension his head and neck didn't move.


----------



## Vizslak (10 August 2012)

totally agree, laura and alf to me rode a much better kur, leagues ahead of parzivals tense, stilted unhappy looking kur. I think Laura and alf were robbed, there is no way to my mind that they should have been nearly 4% behind parzivals score.


----------



## BeesKnees (10 August 2012)

No I don't think you're mad, and judging by many posts on here, neither do many HHOers.

I too was baffled by the mark yesterday. Apart from the tension, some of the work just wasn't correct! The piaffes largely consisted on weight on the forehand, forelegs marching heavily and the back end bouncing up and down in a disconnected way. Considering that piaffe is the precursor to levade, I could see no earthly way Parzifal would've been able to sit on his hocks and lift both legs up from such a piaffe.

Therefore, surely it is incorrect and should've been marked down? 

If this forum is a barometer, then perhaps increasingly people are questioning the way dressage has gone, both in the execution of the movements and the training.

Or maybe were both mad!


----------



## MurphysMinder (10 August 2012)

I know very little about dressage (have learned lots though this week from the comments on here) but what I couldn't get over was the way she was leaning back nearly all the time, and her hands and arms seemed totally rigid and unyielding. My daughter would have received a bo****king if she had ridden like that at Pony Club as a child.  Parzival also seemed to have his mouth open a lot of the time, which I didn't notice in other horses.
I think Judy H did a great job in her commentary with her several remarks about his way of going, and in particular at the end when she said the Brits had been rewarded for their correct training methods.


----------



## Katikins (10 August 2012)

Thank god!!!  I've never trained in dressage past what was required of Novice Eventing so am by no means an expert and thought I was getting early onset dementia.  Thank you HHO for confirming my (little remaining) sanity 

I also agree with the mouth being open, he just didn't look a happy bunny at all.  Poor boy!!  And I too would probably have got a smack round the head in PC if I'd ever ridden any of my horses like that - and quite rightly too!!


----------



## BeesKnees (10 August 2012)

Have to say Laura B's riding seemed a bit more forceful than Carl and Charlotte's and to my eye less pleasing, but I think that may be just that Alf is a lot of horse! 

Despite this, his work was so much nicer, softer and more fluid than Parzival's.


----------



## Jenni_ (10 August 2012)

I had a friend, who isn't in the slightest horsey!, texting me as she watched the dressage tests. She said Laura looked amazing, and so was Carl, but then she said she was gobsmacked at the Dutch lassie, and how good her test was. 

I then went on to say no it isn't... she replied that the commentators were liking it. I told her that they will have to be tactful about what they say but I'm sure Judy Harvey made a comment somewhere about being behind the vertical. Also told my friend to watch his mouth and neck. She then said she didn't really understand anything but that the test looked correct, to her untrained eye.

I then told her that if she though Adelinde was good, then she'd be amazed when Charlotte brought the house down. Which she did. 

So to the untrained eye, Adelinde's test looked good. Obviously they went into London and offered a few homeless folk a job as a dressage judge for a day or two - but they were to make sure GB didn't come 1,2,3.

Politics....


----------



## turkana (10 August 2012)

I'm so glad that other people felt the same, I also thought the horse was tense & over bent, when the replay was on they did a close up of the horse's mouth & his tongue looked like it was bulging under the presure of the bit, maybe that's just his conformation but it didn't look very comfortable.
I thought Charlotte's test was a shining example of what dressage should be, whereas the other test was the complete opposite - odd that the same judges like them both so much.


----------



## Kat (10 August 2012)

The footage I watched had a close up of his gaping open mouth, covered in foam and a distinct purple tinge to his tongue..... very sad. Personally I thought it was marked way too highly and it should certainly have been below Laura, and Carl and the German lady riding Damon Hill. 

I thought that both Fuego and Rubi were too harshly marked too, both horses did an absolutely textbook piaffe that was a joy to see. They were also both on the beat and in time. 

The light riding of Carl, Charlotte, the Spanish and Portugese riders was such a contrast to the heavy handedness of Adelinde, Patrick etc.


----------



## Kat (10 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			Have to say Laura B's riding seemed a bit more forceful than Carl and Charlotte's and to my eye less pleasing, but I think that may be just that Alf is a lot of horse! 

Despite this, his work was so much nicer, softer and more fluid than Parzival's.
		
Click to expand...

Agree ^ ^


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

turkana said:



			I'm so glad that other people felt the same, I also thought the horse was tense & over bent, when the replay was on they did a close up of the horse's mouth & his tongue looked like it was bulging under the presure of the bit, maybe that's just his conformation but it didn't look very comfortable.
I thought Charlotte's test was a shining example of what dressage should be, whereas the other test was the complete opposite - odd that the same judges like them both so much.
		
Click to expand...

In reality it probably balanced out - the old style judging and the new - and to that extent the result was a reflection of where we are - but it does look a bit odd in the line up.
There is always 'backstory' in dressage judging, I have discussed this with top trainers and judges in the past, and they see no problem at all with not entirely judging the horse on the day, but bringing his 'backstory' with him - one of the most frustratingly annoying things in the sport I think.

In the past it's worked against us (look, Salinero *didn't* halt, no, but you know, it's Anky?) and now to some extent the tables have turned (Parsifal *was* very correct, yes, but you know he *did* look tense and we all know why that is, don't we?) - but we are (hoepfully) in a cross over period, and the old guard will eventually hop the twig (or retire graciously!) and the sport will be the winner.


----------



## RutlandH2O (10 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			Have to say Laura B's riding seemed a bit more forceful than Carl and Charlotte's and to my eye less pleasing, but I think that may be just that Alf is a lot of horse! 

Despite this, his work was so much nicer, softer and more fluid than Parzival's.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, BeesKnees, for posting what I was thinking while watching Laura's test. Her arms and back were stiff and, seemingly, unyielding. Alf is one heck of a big boy and I thought perhaps he was on the verge of "acting up" and she was nipping it in the bud. And yes, his work was so much lighter and more supple than Parzival's. And Parzival seemed to be behind the vertical for much of his test.


----------



## Renvers (10 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			No I don't think you're mad, and judging by many posts on here, neither do many HHOers.

If this forum is a barometer, then perhaps increasingly people are questioning the way dressage has gone, both in the execution of the movements and the training.

Or maybe were both mad!
		
Click to expand...

If FB is anything like HHO then there are many people voicing their disapproval of her test, s owe are all mad!

The LDR/Rollkur got results, rightly or wrongly, for them so others would copy (and maybe misinterpret the original intention) to try and get those same results.

Hopefully as people see medals won, records broken, money made by those using another method then we will see changes. It's a pity it comes down to that but for many this is a business  

Lets home the level of exposure and criticism levied at those (allegedly ) using rollkur in these games will make start to make it unfashionable too


----------



## ribbons (10 August 2012)

I pretty much agree word for word with skewbaldpony.
Let's hope it's correct and we are in a transition period re judging, and it won't be long before the marks truly reflect the better tests. 
Its a similar thing I think with fat showing horses, some judges will still reward it but many are now marking them down.
 It takes time to change things but 
hopefully we are heading in the right direction. Yesterdays results aren't exactly as we'd like them but still so much better judging than in the past.


----------



## Katikins (10 August 2012)

ribbons said:



			I pretty much agree word for word with skewbaldpony.
Let's hope it's correct and we are in a transition period re judging, and it won't be long before the marks truly reflect the better tests. 
Its a similar thing I think with fat showing horses, some judges will still reward it but many are now marking them down.
 It takes time to change things but 
hopefully we are heading in the right direction. Yesterdays results aren't exactly as we'd like them but still so much better judging than in the past.
		
Click to expand...

We need a 'like' button on HHO


----------



## NooNoo59 (10 August 2012)

Everyone i have spoken to thinks the same! also is it true that Valegro will be sold now, will this be another Totilas scenario where just because the horse is exceptional with one rider it will be with another.  I am just a mere bystander, and there are probally things that i dont see or understand but i know which looked better and it was definitely Laura, they just looked relaxed and happy and Alf was fluid it looked effortless, not the same as Parcivals test at all, i thought the horse was supposed to be accepting so why is his mouth open the whole time?


----------



## NooNoo59 (10 August 2012)

Also a huge pat on the back for Carl, laura etc for encouraging a more fluid relaxed style, letting the horse show its true talents, maybe this will become the expected way of going rather than a tense horse jacked in at the front, Alf/Uthopia/Valegro all looked like happy relaxed horses Parzival did not, if only horses could talk!


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

NooNoo59 said:



			Also a huge pat on the back for Carl, laura etc for encouraging a more fluid relaxed style, letting the horse show its true talents, maybe this will become the expected way of going rather than a tense horse jacked in at the front, Alf/Uthopia/Valegro all looked like happy relaxed horses Parzival did not, if only horses could talk!
		
Click to expand...

Yep, I'd have paid good money to have seen Alf on the sofa this morning


----------



## Pascal96 (10 August 2012)

Totally agree with all the comments re Charlotte and Carl versus Adelinde.  Their horses looked so much happier and relaxed in their way of going.  Hope it is a sign of things to come.  Shame about Carl but Uti did seem to run out of steam half way through their test.  Think in an interview later that Carl said that he was tired.  Thought that Laura's test was much better than her other 2 tests and she deserved the bronze.  Loved her music it suited Alf so well.  She does ride Alf with strong hands but think it is down to his size and strength - have seen a video of her riding younger horses and she is much softer with her hands on them.


----------



## Mabel Mare (10 August 2012)

Katikins said:



			OK, I've made a point of watching all her tests and I just need to make this post because I feel like I might be completely blind or over-reacting!!  Now living in the Netherlands I support Britain first and the Netherlands second in all sports with the exception of the dressage due to the training methods (I will quickly take Edward Gal out of this equation as I think he rode Undercover beautifully and softly all week).

But, how Adelinde managed to get the scores she did, in my mind, is a travesty!  Parzival  looked tense the entire time in EVERY test especially through his lower neck and jaw and Adelinde was constantly leaning back with arms that looked hard as iron.  In the GP Special he was grinding his teeth so hard throughout the entire thing I wonder if he actually has any left!

Now, for the Kur I made a point of just watching his legs to try and see what everybody else is seeing and he does do all the right things down there and he was almost bang on the music throughout his test but the overall picture just looked ugly to me.  But I thought that Laura's test was leagues ahead of this, Alf was just wonderful and the entire test looked effortless and fluid.  I nearly burst into tears when she finished.

So, could someone please tell me that I'm mad and I'm just seeing things (maybe my prejudices are getting the better of me) as even the H&H editor seems to disagree with me:



OK, rant over.  Overall its been a brilliant Olympics for our equestrian team and I'd like to say how proud I am (we all are) of William, Tina, Mary, Zara, Nicola, Ben, Scott, Peter, Nick, Richard, Carl, Laura and Charlotte!  And of course all those associated with all horses and riders.  Bask in the glory for as long as you can 

Click to expand...

I witnessed Andelinde working in before her freestyle test. Her horse was constanly held behind the vertical throughout the warm up. When he became too hyperflexed the FEI steward that was overseeing the arena would conveniently look away! I am disgusted with a lot of what I have seen by riders & officials & it has left me with a sour taste in my mouth towards these so called top riders.
Not once did I see Laura, Carl or Charlotte ride in this manner!!! (Laura has a problem with Alf becoming too strong, which is why sometimes she looks a little jerky with him, & he is a huge powerful horse.) :0(((


----------



## armchair_rider (10 August 2012)

I don't know much about it but I thought Parzival looked tense and that Fuego was harshly marked


----------



## Mlini (10 August 2012)

Well I'm no dressage rider but I would definatley have marked Laura above Adelinde (and not just because she's British!) I too, thought they looked tense throughout the test. I actually preferred Laura's to Charlotte's - But then again, I know nothing lol.


----------



## Jenni_ (10 August 2012)

Re: the comments about Laura looking like she was 'holding' Alf, does anybody not think it's kind of comical?

She still manages to make the test look effortless but I think if we could hear them talk to eachother it would go something like

Alf - I think I might just piss off in this extended canter, what do you think?'

Laura - 'Oh no you won't you big brute, here are my iron hands try run through them!'

Alf - 'Just because I'm looking pretty and definitely going to win you a medal, doesn't mean I'm making it easy. You better watch my extended trot, I COULD just carry on over the boards'

Laura - 'No chance. I'll sell you to Adelinde if you even try. And you think my hands are strong. How do you fancy a blue tongue'

Alf - 'Fine, here's my best Piaffe. Better hold on! And for the record, I'm not being held responsible for anything naughty I might do in the lap of honour. And if you don't watch what you're doing, Ill bounce so that medal flies up and knocks out your teeth'

-silence-

'I love you Alf'

'love you too mum'



I love their chemistry!


----------



## Booboos (10 August 2012)

For what it's worth I though Alf lacked sparkle for the GP and Special, he was much better in the Kur but you could still see Laura having to use her hands and seat a bit. Uthopia did look a bit knackered in the Kur. Parcival's music and choreography were superb, he has, at times, tense in the neck, but his piaffe looked just perfect to me. 

Of the Spanish team I love Painted Black and his young rider did a super job with him, but I think he got progressively more tired and mistakes crept in - a big as for both of them though. Fuego was a bit uninspiring to start off with and short in his neck, but got better and better with his best at the Kur, while Grandioso did little for me and was far more BTV (especially his GP) than Parcival ever was, despite the classical/rollkur stuff.

Valegro was lovely!


----------



## Polotash (10 August 2012)

Mlini said:



			Well I'm no dressage rider but I would definatley have marked Laura above Adelinde (and not just because she's British!) I too, thought they looked tense throughout the test. I actually preferred Laura's to Charlotte's - But then again, I know nothing lol. 

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted for Charlotte, but I did feel that Laura's test was fault free, whereas Charlotte had two mistakes, one very large one with the last piaffe, and scarely a halt at the end. I suppose that's where the freestyle comes in though, if you get one good piaffe it doesn't matter if the others are a bit off.

I thought Parzival looked unhappy in the mouth and overbent, as per usual, I wouldn't have had her in the top 5. Damon Hill I thought went much better, and I'd have probably gone Laura, Damon Hill, Charlotte if i'd been judging!

Fuego I thought lacked a bit of flow from back end to front, although i agree his collected work was stunning, so I think on balance I'd have marked him the same. I actually thought the bay Iberian that came a lot earlier (can't recall his name) went better...

Finally, I thought Steffan Peters and Ravel did a lovely test, with the horse in beautiful self carriage. I would have had them much higher up.. that's dressage though, it is subjective!


----------



## attheponies (10 August 2012)

Mlini said:



			Well I'm no dressage rider but I would definatley have marked Laura above Adelinde (and not just because she's British!) I too, thought they looked tense throughout the test. I actually preferred Laura's to Charlotte's - But then again, I know nothing lol. 

Click to expand...

I agree - also loved some of the Spanish and Portuguese horses.


----------



## Minstrel_Ted (10 August 2012)

I have to say I too found many of the Dutch riders (not Edward Gal, I feel he maybe does not support Rolkur? His horses always appeared far more relaxed?) tests to be incomfortable viewing throughout, it is a shame that something was done but it is not upheld! 
The British riders were beautiful, I do think Uti lost a bit of spark to the end, I think that he said he doesn't like to do too many tests on Uti, could be that? The music for all the British was powerful, it was emotional!
But Ankys horse now appears to have lost all his sparkle, age? Or no tongue left? Ankys used to be so sparky and full of life!


----------



## satinbaze (10 August 2012)

I have just been looking through some of my photographs taken on day 2 of the Grand Prix. I have images of Parzival, Damon Hill, Eremo Del Castegno, Artemis & Valegro all doing Piaffe at the same point in the test.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54855139@N00/
On looking very carefully the the pictures on their largest settings the rider using the curb rein the least is Richard Davison.
This is just an observation as I no longer ride and previously only watched dressage on TV. I thoroughly enjoyed both my days at Greenwich, wonderful atmosphere, fabulous horses........great


----------



## SusannaF (10 August 2012)

Polotash said:



			Fuego I thought lacked a bit of flow from back end to front, although i agree his collected work was stunning, so I think on balance I'd have marked him the same. I actually thought the bay Iberian that came a lot earlier (can't recall his name) went better...
		
Click to expand...


Rubi!

Alter Real from Portugal. Rider trained by Nuno Oliveira. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i56tUPVBJkk


----------



## Goldenstar (10 August 2012)

I preferred Rubi to , I can see why people like Fuego but I thought the mark was correct for him giving the sort of coming and going and interruptions in the rhymn you see and the shortness in his neck .
Rubi was much nicer in the neck looked happy in his work and gave you that gosh I would love a sit on him feeling.
I don't admire the picture that AC and Parzival give the shortness in the neck the impression of the impulsion blocking in the neck the fussy mouth with the tongue moving about spoils it . Damon Hill is much much nicer IMO but we are looking at overall impression not marking the test as the judges do.
I was glad that ( according to want I have read on line ) when the Dutch queried the result that STephen Clarke said that harmony won it on the day thats right and how it should be we are supposed to be looking at a happy athlete in the dressage horse and Valegro was the certainly a happy athlete.


----------



## horsemad32 (10 August 2012)

Lots of interesting comments .  I've always like Edward Gal's riding, and liked it on the day of the Kur too - he didn't have the best horse by far, but it always looks completely effortless, the horse's ears are never back, either forward or 'listening', and there's no sign of tension or 'fight', nice quiet seat and hands etc.  You could see the horse's face a bit behind the vertical and there was the commentary that his horse was strong, but the tension didn't spread from there.  I know he's part of the whole Dutch programme and they all use rollkur, but that doesn't mean he's not a very talented, soft rider in every other way.  His horses seem to obey him because they choose to, not because he goes round the arena with iron hands.  Surely that's the point of good training?!!!

We did well - that's what counts - and well with good horses and kind training.  The dutch are such poor losers if they queried the result!!!


----------



## Goldenstar (10 August 2012)

horsemad32 said:



			Lots of interesting comments .  I've always like Edward Gal's riding, and liked it on the day of the Kur too - he didn't have the best horse by far, but it always looks completely effortless, the horse's ears are never back, either forward or 'listening', and there's no sign of tension or 'fight', nice quiet seat and hands etc.  You could see the horse's face a bit behind the vertical and there was the commentary that his horse was strong, but the tension didn't spread from there.  I know he's part of the whole Dutch programme and they all use rollkur, but that doesn't mean he's not a very talented, soft rider in every other way.  His horses seem to obey him because they choose to, not because he goes round the arena with iron hands.  Surely that's the point of good training?!!!

We did well - that's what counts - and well with good horses and kind training.  The dutch are such poor losers if they queried the result!!!
		
Click to expand...

EG is the master of giving to a tense horse that way he can ride very tense horses and get a good tune out of them is wonderful to watch he sits so beauifully it's almost painfully beauifull ,now if he got Utopia or Valegro that would be some thing to see.( of course I hope they stay in the uk but abroad seems likely ).


----------



## suzied (10 August 2012)

The lap of honour was telling.  Charlotte rode with one hand whilst waving at the crowd and Valegro stayed in self carriage and maintained a steady canter.
Adelinde just hung on with both heavy hands.  Would like to see Adelinde perform one handed 1xchanges like some of the riders in the Kur!  Let's hope the British success promotes the classical, correct training of horse and rider.  Incidentally, agree that Rubi the Luso was harshly marked.  His performance in all 3 tests was a joy to watch, as befits a horse who previously gave demonstrations with the Portuguese School of Equestrian Art.


----------



## cptrayes (10 August 2012)

Parzival piaffe is completely bizarre.

His front end is practically glued to the floor and his back end bounces up and down behind him. It's wierd seeing her sit there with his spine bending upwards behind her backside.

I also thought he did most of the test overbent and was completely tense.

While performances like that are marked that high rollkur will never be eliminated.


----------



## Goldenstar (10 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Parzival piaffe is completely bizarre.

His front end is practically glued to the floor and his back end bounces up and down behind him. It's wierd seeing her sit there with his spine bending upwards behind her backside.

I also thought he did most of the test overbent and was completely tense.

While performances like that are marked that high rollkur will never be eliminated.
		
Click to expand...

It's a horse of two halfs in the piaffe I don't get why the judges admire him to the degree they do.
But what do I know it would be fasinating  to know their thinking .


----------



## Rowreach (10 August 2012)

suzied said:



			The lap of honour was telling.  Charlotte rode with one hand whilst waving at the crowd and Valegro stayed in self carriage and maintained a steady canter.
.
		
Click to expand...

I liked the way Carl Hester was able to drop his reins completely at the end of the kur, then wave to the crowd with both hands while Uti ambled out of the arena in walk


----------



## Jazz1 (10 August 2012)

must say the thing i noticed & remember from the week was how chilled both Uti & Valegro were in the medal ceremony & lap of honor - such relaxed boys.

It was nice to see that maybe for once the judges rewarded the non dutch way of training the gold medal


----------



## Polotash (10 August 2012)

Rowreach said:



			I liked the way Carl Hester was able to drop his reins completely at the end of the kur, then wave to the crowd with both hands while Uti ambled out of the arena in walk 

Click to expand...

Yes, wasn't that great to see. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to note lots of horses having to be led to and from the arena too...(not the GB ones!)

I'm sure Carl's methods of management with hacking and turnout are a lot to do with that (as well as his training methods of course), which IMO should be the basis of horse management, not a "oh, isn't that great, a top level horse which gets to see grass and fresh air"!


----------



## Polotash (10 August 2012)

Goldenstar said:



			I preferred Rubi to , I can see why people like Fuego but I thought the mark was correct for him giving the sort of coming and going and interruptions in the rhymn you see and the shortness in his neck .
Rubi was much nicer in the neck looked happy in his work and gave you that gosh I would love a sit on him feeling.
I don't admire the picture that AC and Parzival give the shortness in the neck the impression of the impulsion blocking in the neck the fussy mouth with the tongue moving about spoils it . Damon Hill is much much nicer IMO but we are looking at overall impression not marking the test as the judges do.
I was glad that ( according to want I have read on line ) when the Dutch queried the result that STephen Clarke said that harmony won it on the day thats right and how it should be we are supposed to be looking at a happy athlete in the dressage horse and Valegro was the certainly a happy athlete.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Rubi! Agree, he did make you want to sit on him didn't he, he looked soft and willing, as you say, the happy athlete.


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

Yes, they were great, very calm and well behaved. Charlotte looked like she'd just won the workers!  I think in general, British riders are more all rounders and expect horses to behave like horses. When I worked overseas, that was always gobsmacking to my employers.


----------



## Booboos (10 August 2012)

Come on people we have to be a bit more objective than that!! Even I've seen Valegro piss off with Charlotte (and that says a lot because I don't watch a lot of dressage by any means) and Laura often does not ride Alf in the prizegivings because he is too dangerous. At the same time Totillas was trained the system-whose-name-I-dare-not-speak and he was super chilled until MR got on board.

Anyone who knows horses knows that they are complex, flighty creatures that are easily upset. There is no training or management system in the world that guarantees you a relaxed horse everytime.


----------



## Wundahorse (10 August 2012)

I'm no expert but in my opinion Parcifal looked very tense and he seemed to be forced into his manouvres by an unyielding Adelinde,whereas in contrast Charlottes beautiful test was a joy to watch,so natural and fluent with no discernable movements from Charlotte which made it seem like a wonderful symmetry between horse and rider.Carls test too was similar in its execution,but i agree Laura seemed to be using her hands a lot to get Alf into his stride,although overall a pleasing test.


----------



## christine48 (10 August 2012)

I am usually a fan of Parzival, his piaffe and passage are fantastic.however I agree he did look tense and resistant. I think Laura deserved a higher score, and Parzival was definately over marked.


----------



## lizzi2 (10 August 2012)

Think someone said in an earlier post that there might be politics in play to stop GB being 1st, 2nd and 3rd..........I think they maybe right and we should have been - all of our riders were great!


----------



## SO1 (10 August 2012)

I was there watching and lucky enough to have seats very near the front and near the judge box at C. It is amazing how different things look from there than they do when shown on TV, such as riders being wonky or unsquare halts, horses looking tight in the mouth, you can see every small mistake and as amazing as these riders and horses are they do still make mistakes like the rest of us.

I thought Carl would have got a higher mark however wondered if his choice of music let him down slightly.

I also thought Adeline was going to win even after Charlottes test, although I could see her horse was tense in the mouth, he was very active behind and the music and floor plan were very clever choices. Charlotte did really benefit from the music but like she mentioned her horse was tired and I think that did make a difference in his piaffes.

Both the liberian horses were lovely very relaxed but they did not show much extention and I wonder if that was an issue as it meant it was a less balanced test as the judges might want to see horses who show a wide range of movements all done well.

I also learnt that with the Kur there are different co-efficients for certain movements so if you can do lots of the hard stuff really well then even if the test is not so fluid or harmonious that could push your score up above a less difficult test better executed. Also having the two scores must make a difference I am not entirely sure what they are looking for in the artistic score but I imagine having good music and a floor plan that maybe tells a story might be considered. Charlotte's artistic score was about 94% if I remember rightly a good 5 marks more than most.

Alf did not look like he was being easy he looked very enthusiastic!


----------



## stevieg (10 August 2012)

Jenni_but I think if we could hear them talk to eachother it would go something like

Alf - I think I might just piss off in this extended canter said:
			
		


			Love this   

I was there yesterday and although I am no expert (we event) I have to say I enjoyed Laura's test the most. Uthopia seemed a little flat which was a real shame as I would love to have seen Carl receive a medal. Possibly tired and ready for home? (The horse that is, not Carl!)
If we are now receiving the higher marks due to a new enlightened way of judging then hurrah! It's been a long time coming. No wonder the Dutch are upset. Time has caught up with their outdated methods
		
Click to expand...


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (10 August 2012)

Fuego didnt show much extension, really??  







Imo both iberians and ravel were harshly judged, rubi and fuego especially were penalised for correct, classical and harmonious work, And yes while at times they can look short in the neck which is extremlu common and more to do with conformation than anything, they were correct, soft and relaxed throughout which is a lot more than can be said for parzival. You only have to comapre photos of him like this to see the massive difference between the two, 












yet he somehow scored over 10% higher than fuego and even more than rubi, which is utterly ridiculous and a lot of people have been rightly complaining to the fei about it (not that theyre listening)


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

That stand behind Parsifal is jolly useful isn't it? Being vertical and all that.


----------



## JFTDWS (10 August 2012)

Natwood, I know which of those two I'd rather be sat on...


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (10 August 2012)

skewbaldpony said:



			That stand behind Parsifal is jolly useful isn't it? Being vertical and all that.
		
Click to expand...

yep, and a lot of people think so too as its being blasted all over the fei fb page cant believe how they can see this with their own eyes and still scored it with 88%, shameful


----------



## skewbaldpony (10 August 2012)

JFTD said:



			Natwood, I know which of those two I'd rather be sat on... 

Click to expand...

I'd rather be sat on Parsifal - Fuego's quite alright where he is !


----------



## JFTDWS (11 August 2012)

skewbaldpony said:



			I'd rather be sat on Parsifal - Fuego's quite alright where he is ! 

Click to expand...

lol thanks but no thanks - I'd like a sit on Fuego, before I gave him back - I'd rather not sit on Parzival, if I got my hands on him, my priority wouldn't be sitting on him!


----------



## RutlandH2O (11 August 2012)

skewbaldpony said:



			That stand behind Parsifal is jolly useful isn't it? Being vertical and all that.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant!!! A picture is worth a thousand words! Talk about tension and being btv...


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

JFTD said:



			lol thanks but no thanks - I'd like a sit on Fuego, before I gave him back - I'd rather not sit on Parzival, if I got my hands on him, my priority wouldn't be sitting on him! 

Click to expand...

Too right, id much rather ride fuego or rubi to parzival or salinero, would be worried about them being so dead in the mouth not having any brakes if the decided to ******* off 
Sadly i think this is fuego's last olympics, i just hope this unfair judging doesnt put others of from competing internationality with any up and coming pre/ luso superstars.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

RutlandH2O said:



			Brilliant!!! A picture is worth a thousand words! Talk about tension and being btv...
		
Click to expand...

indeed, its incorrect EVERYTHING though croup is flat, hindlegs are trailing, rider is totally slanted backwards, hindlegs are leaving the ground before the foreleg, this is the total opposite of self carriage!


----------



## Auslander (11 August 2012)

Mabel Mare said:



			I witnessed Andelinde working in before her freestyle test. Her horse was constanly held behind the vertical throughout the warm up. When he became too hyperflexed the FEI steward that was overseeing the arena would conveniently look away! I am disgusted with a lot of what I have seen by riders & officials & it has left me with a sour taste in my mouth towards these so called top riders.
Not once did I see Laura, Carl or Charlotte ride in this manner!!! (Laura has a problem with Alf becoming too strong, which is why sometimes she looks a little jerky with him, & he is a huge powerful horse.) :0(((
		
Click to expand...

Lucky you - getting to watch warm-ups. How did you manage that?


----------



## Booboos (11 August 2012)

Natwood said:



			Fuego didnt show much extension, really??  







Imo both iberians and ravel were harshly judged, rubi and fuego especially were penalised for correct, classical and harmonious work, And yes while at times they can look short in the neck which is extremlu common and more to do with conformation than anything, they were correct, soft and relaxed throughout which is a lot more than can be said for parzival. You only have to comapre photos of him like this to see the massive difference between the two, 







yet he somehow scored over 10% higher than fuego and even more than rubi, which is utterly ridiculous and a lot of people have been rightly complaining to the fei about it (not that theyre listening)
		
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are a fan of Dr H (many people who are concerned about rollkur are in agreement with his work) but if you were to draw lines on the hind and front legs of the horses in these photos it is in fact Parcival who has the parallel lines and Fuego who shows the 'unnatural' (not my claim but part of Dr H's claims) front leg action and loss of hind leg engagement.

Personally I think a photo is a moment in time and doesn't tell you much, but just pointing out the irony of these photos if you buy into this sort of analysis in the first place.


----------



## BeesKnees (11 August 2012)

Thanks Natwood for the photo comparison. It illustrates brilliantly the differences. And refutes the 'Iberians can't extend' opinion grrrrrr! 

I do think we have a situation where the fashion for 'flashy front end' and overbent frames has led to a point where some people don't know what 'correct' work actually is. The whole idea of the horse lifting its back and bringing the hocks underneath just seems to have been forgotten about! 

Any chance you could do a photo piaffe comparison ?!


----------



## BeesKnees (11 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			if you were to draw lines on the hind and front legs of the horses in these photos it is in fact Parcival who has the parallel lines and Fuego who shows the 'unnatural' (not my claim but part of Dr H's claims) front leg action and loss of hind leg engagement.
.
		
Click to expand...

But you have to look at where the angles are coming from. If you look carefully you can see that Fuego is showing typical Iberian freedom in the shoulder area. Though high, his front leg is gently bent at the knee showing all the lift is from the shoulder. The lower leg stays straight and neutral.

There is certainly no loss of hind leg engagement  And his back has stayed lifted and engaged. He doesn't have the open frame of Parcival, but that is a conformational difference as the Iberians are much more short coupled.

Parcival in comparison is very strained through the shoulder, no doubt as a consequence of being over bent, making it hard to lift the shoulder. He is getting lift by flicking his leg out, especially from the fetlock. He looks less engaged and much more tense across the back and possibly a little hollow just behind the saddle.

So to me, it's about much more than a couple of leg angles! It's about the whole picture.


----------



## Rowreach (11 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			So to me, it's about much more than a couple of leg angles! It's about the whole picture.
		
Click to expand...

BeesKnees you are so right.  On a much simpler level, just compare the eyes of the horses in these two photos - they say it all.


----------



## JFTDWS (11 August 2012)

Well said, bees knees. But, of course, I am blinkered by my Iberian-phile nature. Much like the judges seem to be by their warmblood loving ways


----------



## Goldenstar (11 August 2012)

It is about the whole picture as you watch it for the judges it's different who are marking movements.
To my eye Fuego shows interruptions in rhytmn and shortness in the neck in the tests and of the Spanish type horses Rubi made a much nicer picture although he has less power and is less off the ground .
It's more interesting to compare Pariszal with Alf and try to work out why LB's test was marked lower than AC 's and that's what I am struggling to understand harmony was sadly lacking in silver medal test however the horse has a very good sense of rhytmn amazing in the flesh considering you can see the visible tension throughout the test..
Although LBs hands are working too visibly at it times the impression was of a happy horse working with his rider.


----------



## BeesKnees (11 August 2012)

JFTD said:



			Well said, bees knees. But, of course, I am blinkered by my Iberian-phile nature.
		
Click to expand...

Yep I'm guilty of that too, but trying to be objective 



Goldenstar said:



			It's more interesting to compare Pariszal with Alf and try to work out why LB's test was marked lower than AC 's and that's what I am struggling to understand.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. Would be great to see side by side photos / video of those two for comparison.


----------



## skewbaldpony (11 August 2012)

https://data.fei.org/Result/ResultL...F725D3C86B79D7DB2FFBB6C376748916CE9311174822F

well ....


----------



## Goldenstar (11 August 2012)

I would love understand more about this very high level judging I could see exactly why they have every horse in every place except the bronze and silver.
It's fasinating and those judges must be knackered in the evening the concerntation must be awesome .


----------



## Bert&Maud (11 August 2012)

skewbaldpony said:



https://data.fei.org/Result/ResultL...F725D3C86B79D7DB2FFBB6C376748916CE9311174822F

well ....
		
Click to expand...

Can't remember how to post a link! However, skewbaldpony has linked to the Grand Prix. 
If you look at the results of the freestyle, the only judge to place Adelinde above Charlotte was ... you guessed it ... the Dutch judge for Technical merit! The artistic marks for both are mostly almost equal, but Charlotte achieved much higher marks for technical from all other judges. So how can home advantage have anything to do with that??


----------



## zefragile (11 August 2012)

Goldenstar said:



			It is about the whole picture as you watch it for the judges it's different who are marking movements.
To my eye Fuego shows interruptions in rhytmn and shortness in the neck in the tests and of the Spanish type horses Rubi made a much nicer picture although he has less power and is less off the ground .
		
Click to expand...

This. On other forums people noticed the spurs jabbing, tight neck and lack of sparkle in Fuego (compared to WEG), but on here the judges are on crack apparently. I didn't see Fuego's test, I'm sure it was great, just saying what I've read elsewhere.


----------



## Goldenstar (11 August 2012)

zefragile said:



			This. On other forums people noticed the spurs jabbing, tight neck and lack of sparkle in Fuego (compared to WEG), but on here the judges are on crack apparently. I didn't see Fuego's test, I'm sure it was great, just saying what I've read elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

I watched with interest as I have never seen him in the flesh before and he is always held up as the example of the unfairly marked Spanish type horse.
I just did not see a horse getting harshly marked the neck is held short at times and he's BTV which spoils his piaffe he shows a lack of rhytmn and is being ridden forward very strongly at times I thought the mark was fair in comparison to the others.
I don't think the judges where on crack its just fasinating to try to understand it all and these are all very very special horses so like all sports you are looking at nuances in performance at the top .
Who would be a judge ? At the Olympics cant even enjoy your lunch in case it makes you sleepy and then people say you are on crack !!!


----------



## zefragile (11 August 2012)

It's not like the judges don't give him the marks anyway, he's had over 80% before!


----------



## Booboos (11 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			But you have to look at where the angles are coming from. If you look carefully you can see that Fuego is showing typical Iberian freedom in the shoulder area. Though high, his front leg is gently bent at the knee showing all the lift is from the shoulder. The lower leg stays straight and neutral.

There is certainly no loss of hind leg engagement  And his back has stayed lifted and engaged. He doesn't have the open frame of Parcival, but that is a conformational difference as the Iberians are much more short coupled.

Parcival in comparison is very strained through the shoulder, no doubt as a consequence of being over bent, making it hard to lift the shoulder. He is getting lift by flicking his leg out, especially from the fetlock. He looks less engaged and much more tense across the back and possibly a little hollow just behind the saddle.

So to me, it's about much more than a couple of leg angles! It's about the whole picture.
		
Click to expand...

OK I get it now, if the lines are not parallel in an Iberian then it's because of its natural free shoulder, if they are not parallel in a rollkur trained WB then it's because it has flashy front movement and no back end engagement!


----------



## Goldenstar (11 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			OK I get it now, if the lines are not parallel in an Iberian then it's because of its natural free shoulder, if they are not parallel in a rollkur trained WB then it's because it has flashy front movement and no back end engagement! 

Click to expand...

Yes that's it all clear now.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

Thats not what were trying to say at all, were saying its about the whole picture not just what the legs are doing, and fuego is open through his frame, pushing from the hind legs and soft through the back. Parzival is tense, on the forehand and looks like he's having the bits pulled out his mouth. Yes of course fuego as all horses have their failings, he looks tense at times (ive yet to find an iberian that doesnt get tense occasionally) and can sometimes look slightly btv, although that can be due in part to the natural short coupled stockiness that often make them look tighter in the neck than they actually are. Were not saying fuego's perfect and deserved to win, but on balance and comparing EVERYTHING in those 2 pictures, and watching the test as a whole i think one was unfairly marked against the other, especially considering there was over 10% difference between them.

Managed to find some comparison piaffe pics, but if its parallell lines your looking for will this do? Yet still remains in balance, pushing fro behind and light in the frame. Yes a photo is a moment in time, but i bet if you watch a video of adleinde's test again it does very little to defend why she deserved a silver medal. 







heres one of rubi in piaffe (cant find one of fuego but seeing as rubi scored even less still valid to compare i think) lovely sit, no preassure on curb, balanced and harmonious 







And one of parzival, not at the olympics but taken last year i think, so these pictures are obviously telling of what is her normal riding style. dont think i need to say anything more


----------



## SO1 (11 August 2012)

Natwood I think you misunderstood what I meant by fuego showing less extention I meant he did not do some much extended work in the test not that the work he did do was not good. It was a comment about choreography which I think has an impact on the artistic scores.


----------



## skewbaldpony (11 August 2012)

Bert&Maud said:



			Can't remember how to post a link! However, skewbaldpony has linked to the Grand Prix. 
If you look at the results of the freestyle, the only judge to place Adelinde above Charlotte was ... you guessed it ... the Dutch judge for Technical merit! The artistic marks for both are mostly almost equal, but Charlotte achieved much higher marks for technical from all other judges. So how can home advantage have anything to do with that??
		
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, here's the Kur
https://data.fei.org/Result/ResultL...5598680497BF87DB2FFBB6C376748916CE9311174822F

I'm trying to see how the GB judge managed to find Adelinde's Kur five whole percentage points more *artistic* than Carls?!

I don't think it's hard to see where Fuego has come unstuck.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

thats ok it wasnt solely directed at you, a lot of people do think iberians cant extend which is something im very passionate about disproving, and that a good iberian can be just as good as a warmblood on its day. Yes it may be lacking in certain areas (shortness in the neck, tension and finding extension naturally harder) but i think they are massively improving with modern breeding ,and the superb collected work they do so easily means theyre becoming increasingly popular in high level dressage. He's had that routine for a while i think and its what got him 4th in either weg or the europeans, i think maybe as piaffe/ passage and pirouettes are such a strong point maybe he does more of those for the artistic marks, the one times down the centre line one handed are his party piece, such a show off  His artistic score was actually good but the technical score hugely marked down, and ithats what i cant understand when comparing with the likes of parzival, scandic and salinero that were all btv throughout the entire test. Would be interesting to read the score sheets and see just what and how they were marked on the technical side


----------



## skewbaldpony (11 August 2012)

all the numbers on the above links, natwood. No comments though I'm afraid.

and again I'm sure last time the actual sheets were visible and individual marks for each movement available. But I'm having no luck this time.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

skewbaldpony said:



			all the numbers on the above links, natwood. No comments though I'm afraid.

and again I'm sure last time the actual sheets were visible and individual marks for each movement available. But I'm having no luck this time.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, individual marks and comments would be the real teller though, just to break it down and see it from the judges perspective more. Normally id say it would stand as a useful tool for improvement in the future, but as it was so clearly biased i dont think anything constructive would (or should) be taken from it, not for the spanish or portugese at least.


----------



## SusannaF (11 August 2012)

If a magical Pony Club district commissioner had appeared at points of Adelinde's test and with a wave of her magic whip, made Parzifal's reins disappear, Adeline would have been impaled on her own cantle.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			If a magical Pony Club district commissioner had appeared at points of Adelinde's test and with a wave of her magic whip, made Parzifal's reins disappear, Adeline would have been impaled on her own cantle.
		
Click to expand...

pmsl and parzival would have nosedived into the ground i suspect!


----------



## skewbaldpony (11 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			If a magical Pony Club district commissioner had appeared at points of Adelinde's test and with a wave of her magic whip, made Parzifal's reins disappear, Adeline would have been impaled on her own cantle.
		
Click to expand...

 That's so funny.
Mind you if she'd done the same to Laura, she'd have been back in Gloucestershire


----------



## cptrayes (11 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			Personally I think a photo is a moment in time and doesn't tell you much, but just pointing out the irony of these photos if you buy into this sort of analysis in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but that photograph of Parzival is  a moment in time which could have been taken at practically any moment during his test, as he was tense, tooth grinding, open mouthed, poll low and behind the verticle for almost all of it.


----------



## BeesKnees (11 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			OK I get it now, if the lines are not parallel in an Iberian then it's because of its natural free shoulder, if they are not parallel in a rollkur trained WB then it's because it has flashy front movement and no back end engagement! 

Click to expand...

Yep that's exactly it 













[/QUOTE]

Thanks Natwood, another great comparison. As I've said already, Parcivals piaffe is all wrong. Weight on the forehand, back legs bouncing. It is frankly bizarre. 

And again to repeat myself, piaffe is a precursor to levade (effectively a collected and controlled rear) So tell me Booboos, which horse wold you say would be able to lift into levade from these piaffes?


----------



## zefragile (11 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			And again to repeat myself, piaffe is a precursor to levade (effectively a collected and controlled rear) So tell me Booboos, which horse wold you say would be able to lift into levade from these piaffes?
		
Click to expand...

Well, not wanting to speak for Booboos, I'm sure she knows which horse would be more able to lift into levade... that wasn't really what she was saying though?


----------



## BeesKnees (11 August 2012)

zefragile said:



			Well, not wanting to speak for Booboos, I'm sure she knows which horse would be more able to lift into levade... that wasn't really what she was saying though? 

Click to expand...

She has If I remember correctly (and full apologies if I'm wrong) previously stated that Parcivals work was correct especially the piaffe.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (11 August 2012)

and furthermore from an analytical photographic point of view, parzivals extended trot was more 'correct' as it had the parallel lines truer than that of fuegos, regardless of what the rest of his body was doing!


----------



## SO1 (11 August 2012)

The way freestyle is judged is quite different from standard dressage this helps alot to understand what the judges should be looking for

http://www.britishdressage.co.uk/up...elines for Judging Dressage to Music 2010.pdf


----------



## paddy (13 August 2012)

Leaving aside Adelinde, I much preferred the harmony achieved by Carl and Charlotte over Laura.  If you're constantly hauling on your horse to stop it p'ing off, how is there harmony and submission?  I didn't like watching her test at all, which is a shame as I really liked her way of teaching when watching the Horse Hero videos - all about not being 'handy'.

Much prefer EG's way of riding now he's not trained by Sjef.  But please don't tar all Dutch dressage people with the same brush.  My trainer is Dutch/German and is a huge advocate of long necks, relaxation and giving hands.


----------



## HashRouge (13 August 2012)

This may be slightly OT, but I was very impressed to see Gonçalo Carvalho wearing a proper riding hat! When I lived in Portugal I rode at a very large, very respectable riding school and livery stables in Lisbon and only the under-18s wore hats. All the adults, whether instructors, pupils or owners, went without. In fact, when I asked my RI if I could borrow a hat, he just shrugged at me and said "but you're an adult, you don't need one"! So go GC, not only is he a fab rider but maybe he's promoting riding hats in Portugal 

I don't know about the technicalities of dressage, but I thought Parzival looked seriously uncomfortable, which isn't surprising when you see Adelinde leaning back on the reins with all her strength!! And I loved Rubi and what I saw of Valegro and Uthopia. Rubi is my new horse crush


----------



## Miss L Toe (13 August 2012)

RutlandH2O said:



			Thanks, BeesKnees, for posting what I was thinking while watching Laura's test. Her arms and back were stiff and, seemingly, unyielding. Alf is one heck of a big boy and I thought perhaps he was on the verge of "acting up" and she was nipping it in the bud. And yes, his work was so much lighter and more supple than Parzival's. And Parzival seemed to be behind the vertical for much of his test.
		
Click to expand...

Alf is well known for his temperament, and Laura has to ride him in a certain way, he is not ridden in the rollkur way, end of.


----------



## Goldenstar (13 August 2012)

Miss L Toe said:



			Alf is well known for his temperament, and Laura has to ride him in a certain way, he is not ridden in the rollkur way, end of.
		
Click to expand...

How can you make that sweeping statement 'end of 'unless you sit and watch her school everyday 
Of course Alf difficult temperament is well known and Pariszal was an unrideable young horse there's a reason AC has to ride him like that as there's a reason why LB is Visably using her hand so much and bracing her back.


----------



## Miss L Toe (13 August 2012)

Goldenstar said:



			How can you make that sweeping statement 'end of 'unless you sit and watch her school everyday 
Of course Alf difficult temperament is well known and Pariszal was an unrideable young horse there's a reason AC has to ride him like that as there's a reason why LB is Visably using her hand so much and bracing her back.
		
Click to expand...

I have watched LB schooling at home, and can assure you that Alf is a better horse at home than he was in his Olympic Day, but they don't use rollkur.
I felt that the others were better horses, it is not easy to buy two great dressage horses, but it happens.


----------



## Stilldreamin' (13 August 2012)

I am glad I'm not the only one who thought the Iberian horses lost out to the warmbloods unfairly. I didn't see Fuego go but I saw Rubi and loved it- fantastic piaffes particularly, excellent in time with the beat. I was shocked that he didn't take the lead in his small group- think he may have lost out to Kittel of all people, whose horse was constantly starting to lean forward and not in self carriage!!!

Also don't get me started on Miss Cornelissen- I'm sure you've all seen this but this is how she came into the ring first time round on Parzifal!

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4335149866245.2176732.1512297978&type=3&l=fcb43e0706

Forget the rider, horse needs a damn medal for putting up with that!!


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

My first post, but this site got my attention through a search on google and I decided to registrate. Hello all!

Anyway, I don't understand the whole fuss about Adelinde Cornelissen in general. I don't think the other riders are any better! I take it a bit further. I love horses and believe these beautiful creatures are not in this world for humans to sit on them, to ride them, to jump etc.

Horsebackriding is animal abuse. All people who claim to love horses and ride them are a big joke and should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## shortstuff99 (13 August 2012)

So I guess you don't interact with them at all then? As by logic that would be cruel too as they are not designed to be with humans full stop and should all live unhandle in the wild? And the fact is thousands of years of breeding has designed them to be ridden by humans!


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

shortstuff99 said:



*So I guess you don't interact with them at all then?* As by logic that would be cruel too as they are not designed to be with humans full stop and should all live unhandle in the wild? And the fact is thousands of years of breeding has designed them to be ridden by humans!
		
Click to expand...

No I don't interact with horses, just love to watch them in the wild... what is left  The thousands years of breeding, to 'design' a horse to human preference doesn't make it okay to ride them. Like you said it's not natural... they had to be 'designed' to have this unnatural behavior.


----------



## Firewell (13 August 2012)

Stilldreamin' said:



			I am glad I'm not the only one who thought the Iberian horses lost out to the warmbloods unfairly. I didn't see Fuego go but I saw Rubi and loved it- fantastic piaffes particularly, excellent in time with the beat. I was shocked that he didn't take the lead in his small group- think he may have lost out to Kittel of all people, whose horse was constantly starting to lean forward and not in self carriage!!!

Also don't get me started on Miss Cornelissen- I'm sure you've all seen this but this is how she came into the ring first time round on Parzifal!

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4335149866245.2176732.1512297978&type=3&l=fcb43e0706

Forget the rider, horse needs a damn medal for putting up with that!!
		
Click to expand...

God thats disgusting


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			My first post, but this site got my attention through a search on google and I decided to registrate. Hello all!

Anyway, I don't understand the whole fuss about Adelinde Cornelissen in general. I don't think the other riders are any better! I take it a bit further. I love horses and believe these beautiful creatures are not in this world for humans to sit on them, to ride them, to jump etc.

Horsebackriding is animal abuse. All people who claim to love horses and ride them are a big joke and should be ashamed of themselves.
		
Click to expand...



And yet your Avatar is of a horse which has been bleached, shampooed and combed to within an inch of its life.

Do you think that horses would rather not be alive than be ridden by humans? Because that's the choice. Live and be ridden or never be bred at all and have no life.


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion just the first picture I came across for looking for an avatar of an horse that was 80 by 80


----------



## Firewell (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			My first post, but this site got my attention through a search on google and I decided to registrate. Hello all!

Anyway, I don't understand the whole fuss about Adelinde Cornelissen in general. I don't think the other riders are any better! I take it a bit further. I love horses and believe these beautiful creatures are not in this world for humans to sit on them, to ride them, to jump etc.

Horsebackriding is animal abuse. All people who claim to love horses and ride them are a big joke and should be ashamed of themselves.
		
Click to expand...

And through what experience have you come to this conclusion? Sitting on a sofa, watching a horse in a field, looking at a picture on a book or on the TV? 

The horse in your avatar picture is that yours? Do you do inhand showing instead of riding? Did you wash it so it's clean, pay for the farrier every 6 weeks, brush its mane? Did you decide what bridle it wears? Have you wormed it, rugged it, fed it? Have you sectioned off its paddock so it doesn't get too fat and suffer ill health, have you been out at 6am in the morning in wind rain and shine to look after it? Did you poo pick it's field in the winter when you had flu so it grazes on clean pasture? Did you miss christmas dinner to change its wet rug or come home early from your summer holiday because it needed the vet. Have you paid for its innoculations against diseases, scrubbed its feathers when it had mites, been up at 3am worrying about it when it ssmed not like itself last time you saw it?

If the answer is yes then fine you are welcome to your view, everyone is different. If no then perhaps you need to expose yourself to something before offering such damming opinions because at the moment you sound very ignorant.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (13 August 2012)

oh dear i can see this serious interesting thread is going to rapidly head downhill,
 popcorn anyone


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

The horse in the avatar is not my horse. I will never want to 'own' a horse. I'm not a ''slavedriver"
I grew up in a horseworld, cared for many horses, but choose to turn my back on this same horseworld because of my personal opinion/ beliefs when I grew older (and wiser).

I don't like the training methods of Adelinde, but people here accusing her is like 'the pot calling the kettle black'


----------



## Freya27 (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			The horse in the avatar is not my horse. I will never want to 'own' a horse. I'm not a ''slavedriver"
I grew up in a horseworld, cared for many horses, but choose to turn my back on this same horseworld because of my personal opinion/ beliefs when I grew older (and wiser).

I don't like the training methods of Adelinde, but people here accusing her is like 'the pot calling the kettle black'
		
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure what kind of horseworld you came from, but my horses, my friends' horses, my family's horses - all are happy, glowing with health, and thoroughly enjoy their work. I've seen some bad practice in the horseworld, and in those cases, yes - it is cruel. But that is a very very small minority. Most people who have horses love them dearly, care for them as best they can, and the horses love them back.


----------



## HashRouge (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			The horse in the avatar is not my horse. I will never want to 'own' a horse. I'm not a ''slavedriver"
I grew up in a horseworld, cared for many horses, but choose to turn my back on this same horseworld because of my personal opinion/ beliefs when I grew older (and wiser).

I don't like the training methods of Adelinde, but people here accusing her is like 'the pot calling the kettle black'
		
Click to expand...

Well I'm currently spending a fortune (okay, the insurance is ) trying to help a 19 year old mare recover from a ligament injury, which she acquired while out of work and living happily on acres of hillside grazing. She wouldn't get that in the wild, so forgive me if I haven't got a lot of time for the "horse riding is cruel" brigade. Maybe taking a horse from the wild and putting a saddle on its back is cruel, yes, but horses have been domesticated for thousands of years and most would not thank us if we suddenly released them into the wild and left them to their own devices. 

If treated well, a riding horse can have a very good life - much better, in fact, than a horse living wild.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (13 August 2012)

Freya27 said:



			Well I'm not sure what kind of horseworld you came from, but my horses, my friends' horses, my family's horses - all are happy, glowing with health, and thoroughly enjoy their work. I've seen some bad practice in the horseworld, and in those cases, yes - it is cruel. But that is a very very small minority. Most people who have horses love them dearly, care for them as best they can, and the horses love them back.
		
Click to expand...

Too right, my horse as with many others loves his work, going out and about and competing, he strives on a fun and varied life not just sitting being a field ornament, if he did that i know for a fact he'd spend most of his time galloping around, pacing and wanting some attention. I know some horses would quite happily lead the rest of there days doing nothing, but the majority (as long as not ridden in methods discussed in this thread as an example) get as much enjoyment from being ridden as we do. Yes they may not have been originally designed for it, but if they get as much out of it as we do, thoroughly enjoy human company and interaction and a varied active life then wheres the problem. 
I really dont understand why you posted pompidoe, your clearly on a forum with horse lovers and riders, and i can gaurantee almost none of them are going to agree with you, and certainly not change there methods because of your ignorant, totally uneducated opinion. Your entitled to it as everyone is, but this isnt really the place to air it unless your just looking to start trouble


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion just the first picture I came across for looking for an avatar of an horse that was 80 by 80 

Click to expand...

You voiced a very strong opinion about riding being abusive and chose as your Avatar a horse that has been managed by man to within an inch of every polished hair on its body. You cannot get a horse's feathers that white except by repeated washing and using bleaching products. If you don't even know what goes into making a horse look like the pretty picture that you chose for your avatar, then I don't think you know enough to comment about whether or not people should be riding their horses.

But you're just a troll looking for a fight, so that won't bother you.


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			The horse in the avatar is not my horse. I will never want to 'own' a horse. I'm not a ''slavedriver"
		
Click to expand...

I do not consider that I own my horses. I paid for the right to have them in my care.




Pompidou said:



			I don't like the training methods of Adelinde, but people here accusing her is like 'the pot calling the kettle black'
		
Click to expand...

No it is not. 

That's like saying that everyone who walks a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is as bad as the people who put them into organised dog fights.

Most people's training of their horses is a mile away from hers.


----------



## Mrs B (13 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			You voiced a very strong opinion about riding being abusive and chose as your Avatar a horse that has been managed by man to within an inch of every polished hair on its body. You cannot get a horse's feathers that white except by repeated washing and using bleaching products. If you don't even know what goes into making a horse look like the pretty picture that you chose for your avatar, then I don't think you know enough to comment about whether or not people should be riding their horses.
		
Click to expand...

I think we need to make allowances, CPT.  The PETA-type rubbish she/he's spouting obviously caused any intelligence to exit at the same time it entered his/her brain-space.


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I do not consider that I own my horses. I paid for the right to have them in my care.




No it is not. 

*That's like saying that everyone who walks a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is as bad as the people who put them into organised dog fights.*

Most people's training of their horses is a mile away from hers.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I think that's the same... Humans created awfull dogbreeds. Look at the health for example Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. People who buy these dogs allow this to happen.


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

You think it's the same to walk a Bull Terrier as to put it into a fight?

You're nuts. Total crackpot. Sorry.


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Mrs B said:



			I think we need to make allowances, CPT.  The PETA-type rubbish she/he's spouting obviously caused any intelligence to exit at the same time it entered his/her brain-space. 

Click to expand...


You're right of course.  If people only start with ten brain cells then loading the PETA routines must leave them without any more processing power, as the latest post shows perfectly


----------



## Mrs B (13 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			You're right of course.  If people only start with ten brain cells then loading the PETA routines must leave them without any more processing power, as the latest post shows perfectly 

Click to expand...

Quite...


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

Especially Bull Terriers is a very sick breed. Look how their noses are bred. The white Bull Terriers are all deaf. Again people created/ bred very sick dogs, (we are talking about dogs now so it seems).

If people keep buying these breeds, these dogs keep suffering.


----------



## SusannaF (13 August 2012)

Ah yes. The lovely life of the domestic horse released to roam free.


http://www.news-leader.com/viewart/20120210/NEWS11/302090092/MISSOURI-WILD-HORSES


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			Especially Bull Terriers is a very sick breed. Look how their noses are bred. The white Bull Terriers are all deaf. Again people created/ bred very sick dogs, (we are talking about dogs now so it seems).

If people keep buying these breeds, these dogs keep suffering.
		
Click to expand...

I see you're from Holland. I'm guessing that your best friend is Esther Hegt the ragwort lover? Because your arguments are about as daft as hers are


----------



## Goldenstar (13 August 2012)

Freya27 said:



			Well I'm not sure what kind of horseworld you came from, but my horses, my friends' horses, my family's horses - all are happy, glowing with health, and thoroughly enjoy their work. I've seen some bad practice in the horseworld, and in those cases, yes - it is cruel. But that is a very very small minority. Most people who have horses love them dearly, care for them as best they can, and the horses love them back.
		
Click to expand...

I fear you will not enjoy this forum if you google my fast forum you may set up your own with like minded individuals.


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			Ah yes. The lovely life of the domestic horse released to roam free.


http://www.news-leader.com/viewart/20120210/NEWS11/302090092/MISSOURI-WILD-HORSES

Click to expand...

I'm not campaigning to release the domestic horses. That would be a pefect world to me, but humanity destroyed the natural habitats of the horse. That's a shame. I and thats MY opinon, (I don't know Peta) think horsebackriding in general is cruel to horses.

My love for horses and animals in general brought me to this site. If having another view in life makes you a troll. So be it.

But I have an opinion. May'be not right, but certainly not wrong, just different!


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I see you're from Holland. I'm guessing that your best friend is Esther Hegt the ragwort lover? Because your arguments are about as daft as hers are 

Click to expand...

No, I'm from Groningen, the Netherlands, And I don't know anyone by that name.


----------



## I love my Spanish horse (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			I'm not campaigning to release the domestic horses. That would be a pefect world to me, but humanity destroyed the natural habitats of the horse. That's a shame. I and thats MY opinon, (I don't know Peta) think horsebackriding in general is cruel to horses.

My love for horses and animals in general brought me to this site. If having another view in life makes you a troll. So be it.

But I have an opinion. May'be not right, but certainly not wrong, just different!
		
Click to expand...

But why come to this site and post if its blatantly obvious other people dont share your so called 'opinions', unless to start a fight clearly. People arent going to listen or take anything you have to say on board, and rather than join and talk about the beauty of horses that you could have done, you post something thats going to do nothing except get peoples backs up and cause an argument, strange


----------



## Mrs B (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			I and thats MY opinion, think horsebackriding in general is cruel to horses.
		
Click to expand...

Then don't ride horses. But coming on here and with your first post telling other  members they are cruel to ride their horses is not going to get you a good reaction and is plain insulting. Now please go away and close the door on your way out.


----------



## cptrayes (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			I'm not campaigning to release the domestic horses. That would be a pefect world to me, but humanity destroyed the natural habitats of the horse
		
Click to expand...

You are seriously crazy. I live in a huge National Park of wide open scrub moorland, the natural habitat of the horse, one of many in this country. Some of the others support herds of wild native ponies. You are entitled to your opinion, but correct it is not!

You are either a troll having fun or seriously short of brain power. Either way, it would be nice if you would shove off, to be honest. Only my opinion.


----------



## Pompidou (13 August 2012)

I do feel better voicing here my opinion just like you have an opinion about Adelinde. You think she is cruel ... I just take it a step further. I agree that her ridingstyle/ method is cruel ... and horsebackriding.

I'll leave you now, back on topic: Rant about Adelinde, such a mean and cruel person 


And .... never feed the trolls


----------



## Amaranta (13 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			I do feel better voicing here my opinion just like you have an opinion about Adelinde. You think she is cruel ... I just take it a step further. I agree that her ridingstyle/ method is cruel ... and horsebackriding.

I'll leave you now, back on topic: Rant about Adelinde, such a mean and cruel person 


And .... never feed the trolls 

Click to expand...

I'd love to call you an idiot but TFC might tell me off


----------



## Amaranta (13 August 2012)

On the subject of the Iberians gettig harshly marked, I don't actually think Fuego was, his extended work WAS weaker than others, and there was also some loss of rythm, his test just did not flow well.    Rubi, on the other hand, I do feel was harshly marked, his piaffe was the most correct of the lot, although his mouth was, at times, open.

I breed and compete Iberians and am huge fan of Fuego, I must admit to being a little disappointed with his test in the flesh.

To whomever said Ed Gal does not use rolkur - oh yes he does but the man is a God nontheless.  As for Adelinde, ugly ugly ugly riding!


----------



## Booboos (14 August 2012)

I find Pompidou's post very interesting and very similar to other people's posts on rollkur. As I mentioned in the Patrick Kittel thread (and many threads before that) if we allow mere sentiment to guide what we ban (in this case rollkur) the argument can be easily extended to banning all of riding as there are some people who find that all of riding looks harmful and upset.

Either we should demand greater standards before we consider banning anything (concrete evidence from scientific studies) or we should allow everyone's feelings to govern what is banned and riding is banned along with rollkur.


----------



## charlie76 (14 August 2012)

I think pompidou is winding you lot up,  I believe the poster is a well known rider who doesn't have the beliefs stated in the post but was having a laugh with you! And everyone has fallen for it hook,  line and sinker.  I may be wrong but I have my suspicions


----------



## Fidgety (14 August 2012)

charlie76 said:



			I think pompidou is winding you lot up,  I believe the poster is a well known rider who doesn't have the beliefs stated in the post but was having a laugh with you! And everyone has fallen for it hook,  line and sinker.  I may be wrong but I have my suspicions

Click to expand...

I agree - the final words in his/her last post were 

"_And .... never feed the trolls "_

I suspect Pompidou might have a touch of indigestion this morning...


----------



## cptrayes (14 August 2012)

charlie76 said:



			I think pompidou is winding you lot up,  I believe the poster is a well known rider who doesn't have the beliefs stated in the post but was having a laugh with you! And everyone has fallen for it hook,  line and sinker.  I may be wrong but I have my suspicions

Click to expand...


But it's fun to feed the trolls   And there are people who genuinely hold the view that humans should not keep animals at all, so it's an interesting discussion even if Pompidou was useless at it.



Booboos said:



			I find Pompidou's post very interesting and very similar to other people's posts on rollkur. As I mentioned in the Patrick Kittel thread (and many threads before that) if we allow mere sentiment to guide what we ban (in this case rollkur) the argument can be easily extended to banning all of riding as there are some people who find that all of riding looks harmful and upset.

Either we should demand greater standards before we consider banning anything (concrete evidence from scientific studies) or we should allow everyone's feelings to govern what is banned and riding is banned along with rollkur.
		
Click to expand...

It is not "mere sentiment" to ban rollkur and that is why the FEI have already done it, but they fail to police it. The physical detrimental effects of squashing the hyoid bone and the parotid glands can be demonstrated, as if the blue tongue and the fact that horses in rollkur are blind to the front and rear was not sufficient evidence that it is different from acceptable riding practices.

Your argument is like saying that no-one should be allowed to ride because some people use spurs until their horse bleeds.


----------



## Amaranta (14 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			It is not "mere sentiment" to ban rollkur and that is why the FEI have already done it, but they fail to police it. The physical detrimental effects of squashing the hyoid bone and the parotid glands can be demonstrated, as if the blue tongue and the fact that horses in rollkur are blind to the front and rear was not sufficient evidence that it is different from acceptable riding practices.

Your argument is like saying that no-one should be allowed to ride because some people use spurs until their horse bleeds.
		
Click to expand...


I don't for one minute think that Boosboos suggested that banning rolkur was 'mere sentiment', I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong but I think what she meant was that we need to be sure of the FACTS, for instance, the FACT that the photo in this thread does not show rolkur.

The FEI have not actually banned rolkur (FACT) their directives are that it can be used but in moderation and in the right hands.

don't get me wrong, I would love to see it banned altogether, but am with Booboos on this, people need to stop being so hysterical and a little more centred.

It does not help the cause when some of the people who are shouting the loudest are some of the worst riders I have ever seen (I am talking Rl here btw) and cause their own horses untold pain through their awful riding


----------



## Booboos (14 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			It is not "mere sentiment" to ban rollkur and that is why the FEI have already done it, but they fail to police it. The physical detrimental effects of squashing the hyoid bone and the parotid glands can be demonstrated, as if the blue tongue and the fact that horses in rollkur are blind to the front and rear was not sufficient evidence that it is different from acceptable riding practices.

Your argument is like saying that no-one should be allowed to ride because some people use spurs until their horse bleeds.
		
Click to expand...

I would be grateful for references to the studies that have proven all this.

No, my argument is not that at all. I am not saying that if part of a practice by some people is harmful then all of it should be banned. I am saying that if we argue for banning X on the grounds that it feels wrong, then other people are equally entitled to call for banning Y on the grounds that it feels wrong to them. This is one of the reasons why feelings should not be used to restrict other people's liberty. If there are hard facts on the harm caused by rollkur I would be very interested to hear them (published in peer reviewed, science journals - no claims please that it is evident, that I should open my mind, look into the eyes of horses, etc.).


----------



## Pompidou (14 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			But it's fun to feed the trolls   And there are people who genuinely hold the view that humans should not keep animals at all, so it's an interesting discussion even if Pompidou was useless at it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes my knowlegde of English is not good enough to put my thoughts about this subject on this forum. 



charlie76 said:



			I think pompidou is winding you lot up,  I believe the poster is a well known rider who doesn't have the beliefs stated in the post but was having a laugh with you! And everyone has fallen for it hook,  line and sinker.  I may be wrong but I have my suspicions

Click to expand...

I'm not a well known rider, but I indeed used to ride horses, because my father had is own stable. When I grew up, I realy started to think about horsebackriding and owning horses (and other animals). 
My english is not good enough but I found this post, exactly describing what I feel. It's a good read: 

Horses belong in the wild. Domesticated horses should be lovingly cared for the rest of their living days and prevented from further breeding into the horse industry. Domestic horses should not exist. Millions of unwanted horses are slaughtered. Many horses experience abuse and neglect from their owners. Taking good care of a horse is no justification for ownership. Horses, like all other animals should belong to themselves, experience self determination by finding their own food, travelling where and when they want to, choosing their own herd and mate and being free. None of this is possible under house arrest in a paddock or stable. Slave horses must do everything their master requests of them -go left, stop, run, sleep, wake, eat now, do this, do that. No matter how happy they are, they are not free. They cannot see their mother if they want to, nor their children, or visit a stream, or leave their enclosement at anytime they choose to. 

Adding to this, it is immoral that we humans have altered their biological make-up to suit our egotistical desires and fetishes. The true original horse from which all domestic horses derived from today is the Mongolian horse who is now on the brink of extinction. We have mutated this beautiful wild animal's DNA through forced breeding to cause them to be docile and submissive, larger, stronger, cuter, colourful, faster and whatever else we wanted them to serve us for. If horses really wanted to be with us, we should ask the non-adulterated, non-mentally conditioned wild Mongolian horse to come with us and leave his family and his wild home so that we may ride on his back and kick him around.

I used to be a "horse lover", but now I am a "horse respecter". I spent all my non-school hours playing with my horses and riding them in the rocky desert hills until after dark. The horses were my love and my life. Then when my new partner explained to me that my beloved horse was my slave, I argued back angrily that we humans share a natural symbiotic relationship with animals and share a mutual benefit and friendship. Jeff explained that the benefit is not mutual, as in nature, because the horses does not need us to survive. Nor do we need them to survive. The definition of a symbiotic relationship is a scientific one where two species depend on each other to survive. In other words, one species could not live without the other one. Horses do not need us at all. Our use of horses is purely for our benefit, pleasure, companionship, sport, amusement, profit, and gambling addiction. When free horses become annoying or interfere with profit-making animals and when the race-exploited horses don't run fast enough anymore they become dog meat. After long discussions with Jeff I came to the enlightening discovery that my horse really is my slave. This really shocked me, but now that I know, I cant believe I couldnt see the obvious.

Even if the domestic animals could be made to be happy whether they be bred for food, transport, or companionship, they are still property, they are never free. It comes down to rights. Slaves/property have no rights. Happy animal slaves are still slaves. 

Some African slaves in America were much loved by their masters and even considered to be a member of the family. They were treated very well, got medical care, good food and bedding and even company. A slave man cannot leave the property in search of social company. He has no access to relatives. He cannot make any free choices of his own. He is completely dependent on his masters as if he were a child. The same goes for other animals on farms in or in our homes as companions. Even if the slave is very happy, he is still a slave. 

Slavery is immoral, no matter how happy the slaves are. All slavery of humans and non-human animals should be abolished. 
Of course horses are different to human slaves. It is an analogy to reveal similarities in their exploitation.


----------



## SusannaF (14 August 2012)

Pompidou said:



			The true original horse from which all domestic horses derived from today is the Mongolian horse who is now on the brink of extinction. We have mutated this beautiful wild animal's DNA through forced breeding to cause them to be docile and submissive, larger, stronger, cuter, colourful, faster and whatever else we wanted them to serve us for. If horses really wanted to be with us, we should ask the non-adulterated, non-mentally conditioned wild Mongolian horse to come with us and leave his family and his wild home so that we may ride on his back and kick him around.
		
Click to expand...

This isn't true.

The Przewalski is genetically distinct from the domestic horse - they even have a different number of chromosomes. Genetically distinct, but sharing a common ancestor. Our domestic horses are descended from another type of wild horse, long extinct, and presumably more docile than the Przewalski.

The only way that the Przewalski has survived is in zoos, though they are now being released back into the wild. 

Domestication is an evolutionary bonus for horses as it is for dogs - there are considerably more dogs and domestic horses than there are wolves and Przewalskis. Left undomesticated, horses would have become extinct in the 1960s.


----------



## stencilface (14 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			Left undomesticated, horses would have become extinct in the 1960s.
		
Click to expand...

Lol, this is very exact in a evolutionary timescale, maybe they just couldn't take the era of free love?! 

I'm sure I read somewhere that they would have become extinct over 10 000 years ago had they not been domesticated


----------



## SusannaF (14 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			Lol, this is very exact in a evolutionary timescale, maybe they just couldn't take the era of free love?! 

I'm sure I read somewhere that they would have become extinct over 10 000 years ago had they not been domesticated 

Click to expand...

Nah, the last truly wild Przewalski was spotted in the 1960s or something. There were later, unconfirmed sitings.

The last tarpan (possible wild horse ancestor of our domestic horses) died in the nineteenth century, I think.


----------



## Pompidou (14 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			Lol, this is very exact in a evolutionary timescale, maybe they just couldn't take the era of free love?! 

I'm sure I read somewhere that they would have become extinct over 10 000 years ago had they not been domesticated 

Click to expand...

That might be the case, one day the human will extinct as well... just like other animals, and plants. It still doesn't justify to exploit horses.


----------



## stencilface (14 August 2012)

I think you have to look at it as an symbiotic relationship, we feed, care for and protect them.  They help with winning wars, transport and managing land to provide crops.

There are thousands of symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom, everyone is exploiting everyone for something they cannot provide for themselves 

Susannah - but maybe without any domestication, extinction would have happened alot earlier?  Maybe the przewalski's were riding the domesticated wave without any of the downsides?


----------



## SusannaF (14 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			I think you have to look at it as an symbiotic relationship, we feed, care for and protect them.  They help with winning wars, transport and managing land to provide crops.

There are thousands of symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom, everyone is exploiting everyone for something they cannot provide for themselves 

Susannah - but maybe without any domestication, extinction would have happened alot earlier?  Maybe the przewalski's were riding the domesticated wave without any of the downsides? 

Click to expand...

Yes and no  They were hunted as game for a long time (as were Tarpans). People only really got interested in them after the Enlightenment when they started collecting specimens of animal species, but this wasn't great for the Przewalskis either as they were so hard to catch that entire herds of adults would be slaughtered in order to get hold of the foals.


----------



## Pompidou (14 August 2012)

Stencilface said:



			I think you have to look at it as an symbiotic relationship, we feed, care for and protect them.  They help with winning wars, transport and managing land to provide crops.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point. I do recognize special bonds between human and animals. But it don't see horsebackriding as one of them.

So many thoughts for me ... I'm not sure yet were for me is the 'line'...
Like we all agree we don't like the style of Adelinde ... the rollkur is cruel... but I see so many riders who don't use rollkur but do pull the bridle to hard, painfull to watch. The use of whip and spurs ... especially youngsters still learing to ride is an awfull watch.
No horse is born to ride on. They just give up at a sudden point. Their will is broken before they eventualy accept the saddle, the bridle and a human on their body.


----------



## cptrayes (14 August 2012)

posted by Amaranta
_I don't for one minute think that Boosboos suggested that banning rolkur was 'mere sentiment',_

Click to expand...


So why did s/he write " if we allow mere sentiment to guide what we ban (in this case rollkur)" ?




			posted by Amaranta
_The FEI have not actually banned rolkur_

Click to expand...

My understanding is that long deep and round is allowed for short periods but that hyperlexion/rollkur created by the excessive use of force is banned altogether.  There is an illustration of LDR in the German training manual and while the horse is well overbent it is not hyperflexed.

Booboos as a matter of interest, do you use hyperflexion in your training? I ask because if don't see with your own eyes that it is wrong, then I am puzzled as to what your motivations are for appearing to defend it?  Do you think that the riding in the Epona Olympic warm-up video was acceptable?

What people are justifiably outraged about is that this style of training in public has been banned and yet nothing is being done by stewards to prevent it and the Olympic warm-up area appeared to be excessively guarded to stop the public seeing that it was happening.


----------



## Booboos (14 August 2012)

I think my position on rollkur is fairly well known, but happy to repeat it: 

I don't 'see' anything wrong with it as such and I find calls for it to be banned purely on how people feel about it to be deeply unfair and very worrying as a type of reasoning. I can't find any substantial evidence that it is harmful to horses, but would be very interested in seeing any if you know of any I have missed (I have asked on several threads on this and discussed ideas with a number of people). Lacking any evidence that it is harmful, I see no reason why people cannot practice it if they wish. 

As for myself, I am a very crappy, novice rider and my main problems are keeping the horse in front of the leg and maintaining a decent position, so I don't think rollkur would work for me. Like all training techniques it can be misapplied and in this case I think I would end up using too much hand and not enough leg (Anky's horses were positively electric to the leg and super engaged when I saw her at the BD convention). At the same time I don't think Baucherite flexions/school of legerite would work for me either for exactly the same reasons.

I think the FFE ban is a step back on the whole debate. It is vague, ambiguous and was only introduced to give a semblance of having addressed the issue rather than doing so. The only thing that will actually address the issue is research on the effects of this type of training (and loads of other types of training if we are going to be fair. For example Dr H claims that riding horses hollow is more harmful than rollkur, but conveniently (given the millions of crappy riders like yours truly who ride their horses hollow) no one has taken up that call to arms! Not to mention that Dr H's own Baucherite flexions look as forceful as rollkur. So all this needs examining properly.).


----------



## Booboos (14 August 2012)

Sorry perhaps I didn't answer all your questions: my motivation for defending it is that it deserves defending from what I perceive to be an unfair attack. I don't particularly like poor reasoning and I don't like how some individuals are picked on (Patrick Kittel but not Edward Gal for example). I have spare time to write on fora so that's that I suppose.


----------



## cptrayes (14 August 2012)

Thanks BB, that's a thought provoking and interesting reply. I confess that I had assumed that the FEI had clear evidence that it was physically and/or mentally harmful before they banned it and I was surprised when I could not find their justification. I agree with you "because the public don't like the look of it" is not good enough for an international body, especially if they are then not going to enforce their ruling. They just make themselves look weak and two-faced.

As far as I can see, the difference between Patrick Kittel and Edward Gal is that Patrick did it in a place where the FEI have banned it, and Edward has not. I think this is reasonable, the practice is not illegal it's just against FEI rules. The FEI need to pull their finger out and enforce them, or withdraw the rule. But then again, they need to stop giving high marks to overbent horses, which have clearly been trained overbent, and then the practice will not win competitions and it will fade out. Pigs might fly sooner.

It is, however, good enough for me to see the horses eyes, demeanour, bulging parotid glands, excessive neck bend and occasional blue tongues. I ride a horse who is of the breeding, and hopefully possibly the calibre, of GP dressage horses. I would no sooner put him into hyperflexion, than I would poke needles in my eyes. I'm no tree hugger, I had him in draw reins this morning to curb some over-dominant behaviour on his part, but hyperflexion looks too much like abuse to me.


----------



## Booboos (14 August 2012)

The FEI rule is very ambiguous and it's not clear at all what is banned. While it has been reported as having banned rollkur the exact wording of the rule is not that clear. It can be read as either banning any low position other than the three illustrated, or it could be read as banning any hyperflexed position that is kept for more 10 minutes and is achieved through force, in which case rollkur is NOT banned, just doing it forcefully (what is that and how are stewards supposed to consistently recognise it?) and for too long (are stewards supposed to keep stop watches and monitor multiple horses' positions through time?).


----------



## cptrayes (14 August 2012)

Have you seen the Epona video? It's fairly clear to me that both those horses are being ridden in a banned fashion; that both of them are being pulled into and forcibly held in that shape.

I think that's what raises the blood pressure so much. Banning it and then hiding it so their pet top riders can continue to do it.

For illustration, I think it is perfectly clear in the FEI rules, that this is banned in warmup 

http://everyrider.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/6713closeupf.jpg

and yet it is still in common usage, ignored by stewards.  I am also pretty surprised that anyone feels happy to look at a picture like that and accept that it is an acceptable way to train a horse.  You must be seeing something different from me.


----------



## BeesKnees (14 August 2012)

I agree that riding horses when hollow is also a bad idea and could cause damage. 

All horses go btv at times. Most reasonable people accept this, especially those who do dressage.

Some also are proponents of the LDR position and can justify why they use it from a bio mechanical point of view that appears to make sense from what we know about muscle function and arthrokinematics, and what we can extrapolate logically from what is known. Furthermore it is possible to put a horse into LDR with correct riding, that engages and lifts the back, without much force on the bit and when using a snaffle

But that isn't what we' re talking about with Rollkur. I would like proponents to look at the pictu posted by CPtrayes and tell me how you can put a horse into Rollkur without a reasonable pressure applied to a curb bit. And then tell me how this isn't force? 

I also would love an explanation of how this is beneficial? I don't mean some waffle about how it 'engages the hind legs' I mean proper anatomical and bio mechanical explanation.

BooBoos, what did Anky and Sjef Janssen say when you saw them?


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

My unhorsey dad (he is a German, lol) LOVED Adelinde's Kur. He never saw Charlotte on Valegro as he left the room, and couldn't believe someone outperformed the Dutch woman, let a Brit. I had to tell him that Charlotte's test was far better, and beat Adelinde by nearly 2%.

I didn't really look at the details, as I was doing other stuff at the time, but I noticed hos Charlotte and Valegro looked very soft and together, and Valegro was such a bouncy horse. It was just nice to watch, while with Adelinde, it really looked stiff though technically, the horse's feet did what they were meant to do. It was a bit like watching someone who dances out of joy but may not have been technically perfect, compared to someone who sees it as "a job" though is technically up there.


----------



## chestnut cob (17 August 2012)

tasel said:



			My unhorsey dad (he is a German, lol) LOVED Adelinde's Kur.
		
Click to expand...

My unhorsey dad watched a bit of the dressage and said (without any input from me)... "it would all look a bit nicer if they let go of the horse's necks a bit and weren't clinging on"!!


----------



## tasel (17 August 2012)

chestnut cob said:



			My unhorsey dad watched a bit of the dressage and said (without any input from me)... "it would all look a bit nicer if they let go of the horse's necks a bit and weren't clinging on"!!
		
Click to expand...

Lol... my dad is not known for being soft even on his kids, so I sort of expected him to not notice that sort of stuff. My OH on the other hand hates any kind of overbending, and I tell him constantly that his reins are a bit to lose (he's learning to ride).


----------



## Booboos (17 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			BooBoos, what did Anky and Sjef Janssen say when you saw them?
		
Click to expand...

Well it was a few years ago at the BD convention so to the best of my recollection:

Part of the two days was spent on teaching guinea-pig rider/horse combinations at various levels. I cannot quite remember who the riders were but I think Andrew Gould with Cadre Noire may have been the advanced combination. They didn't suggest rollkur for any of these riders. 

On day one they worked with everyone on the warm up (they requested horses come in 'cold'). They suggested that all the horses should be more responsive to the leg and should move off sharply in transitions between paces and within the same pace. They advised the riders to use a very light aid, but then react immediately if the horse didn't respond to this aid with a stronger leg aid and by sending the horse really forwards (very similar to Carl Hester's general way of warming up). They questioned everyone who rode in with a whip and asked them to drop it and they also questioned quite a few curb chains as being too tight. They did an interesting 'test' with Cadre Noire who was having trouble with his pirouettes, they asked AG to do a simple 20m circle in trot and then give the inside rein...the horse curved seriously to the outside demonstrating that he was not in true balance. They suggested the horse needed to go back to basics before attempting pirouettes (the partneship was very new at that stage).

On day two they worked on more advanced movements. For the pirouettes they asked rider to try one or two steps and immediately come out of the pirouette the moment the horse fell behind the horse's leg in order to re-establish a forward canter. For the piaffe/passage they asked a few combinations to ride in a more open frame and not shorten the neck.

Part of the demo was Anky riding Krack C and Painted Black, although she was  5 months pregnant. For Krack C she asked the audience to keep a bit quiet as he is fiery and she was pregnant. She rode him with the neck curled but with an extremely active back end, she hardly had to touch him with the leg and he would react immediately. With Painted Black she said we could make as much noise as we wanted! She rode him in a more competition frame and showed a really promising piaffe/passage even at that stage (he was quite young at the time).


----------



## Mearas (19 August 2012)

Sadly I have not been able to read all this thread, (just not enough time), but what I have read has been IMHO really informed and interesting. 

Personally I gave up on Anky and Sjef a long time ago. Not just Rollkur which is  utterley appalling but their stance on training horses in general eg. that inside leg to outside rein is rubbish and  a 'competition outline', what is this?


----------



## trakehnersrock! (19 August 2012)

I just wanted to share this remark that someone we know over here made on a photo my daughter posted of Charlotte winning. This person is a judge on the circuit in which my daughter (and hopefully sometime soon myself) participates, hence why we made no reply (though it hurt to bite my tongue!). I know it's in French, but I thik it's fairly clear.
"Désolée mais pour moi elle ne devaiit pas gagner. Parzival était beaucoup mieux. Sans doute pression des organisateurs. Pour preuve les statistiques indiquent que chaque fois les pays organisateurs remportent comme par hazard plus de médailles uniquement cette année là..."
To say I was gobsmacked and highly indignant at the slur is to put it mildly


----------



## Marydoll (19 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Thanks BB, that's a thought provoking and interesting reply. I confess that I had assumed that the FEI had clear evidence that it was physically and/or mentally harmful before they banned it and I was surprised when I could not find their justification. I agree with you "because the public don't like the look of it" is not good enough for an international body, especially if they are then not going to enforce their ruling. They just make themselves look weak and two-faced.

As far as I can see, the difference between Patrick Kittel and Edward Gal is that Patrick did it in a place where the FEI have banned it, and Edward has not. I think this is reasonable, the practice is not illegal it's just against FEI rules. The FEI need to pull their finger out and enforce them, or withdraw the rule. But then again, they need to stop giving high marks to overbent horses, which have clearly been trained overbent, and then the practice will not win competitions and it will fade out. Pigs might fly sooner.

It is, however, good enough for me to see the horses eyes, demeanour, bulging parotid glands, excessive neck bend and occasional blue tongues. I ride a horse who is of the breeding, and hopefully possibly the calibre, of GP dressage horses. I would no sooner put him into hyperflexion, than I would poke needles in my eyes. I'm no tree hugger, I had him in draw reins this morning to curb some over-dominant behaviour on his part, but hyperflexion looks too much like abuse to me.
		
Click to expand...

Good answer


----------



## TarrSteps (19 August 2012)

Booboos, trakehnersrock et al have asked all the pertinent questions and have received answers. I see the attraction of saying something is 'wrong' because it feels that way but, of course, there are many things that fall into that category. Drawing those lines involves debate and study. Everyone agrees that beating your child is wrong, not everyone agrees corporal punishment is. Most people on here are pro using horses for sport/competition but that is in no way a unanimous view.

It does seem to have been completely forgotten that originally this debate had a very political and personal framework. Don't assume that everyone leading the charge is doing so from an objective position. 

This is all separate from whether or not you agree with whatever practice. It's all very well to complain about free speech but you know Mark Twain's adage, ' Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.' Much as I loathe the IOC with a white hot passion they do have the right to control attendance and images. The fact that they don't always pursue this doesn't make it any less their right.

Out of curiosity, if someone posted a photo from a hunt or competition of you causing your horse pain/discomfort/fear and then put it on the internet along with a condemnation, would you expect to have a platform for rebuttle?


----------



## Zuzan (19 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;   Out of curiosity, if someone posted a photo from a hunt or competition of you causing your horse pain/discomfort/fear and then put it on the internet along with a condemnation, would you expect to have a platform for rebuttle?
		
Click to expand...

I would be mortified that I had firstly caused pain to my horse and 2ndly as a hypocrite !  A horse can feel a fly - so why hold the reins with anything more than the weight of the reins has been the standard by which I judge my skill..

This is why Rollkur is wrong&#8230;  anything that uses that much force full stop..  

The caveat being &#8230; if the horse chooses to go against my hand then it is putting itself there and as it put it self there then it knows how to release the pressure and can do so.. that is the bottom line&#8230;  am sure we are singing from same hymn sheet 

Having trained my horse from 2 years old I know this principle works..  

Re the lack of principles and enforcement of existing rules that the IOC and FEI exhibit I am sure that in principle the argument on Rollkur have been won but now enforcing them is much much harder due to what has gone before.. it is much harder to tighten up rules and enforcement than it is to loosen them.   I think Cornelissen's silver was a _political_ medal to avert a challenge to the marks and placings.



TarrSteps said:



			&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  It does seem to have been completely forgotten that originally this debate had a very political and personal framework. Don't assume that everyone leading the charge is doing so from an objective position. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
		
Click to expand...

  I think part of the problem is that it is a moral (and therefore subjective) standpoint.  Anything that involves the concept of cruelty is going to be emotive.   However there is a building burden of proof that Rollkur is harmful, causes stress, pain and damage.   



TarrSteps said:



			&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..   This is all separate from whether or not you agree with whatever practice. It's all very well to complain about free speech but you know Mark Twain's adage, ' Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.' Much as I loathe the IOC with a white hot passion they do have the right to control attendance and images. The fact that they don't always pursue this doesn't make it any less their right. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
		
Click to expand...

  The problem with the IOC enforcing their &#8220;rights&#8221; to all material is this was the games of &#8220;Social Meja&#8221; as Danny Boyle so brilliantly captured   with this and the pressures that Social media exert for greater and greater transparency means that their &#8220;legal right&#8221; becomes much harder to uphold as has been seen wikileaks and the pressures (good ones) that can be placed on previous &#8220;behind closed doors processes&#8221;.   This one will be an interesting one to watch to see how the IOC and other governing bodies react to this shift of expectation of transparency and accountability that social media can exert.


----------



## TarrSteps (20 August 2012)

Zuzan said:



			I think part of the problem is that it is a moral (and therefore subjective) standpoint.  Anything that involves the concept of cruelty is going to be emotive.   However there is a building burden of proof that Rollkur is harmful, causes stress, pain and damage.
		
Click to expand...

But is this in fact true?  Is there proof? Booboos asked earlier for directions to such proof but none have been forthcoming. Don't misunderstand, I THINK it's true and my personal experience suggests that it is, but that's not the same as proof.  There is a significiant body of evidence that riding and domestic management is harmful to horses. . .where do we draw the line?  Is it at the point where we ask extreme things in the service of sport?  Is it the point at which we cause a particular reaction in the horse?  

And if the rules are going to be adjusted to stop people causing discomfort to horses. . . .well, I have to admit my own tolerance may, in fact, be much less than many.  Sorry, but we do LOTS of things that hurt horses.  The question is why has this practice been singled out?  

I am still very curious to know how people can say this or that horse has been trained using this specific method.  Even proponents don't say it's standard practice for every horse.  And there are lots and lots of horses with "broken necks" and trailing hocks at every level of the sport that have not been trained with rolkur, at least not knowingly.  Should those riders also be approached?

I do agree the FEI, having now signed on for this, should do their best to uphold their own rules.  My own PERSONAL views are very in line with the desire for "happy athletes" but I also realise not everyone defines this the same way.





			The problem with the IOC enforcing their &#8220;rights&#8221; to all material is this was the games of &#8220;Social Meja&#8221; as Danny Boyle so brilliantly captured   with this and the pressures that Social media exert for greater and greater transparency means that their &#8220;legal right&#8221; becomes much harder to uphold as has been seen wikileaks and the pressures (good ones) that can be placed on previous &#8220;behind closed doors processes&#8221;.   This one will be an interesting one to watch to see how the IOC and other governing bodies react to this shift of expectation of transparency and accountability that social media can exert.
		
Click to expand...

True, the world is changing (and laws, by necessity, lag behind) but the point raised has been why are the IOC and FEI not pursuing people who, for instance, took photos of the venues.  It's not because they could not do so, it's because they choose not to do so.  As I said, the IOC is not my favourite organisation by a long haul but I don't think laws should only apply or not apply as I see fit.  I would very much like to keep the option of pursuing someone who posts a photo of me I don't want to have out there, not because I am doing evil on a daily basis (although I think it's delusional to think that could not happen to anyone) but because I think there is something to be said for fair assessment in both directions.  Epona has an agenda, we all know it.  This does not make them wrong, by any means, but they are on a mission and I can see why people who do not agree with them feel they have to defend themselves.  Surely this is similar to discussions about hunting legislation or issues with PETA in the US?  It is always more complicated than it seems.


----------



## Zargon_91 (20 August 2012)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/265992986845789/?notif_t=group_r2j



^^ my campaign for a sports personality of the year nomination for Carl hester- thought this thread might be a good place to put it as Carl is everything cornelissen is not


----------



## Mearas (21 August 2012)

As far as evidence of Rollkur goes I would suggest Dr Gerd Hauschmann who is a leading (all be it German) vet from Warrendorf and has been writing (Tug of War - classical v modern dressage) and campaigning against Rollkur for many years. In his own words 'he is now public enemy No.1 with the FEI and has infact, given up lobbying them, he now says his emphasis is educating young riders.


----------



## Booboos (21 August 2012)

Mearas said:



			As far as evidence of Rollkur goes I would suggest Dr Gerd Hauschmann who is a leading (all be it German) vet from Warrendorf and has been writing (Tug of War - classical v modern dressage) and campaigning against Rollkur for many years. In his own words 'he is now public enemy No.1 with the FEI and has infact, given up lobbying them, he now says his emphasis is educating young riders.
		
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the suggestion but his book contains 0 references to studies or otherwise published work on this matter, he has published 0 articles in peer-reviewed journals on this issue and his actual claims about the supposed harms of rollkur are a lot more limited than people claim on his behalf.

It is also interesting to google images of Dr H riding himself...make sure you are sitting down before you do so though!


----------



## TarrSteps (21 August 2012)

Mearas said:



			As far as evidence of Rollkur goes I would suggest Dr Gerd Hauschmann who is a leading (all be it German) vet from Warrendorf and has been writing (Tug of War - classical v modern dressage) and campaigning against Rollkur for many years. In his own words 'he is now public enemy No.1 with the FEI and has infact, given up lobbying them, he now says his emphasis is educating young riders.
		
Click to expand...

Are you acquainted with him? 

I think he has a lot of interesting and useful things to say but he does definitely have an agenda.  Even some of the people he was originally allied with in this battle (and it is one) have taken a serious step back. 

This does not, of course, make him wrong but it also does not make him right.  As Booboos says his findings have not been reproduced by anyone else.

Again, I am not positioning myself on any side (although I'm not even necessarily a fan of bits and nosebands in all cases so that should suggest where my sympathies lie!) but I do think if you're going to use "science" rather than "I don't like it" as a reasoning then it's not out of the realm of reason to be asked to provide objective proof.  And, subsequent to that, to not then go on to study all sorts of other things we do to horses . . .


----------



## Zuzan (21 August 2012)

Re the proof I think I would emphasis it is a growing body of knowledge and evidence that will eventually be PROOF..  

We know enough of equine behaviour and physiology / movement to be able to see that holding a horse over bent (as apposed to the momentary dodging behind the vertical) is not constructive and causes the horse to brace and tense ..  a common reaction to discomfort and pain.

I agree that at times the anti campaign has become rather personal ... just look at the title of this thread..  tho obviously motivated by the awarding of a silver medal ..  

Re the principle of reducing discomfort and harm...  or emotively suffering v welfare and to what extent it is acceptable / necessary (we will quite happily accept that we can cause a baby pain during an inoculation for it's own good..) the ethics about how we decide what is justified and what is not is a minefield but worth really examining...  of course different cultures have different levels of what is socially acceptable whether we are talking about humans .. other animals .. wild or domestic..  We just have to be very careful not to anthropomorphise but also not to underestimate other beings ability to feel..  even when we cannot for definite define what exactly they are feeling.. 

Kesho and Alf  and The curious incident of a deceased giraffe

My PERSONAL stance is that my horse can stand on my foot by mistake and cause me pain .. but it is my fault USUALLY for be a clutz..    similarly I can accidentally hurt her but we have learnt to accept accidental..  and there I go anthropomorphising.. but at least she doesn't seem to harbour any distrust / grudge..  which kind of implies she understands the concept of "accidental" !!!!  Tho obviously this isn't scientific it is evidence that points to this mutual conceptual understanding.

It is impossible to really understand what it is exactly another species is feeling as we don't share the same language  .. however we CAN approximate and there is obviously some level of cross species understanding ... this is after all  how training works ... the greater the x species understanding the greater potential to domesticate..

I'm not convinced that the Rollkur debate can be equated with the PETA type standpoint on hunting as Rollkur is a method of training and isn't an end itself..  There are very good proven alternatives to Rollkur that don't cause discomfort / pain etc .. the equivalent would be to ban dressage if you were to ban hunting..  which really is quite ridiculous if you believe dressage is beneficial (as I do) .. or should be... for the horse's physical and mental being.


----------



## TarrSteps (21 August 2012)

Zuzan said:



			I'm not convinced that the Rollkur debate can be equated with the PETA type standpoint on hunting as Rollkur is a method of training and isn't an end itself..  There are very good proven alternatives to Rollkur that don't cause discomfort / pain etc .. the equivalent would be to ban dressage if you were to ban hunting..  which really is quite ridiculous if you believe dressage is beneficial (as I do) .. or should be... for the horse's physical and mental being.
		
Click to expand...

I do actually more or less agree with you but, of course, there are many people who really DO believe dressage should be banned.  Yes, it may benefit horses from a riding perspective but their argument would be we should not be riding them in the first place.  

People who defend rolkur (and related work - I cringe a bit every time I see the defence of LDR or whatever we're calling it and the whisper fine lines involved) do so on the basis that it is an effective system to gymnastisize some horses in the same way that gymnasts practice extreme stretches.  Rightly or wrongly, the do believe it has benefits if used judiciously and correctly.  (I presume we cannot defend or deny anything on the basis that some people my do it wrong!)

Not to the rolkur debate per se but I did see a "candid" from the eventing warm up with about half a dozen horses working in the background - every single one well behind the vertical with necks at varying heights.  Not a peep from anyone.  

I am just chewing the fat with you on the subject.   I am well aware that two wrongs don't make a right but I get a little tired of people jumping on this bandwagon, saying they NEVER do their horses harm (not you Zuzan, you've explained your position) and they NEVER let their ego rule their empathy and they NEVER do something potentially damaging to their horses just because they want to do what they want to do.  Yes, fine, point a finger at Anky, the Bartles, Gal, Kittel etc.  But I think the real power in these debates is to make people question their assumed positions.  Personally, I'm in favour of riding horses, I think that's what they're for.  But I don't assume everyone who disagrees with me is an granola knitting bunny hugger, nor would I let them think I'm an unfeeling monster.


----------



## Peer (22 August 2012)

trakehnersrock! said:



			I just wanted to share this remark that someone we know over here made on a photo my daughter posted of Charlotte winning. This person is a judge on the circuit in which my daughter (and hopefully sometime soon myself) participates, hence why we made no reply (though it hurt to bite my tongue!). I know it's in French, but I thik it's fairly clear.
*"Désolée mais pour moi elle ne devaiit pas gagner. Parzival était beaucoup mieux. Sans doute pression des organisateurs. Pour preuve les statistiques indiquent que chaque fois les pays organisateurs remportent comme par hazard plus de médailles uniquement cette année là..."*
To say I was gobsmacked and highly indignant at the slur is to put it mildly 

Click to expand...

The same words as they used on German TV.


----------



## Mearas (22 August 2012)

Thank you Booboos and Tarrsteps. No, I don't know Gerd Hauschmann personally although I have attended a clinic and I also accept that he has not published any papers. I do also feel that Gerd Hauschmann has undermined his own arguments by not using a classical trainer to do the training elements of his clinics.For all this I do not think his arguments are invalid. 

I recently showed rollkur pictures from London 2012, to someone who is totally unhorsey and that person was totally shocked and did not want to look at the pictures suggesting that they were horrible. When I investigated further I was told that it looks totally unnatural and althought they new nothing about horses they could see the discomfort and unhappiness in the horse. For many years mothers said their new born babies smiled at them and this was dismissed, it is however, accepted now that babies do smile at their mothers Smoking is another example, doctors suggesting that maybe it was linked to lung cancer but it took a long time for the prove this and a long battle against the companies with interests. Meanwhile many people died. We can  wait for the prove by which time many horses will have suffered. Why? surely, it is better to take the approach not to use this method until it is proved not to cause harm? 

As I am sure you are aware rollkur is not new it was used in the 1700's but dismissed much as today. If it really had been a worthy training method surely we would have kept it as we have other training methods such as 'shoulder in'.

For myself, a rider needs control of the shoulders which is impossible to achieve through rollkur. Now many riders are happy to accept control of the neck which IMHO will never achieve lightness and true engagement.


----------



## SusannaF (22 August 2012)

Peer said:



			The same words as they used on German TV.
		
Click to expand...

Not on the ZDF feed I was watching!


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

Zuzan: I am sorry I don't think I have explained myself very well so I will repeat my argument (I am a bit confused over what I have said in this thread and others!). 
I am NOT saying:
- that animals don't feel pain. The similarity of their neurological system to ours permits the inference that they do.
- that one cannot cause some pain in order to avoid greater harms as in the case of vaccinations  for babies.
- that purposeful pain is as morally culpable as accidental pain. Intentions do matter morally speaking, and non-culpable accidents are morally excused.

What I am saying is that this argument is a poor one:
"I do not like/get upset by/feel is awful X activity"
"Therefore others should be banned from practicing X"

To show the unacceptable conclusions of this argument I made the analogy with the whole of riding which some people find as upseting as rollkur. If one can be banned solely on feelings, then so can the other one, as can millions of other activities. Feeling may well be fine for regulating individual behaviour but they are a very unsatisfactory basis for limiting the behaviour of others.

I would be grateful for the studies that show that rollkur causes pain, as pain is, to a sufficiently useful, extent messurable through its physiological manifestations.

Mearas: the point is exactly that we were not able to publicly warn against smoking and ban it indoors until there was evidence that it caused harm. The harm caused by smoking before the evidence came to light is the price we pay for liberty because without the evidence how do we decide what to ban?

My biggest gripe with Dr H (Philippe Karl as well but he has the excuse of not being a scientist) is that he chose to make his case through a book for the public with no scientific backing. Scientific claims are first defended in the academic sphere, i.e. through publications in peer reviewed journals that make known the results, and most importantly, how they were arrived at so that they can be re-created and checked by others in the public domain. This process goes some way towards ensuring that the results are reliable. Books for the general public are a great idea, but they should only be about things that are already proven, not personal speculations, and they should include the references so that non-specialists can also look them up. For example:
1. I am currently writing an entry on virtue ethics and education for an encyclopaedia which will have about 30 references (small number due to word limit).
2. I am reading a book on the psychology of lying written for lay people that has about 200 references.
3. I read a book on how to get a baby to sleep which had about 400 references.

Dr H's book = 0 references.

If anyone is interested, in an older thread I summarized Dr H's arguments from his book. They are surprisingly vacuous (as well as unsupported).


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

Booboos, surely there's no scientifically valid evidence that a lot of things cause any harm and yet they are banned because we know that they are wrong?  Surely it is possible to see with your own eyes and make a judgement that some things just aren't right?


----------



## glitterbug (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Booboos, surely there's no scientifically valid evidence that a lot of things cause any harm and yet they are banned because we know that they are wrong?  Surely it is possible to see with your own eyes and make a judgement that some things just aren't right?
		
Click to expand...

But surely the people who use it as a training method don't believe it to be wrong. There are many injuries that we cause our horses to have by training them for competition by whatever method of training is used. We do not want to hurt our horses but by the very nature of training our horses to compete at the highest level we can injure them.

Most competition horses will suffer some form of injury in their lives be that tendon, ligament or muscle damage. Alot of that is directly attributable to what we are doing with them. If rollkur can cause some physical damage is this any worse than any other damage?
I am to certain extent playing devils advocate here and I don't like forceful training of any method but it is the fact of extreme flexion or the force thats bad.
A horse can be trained over time to use the full range of flexion in its neck without force.


----------



## TarrSteps (22 August 2012)

I'm not sure that is the case where laws/rules are concerned cptrayes, at least in modern times. There are studies on all sorts of things!

And, tbh, I think most of us would be in some sort of trouble if we started measuring pain response in horses. . . 

This, of course, does not make it right. But it does not make it wrong, either, at least not on the strength of a few photos. The photos from Dr H's clinic were pretty emotive but seem to have just been swept away, despite very public condemnation by a few well known trainers. Also, if I showed you snap shots of horses in pain from a local unaffiliated show (not all unintentional, I'd bet)  what would be the result?  What about bad footing? I'd like to ban people from working their horses in poor footing as it almost certainly causes long term pain.

I'm not saying this is a reason to throw our hands in the air and do nothing. Doing something is better than doing nothing. But I can't help thinking all this stink about rolkur is a) somewhat political b) bandwagon-esque and c) something of a red herring that allows people to point fingers and pat themselves on the back for not being like THOSE people. 

Now, if they want to control it on the basis that it LOOKS bad - which was pretty much the original argument, btw - then have at it. But at least be honest. And perhaps at least consider casting a wider net. . .


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Booboos, surely there's no scientifically valid evidence that a lot of things cause any harm and yet they are banned because we know that they are wrong?  Surely it is possible to see with your own eyes and make a judgement that some things just aren't right?
		
Click to expand...

This is correct but mainly in societies where there is no distinction between state and church, so for example many societies find the very sight of women's flesh to be wrong and offensive and therefore women have to wear a burka.

In democratic, liberal societies the general principle is that the state does not get involved in the private life of individuals unless what they are doing causes harm to others (for which one needs evidence). This kind of thinking has been used to de-criminalise homosexuality and prostitution in England for example. 

Having said that, the law is not 100% consistent, for example it is illegal to have sex with an animal in England (although hardly anyone is every prosecuted for it). If you think about the pain caused to animals in the breeding, rearing, transporting and slaughtering for food industry, having sex with an animal is hardly the most harful thing we do to them!

I do agree with TarrSteps that the motivation behind the outrage with rollkur is very suspect, especially as it originated with German journalists who were facing the first ever challenge to their country's equestrian supremacy from the Dutch. 

Ironically even Dr H's book accepts that working a horse hollow is much worse than rollkur, but no one is trying to stop millions of amateur riders from riding because of it.


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

There you go, five seconds later and another thread makes my point for me:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=557791&page=2

There was another poster the other day on a thread saying how awful the whole of riding looked to her (which I don't dispute, I am sure it did, just saying that this is merely grounds for her not to ride, not for her to ban riding for everyone else).


----------



## BeesKnees (22 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			There you go, five seconds later and another thread makes my point for me:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=557791&page=2

There was another poster the other day on a thread saying how awful the whole of riding looked to her (which I don't dispute, I am sure it did, just saying that this is merely grounds for her not to ride, not for her to ban riding for everyone else).
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with the basic point you make, is there more of a moral imperative when those who voice concerns about a practice possibly being harmful do actually know something, or possibly much, about the subject, even if there's no 'proof'? In terms of a discussion of ethics, would that hold more weight?

It seems to me that in many spheres, not least science, we extrapolate from what we do know, to give informed opinion. Indeed such 'expert witness' is used in court to help decide guilt. I think this has many pitfalls, and people have been found wrongly guilty of doing all sorts with the help of such unproven expert witness, but *it is* used in this way. 

That sets some sort of precedent doesn't it?


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			Whilst I agree with the basic point you make, is there more of a moral imperative when those who voice concerns about a practice possibly being harmful do actually know something, or possibly much, about the subject, even if there's no 'proof'? In terms of a discussion of ethics, would that hold more weight?

It seems to me that in many spheres, not least science, we extrapolate from what we do know, to give informed opinion. Indeed such 'expert witness' is used in court to help decide guilt. I think this has many pitfalls, and people have been found wrongly guilty of doing all sorts with the help of such unproven expert witness, but *it is* used in this way. 

That sets some sort of precedent doesn't it?
		
Click to expand...

What is the content of this knowledge and why can't it be shared with others? What is it that they know about this practice? Who are these people who know stuff, and why aren't they telling the rest of us? 

Expert don't make things up out of thin air, nor do they rely on feeling or intuition when they arrive at a conclusion (they may rely on intuition in following a particular line of thought but if they don't find any evidence to back up their initial intuition they can't claim to be justified). Imagine a forensic anthropologist who is giving evidence in court claiming the accused is guilty of murder. The first question she will be aske is 'Why?', if her answer is 'He feels guilty to me' and the fact that she is an expert doesn't justify her answer. We wouldn't convict this person because she feels he is guilty. Experts are good witnesses because of their knowledge; we don't expect every minutiae of their knowledge to be understandable by us but they should be able to give an account based on facts not feelings.


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

duplicate, how did that happen?


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

Well my argument is and always has been that making the parotid glands bulge out at the side of the neck in a way that it would be extremely rare for a horse to do itself cannot be a correct or acceptable way of training.

And that there should be a greater duty of care on riders who compete on the world stage deliberately using a training technique than your average Riding Club rider who gets things wrong by mistake or ignorance.

Dressage is supposed to be about taking movements that horses perform naturally when loose in a field and perfecting the demonstration of those movements on demand in a test situation.

Putting them in a physical contortion that they never, in my experience, choose to adopt for themselves, is, in my opinion, not acceptable.

Nor is it acceptable for the FEI, having banned it, to fail to enforce it. Either ban it or not but this half-way house we have now is not acceptable and is bringing the FEI into disrepute.


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			In democratic, liberal societies the general principle is that the state does not get involved in the private life of individuals unless what they are doing causes harm to others (for which one needs evidence).
		
Click to expand...

We have masses of laws for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it causes actual harm to the participants or anyone else. Either because the evidence cannot be measured or because it would be unethical to do so. They are there because we "feel" these things to be wrong, in some cases with far less evidence than blind-in-front-of-them horses with bulging parotid glands.

For examples:

- sex between consenting 12 year olds, between a brother and sister even if they are sterile, with a horse

- bigamy, polygamy, polyandry

- 14 and 15 year olds working full time 

- walking around in public naked

- taking your kids out of school for 2 weeks without the permission of the headteacher.

I'm sure I could find hundreds more.

Do you use rollkur/hyperflexion as a training technique Booboos, or is this just a theoretical discussion for you?


----------



## RutlandH2O (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Well my argument is and always has been that making the parotid glands bulge out at the side of the neck in a way that it would be extremely rare for a horse to do itself cannot be a correct or acceptable way of training.

And that there should be a greater duty of care on riders who compete on the world stage deliberately using a training technique than your average Riding Club rider who gets things wrong by mistake or ignorance.

Dressage is supposed to be about taking movements that horses perform naturally when loose in a field and perfecting the demonstration of those movements on demand in a test situation.

Putting them in a physical contortion that they never, in my experience, choose to adopt for themselves, is, in my opinion, not acceptable.

Nor is it acceptable for the FEI, having banned it, to fail to enforce it. Either ban it or not but this half-way house we have now is not acceptable and is bringing the FEI into disrepute.
		
Click to expand...

^^^This, with no ands, ifs, or buts!!!


----------



## BeesKnees (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Nor is it acceptable for the FEI, having banned it, to fail to enforce it. Either ban it or not but this half-way house we have now is not acceptable and is bringing the FEI into disrepute.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that by accepting LDR, the FEI gave everyone an 'out'. Sjef Janssen (sp) was on the FEI group that looked at the evidence and decided Rollkur was flexion through aggressive methods and not acceptable. Seems ridiculous but if he claims he does LDR not Rollkur - no problem


----------



## TarrSteps (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			We have masses of laws for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it causes actual harm to the participants or anyone else. Either because the evidence cannot be measured or because it would be unethical to do so. They are there because we "feel" these things to be wrong, in some cases with far less evidence than blind-in-front-of-them horses with bulging parotid glands.

For examples:

- sex between consenting 12 year olds, between a brother and sister even if they are sterile, with a horse

- bigamy, polygamy, polyandry

- 14 and 15 year olds working full time 

- walking around in public naked

- taking your kids out of school for 2 weeks without the permission of the headteacher.

I'm sure I could find hundreds more.

Do you use rollkur/hyperflexion as a training technique Booboos, or is this just a theoretical discussion for you?
		
Click to expand...

A couple of those are rooted in religion, a point Booboos already addressed, to be fair.  The one pertaining to 12 year olds has to do with the age at which children are recognised as being able LEGALLY consent.  We don't let 12 year olds buy houses, either. 

Ditto children working full time and staying in school - there is quite a body of evidence that children in our current society benefit from a basic education.  It doesn't guarantee anything, I'll admit, but the wholesale lack of it certainly would!  So lines do get drawn, of course.  Just like we say people can wear spurs in dressage (actually MUST wear spurs, but that's another conversation) but cannot draw blood with them.  

The naked thing is also religious in origin and not necessarily the case in all modern countries now.  It is actually legal for women to go topless in many countries, although in predominantly WASP culture there is still a social taboo.  As far as stores etc having rules regarding dress etc, that's their private business.

I do agree with your earlier point, that having decided on this course of action, the FEI should stick to its guns.  Similar cases have cropped up in other disciplines - "peanut rolling" QHs, "soring", overly tight overchecks on driving horses etc - with varying levels of successful policing.

One of the problems in the subjective cases is degree.  If you are policing the low head set of WP QHs then do you also punish a horse that occasionally dips below?  For how long?  How much does the horse's demeanour affect a decision?  Who makes the decision, given that only one official is usually going to see any single incident?

And for the purpose of discussion, where is the proof that dressage is taking what horses do naturally and putting it in a ring?  Horses don't do MOST of what we want naturally, from live in boxes to jump higher than their heads.  Dressage is a martial art and more recently entertainment.  The idea that it's "good" for horses is relatively recent  - not too many people cared what was "good" for horses until pretty recently, although they did care what made them more able to do their jobs.  And that is the defence of rolkur - that for SOME horses they need to be trained in extreme ways in order to do extreme tasks.  Maybe the defence is it makes those horses unsuitable for the job, in the same way that if you have to sore your horse to make it jump clean it's not an Olympic sj'er, but we've not actually had that discussion.  I'd agree the answers have to come from judging but again, there is no PROOF you can tell which horses are trained which way just by looking.  As I said before, look how many short necked, trailing hocked horses are inhabiting local shows, likely not the product of rolkur.

Booboos is completely able to defend herself, but I think the issue is one of principle.  Why do we allow this and not that?  Is it okay to ban things just because some people find it offensive?  If that's the case, who gets the final vote?  Can we ban things we don't fully understand?  (Has anyone read any of the pro-rolkur instruction?  It does exist, it's not just people being mean to horses for the sake of it.)  Are photos enough?  What about the people who object to other uses for horses?  

Again, I'm not saying we should do nothing about suffering, I'm just saying that perhaps, if we're going to do that, it's not unfair to ask for debate.

The people who levelled the first charges, btw, were not vets and were not, in the main even experienced trainers.  There is no proof because, well, there is no proof.  I very much see your point that photos can be added into evidence but I suspect if we looked we could find quite a few photos of unhappy horses NOT in rolkur.  What would that mean?


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			We have masses of laws for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it causes actual harm to the participants or anyone else. Either because the evidence cannot be measured or because it would be unethical to do so. They are there because we "feel" these things to be wrong, in some cases with far less evidence than blind-in-front-of-them horses with bulging parotid glands.

For examples:

- sex between consenting 12 year olds, between a brother and sister even if they are sterile, with a horse

- bigamy, polygamy, polyandry

- 14 and 15 year olds working full time 

- walking around in public naked

- taking your kids out of school for 2 weeks without the permission of the headteacher.

I'm sure I could find hundreds more.

Do you use rollkur/hyperflexion as a training technique Booboos, or is this just a theoretical discussion for you?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say there are no laws that did not conform to the No Harm Principle, but since the French renaissance and the influence of J.S. Mill's liberal ideas, culminating with the Hart/Devlin debate on the Wolfenden report, English law has very much followed the liberal line. Bestiality is the one prominent exception, the other as you mention is incest between consenting adults. Of the others you mention anything with children isn't relevant as they are not consenting adults and liberals are happy to be paternalistic about children (so children are protected both from having to work and from having their right to education disrupted by their parents). Polygamy's prohibition is multifold, partly due to the deception involved (of the state and of the spouce) and partly due to the potential burden to the state from the various children) (all fairly dubious claims imo but that's a longer discussion). The 'walking around naked' is a breach of the peace which does allow for a fairly subjective interpretation of when public peace and order is disturbed, but as a result sentences are generally very lenient (exactly because of the very small amount of harm caused by the offence).

No I don't train in rollkur myself because I am a crappy, amateur rider and my main problems are my seat and failing to have my horses in front of the leg. I think these particular faults would be horribly exaccerbated by any training method that had a lot to do with hands (not just rollkur but Baucherite flexions for example), and I am probably better off going wrong by having my horses run off than fail to have any impulsion. However, I am also not a supporter of rollkur, merely a defender of it!


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

Don't pick them off one at a time TS, for every one you pick off we can probably find a hundred more between us. They were examples that BB was incorrect in what she was saying that the formulation of our laws is  generally based on evidence. It often isn't, it's based on what people felt was right at the time the law was made.

The Dangerous Dogs Act is one which would support Booboos argument that bad decisions are made on feelings alone. 

The law preventing children of 14 and 15 from working full days is based purely on the "feeling" that all children should be in school until they are 16. I doubt there is the slightest bit of scientifically valid research that would prove that, but it's much less clear whether its a bad law or not and most people would, I think, feel that it was not.


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			The 'walking around naked' is a breach of the peace which does allow for a fairly subjective interpretation of when public peace and order is disturbed, but as a result sentences are generally very lenient (exactly because of the very small amount of harm caused by the offence).
		
Click to expand...

That would be why the naked rambler has served so many prison sentences then?

I met him once when I was out on a horse. I wasn't the slightest bit offended but my horse nearly fell over craning his neck back to keep his eyes on this thing flopping around in full view that he'd never seen on a humn before 

Again, don't pick them off one by one BB, there are thousands, they were just a sample.


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			And for the purpose of discussion, where is the proof that dressage is taking what horses do naturally and putting it in a ring?
		
Click to expand...

If I could be fagged, I could trawl the internet and find you video of horses loose in fields doing every single dressage movement in the GP test. Perhaps not the number of tempis, but certainly tempis and certainly all the rest.  I've had horses at home outside my windows for 21 years now and seen them for myself, but for proof, it's there if I could be bothered to look for it.

I couldn't find you a picture of a horse willingly putting itself into hyperflexion so tight that its parotid glands pop out the side of its jowls.  If you can, I'd love to see it.

Have you ever watched Amelie? In it there is a short film of the peloton of a bike race passing a grazing horse in a field. He pops up his head, canters to the gate, jumps it, and joins in their cycle race. Great fun, and pretty conclusive that horses like racing in a group, or at least one does


----------



## TarrSteps (22 August 2012)

I was terrified when the horse jumped into the Tour de France in real life! It really did not look to me like it was having a good time and I kept waiting for it to slip and fall on the tarmac or wipe out cyclists. 

Anyhow, we're having a discussion, so technically we are allowed to argue your points. 

I am with Booboos though - you can defend something without supporting it. Or at least you can support the idea that if you are going to single out a practice it isn't unreasonable to ask why that one and not another.

Btw, perhaps the photos that have surfaced are rolkur done badly? It's at least possible. I have seen video of a demo and a book on the subject where, to be fair, the horses did not look stressed and in the demo the horse did show a marked improvement in relaxation and way of going. Interestingly, that video briefly did the rounds as a fuel for the anti debate but quickly disappeared.

As far as the naturalness of movements, I'm not convinced, sorry. Dressage has a real whiff of the circus about it. Technically gymnasts move naturally but there is ample evidence that at the top levels the toll is significant. And this is of course, the defence of rolkur - if we are going to ask extreme things of our horses we need to prepare them in extreme ways. Again, not saying I agree but the principle deserves examination.


----------



## tristar (22 August 2012)

i think the doing what comes naturally bit centers around, that the fei definitions of what can and cannot be performed within a test is based on whether or not it is natural, certain movements are considered un-natural and therefore are not included in competition dressage, sadly they have forgotten to exclude going round with your blood supply cut off in rollkur. however, my horses very often perform movements the fei don't know about!

rollkur is ugly, incorrect, inferior training etc


----------



## Booboos (22 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			That would be why the naked rambler has served so many prison sentences then?

I met him once when I was out on a horse. I wasn't the slightest bit offended but my horse nearly fell over craning his neck back to keep his eyes on this thing flopping around in full view that he'd never seen on a humn before 

Again, don't pick them off one by one BB, there are thousands, they were just a sample.
		
Click to expand...

That's because of his purposeful disregard for the law. He literally takes his clothes off outside the prison as soon as he is released. Nothing pisses judges off more than being defied!

Well the only way to deal with a thousand objections is to pick them off one by one! If each one fails, job done!


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2012)

I don't accept that you succesfully picked them off BB, but since you intend to do that with every example given, I can't be bothered to continue to respond.

If you can't see what is wrong with this, then you are looking with different eyes than mine.

http://www.bitlessbridle.com/RollkurFig4a.jpg

http://www.scandinavian-dressage.com/images/Rollkur2_300.jpg

http://dressyrmupparna.se/wp-content/uploads/webblogg/rollkur_121958115.jpg

http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/anky.jpg

http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/powerandpaintlarge.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/i...kCc7TX-Ir3GqqwNUi9AzsSwDNwcaY6_Uh_xCFpF-yqXLT


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I don't accept that you succesfully picked them off BB, but since you intend to do that with every example given, I can't be bothered to continue to respond.

If you can't see what is wrong with this, then you are looking with different eyes than mine.
		
Click to expand...

I get the impression you may be a bit upset? I certainly didn't intend that. If I didn't respond to your arguments one at a time, how should have I responded? I am not 'picking them off' to be contrary, I am arguing that such laws are wrong and regulating on this basis is wrong. If we lived in a Sharia state I would have even more laws to argue against but their sheer number wouldn't make them any more right.

I think this is the crux of the matter, I am not really looking with my eyes, I am thinking with my brain


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			I get the impression you may be a bit upset? I certainly didn't intend that. If I didn't respond to your arguments one at a time, how should have I responded? I am not 'picking them off' to be contrary, I am arguing that such laws are wrong and regulating on this basis is wrong. If we lived in a Sharia state I would have even more laws to argue against but their sheer number wouldn't make them any more right.

I think this is the crux of the matter, I am not really looking with my eyes, I am thinking with my brain 

Click to expand...

Upset? Not at all. It's interesting to get into a rational debate with someone who can really argue. But in the end there is currently no evidence with which to support a legal ban on hyperflexion, and ethically I can't see how we are going to get any. I certainly wouldn't support taking a group of horses and doing it to them for a couple of years and then cutting them up to see what physical damage it may have caused. Perhaps we should have compulsory post mortems of all horses known to have been trained in that fashion when they die? Difficult to manage, maybe???

Where do you propose we should get our proof from, Booboos, or would you propose never to ban anything where it is unethical to produce the physical proof?  I think you'd have a hard job banning sex with babies under that one.

I am also thinking with my brain, only I have fully engaged my eyes (and the rest of my body when I ride horses similar physically and in temperament to the ones this training method is so "successful" with) before doing so. (no, I don't ride internationally at GP, and neither would I want to if that method of training was the only way to achieve it).

The fact is that plenty of people at the top of the sport think that this training method is unacceptable. People at the top of the FEI felt it was so unacceptable that they have stated that it is banned, even if they fail yet to police that. The lack of policing is mainly a local issue with stewards who either are in awe of big name riders or don't see the problem. They are going to have to sort this, (withdraw the ban or police it) or the clamour is simply going to get louder.


ps just want to add for people who do not know me that I am no fluffy bunny. I support the proper use of draw reins and spurs and I hit horses with a whip when I feel that is the correct course of action.


----------



## tristar (23 August 2012)

booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?

once you have turned the the key and entered the enchanted castle and ridden with reins light as a feather,sitting on a horse whose sheer power is only directed, not created by harsh aids, you will need no other evidence to form the conclusion that trying to, although you have the right in a free society to argue for the right, for something as pathetic as rollkur training only exposes your lack of understanding of training the horse.

and i do understand that you are saying evidential proof is lacking, but one day you might discover  yourself during your progression as a rider why so many do not find it acceptable.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Upset? Not at all. It's interesting to get into a rational debate with someone who can really argue. But in the end there is currently no evidence with which to support a legal ban on hyperflexion, and ethically I can't see how we are going to get any. I certainly wouldn't support taking a group of horses and doing it to them for a couple of years and then cutting them up to see what physical damage it may have caused. Perhaps we should have compulsory post mortems of all horses known to have been trained in that fashion when they die? Difficult to manage, maybe???

Where do you propose we should get our proof from, Booboos, or would you propose never to ban anything where it is unethical to produce the physical proof?  I think you'd have a hard job banning sex with babies under that one.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies, I misread your post!

Well I am not a vet but off the top of my head it depends on the claims about rollkur:
- claims that horses cannot see and/or breath while in the position should be easy to examine and yes for the purposes of that study I would put horses in rollkur, it should be quickly apparent that they can't breath and/or see.
- claims that their bones and/or muscles and/or ligaments are malformed or similar should be also obtainable from physical manipulations, MRI scans, scintigraphies, etc. etc. (to be honest I am not knowledgeable enough to 'marry' the right test with the right deformity, but any vet should be able to do so).
- claims that these horses have a shorter lifespan or competitive career should be obtainable via audit.
- yes autopsies would be a good tool, horses could be donated or the FEI could make it compulsory.
- the toughest one to research are the psychological harm claims but I think that is a problem that affects all of riding and possibly all of the uses we put domesticated animals to.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

tristar said:



			booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?
		
Click to expand...

How does my lack of ability to ride affect my ability to reason? I seem perfectly capable of producing philosophical work publishable in peer reviewed journals and monographs by well reputed publishing house WHILE AT THE SAME TIME coming last in a novice dressage test!


----------



## Doogal (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Parzival piaffe is completely bizarre.

His front end is practically glued to the floor and his back end bounces up and down behind him. It's wierd seeing her sit there with his spine bending upwards behind her backside.

I also thought he did most of the test overbent and was completely tense.
		
Click to expand...

Agree, I was surprised when her score came up. Personally I thought Laura's test deserved the silver.

Ah, I have just realised this thread has gone off on a complete tangent several times over.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			- claims that horses cannot see and/or breath while in the position should be easy to examine and yes for the purposes of that study I would put horses in rollkur, it should be quickly apparent that they can't breath and/or see.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the sight issue is already proven and as far as the breathing goes, put a horse in it and listen.



Booboos said:



			- claims that their bones and/or muscles and/or ligaments are malformed or similar should be also obtainable from physical manipulations, MRI scans, scintigraphies, etc. etc. (to be honest I am not knowledgeable enough to 'marry' the right test with the right deformity, but any vet should be able to do so).
		
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay.?



Booboos said:



			- claims that these horses have a shorter lifespan or competitive career should be obtainable via audit.
		
Click to expand...

Numbers are too small to be statistically valid.



Booboos said:



			- yes autopsies would be a good tool, horses could be donated or the FEI could make it compulsory.
		
Click to expand...

If you have trained a horse like it and still train horses like it what in the world would make you help prove that it is damaging?



Booboos said:



			- the toughest one to research are the psychological harm claims but I think that is a problem that affects all of riding and possibly all of the uses we put domesticated animals to.
		
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to the psychological harm claims as they are completely impossible to judge.






Booboos can we agree that it is wrong for a grown man to have anal sex with a boy who is too young to form lasting memories, even though that boy will never be able to remember in the future what was done to him, and assuming no physical damage was caused?

OK?

It is impossible to test whether a child would be harmed by the act or not. Ethically, it simply could not be done.

 Still with me?

Right, then we both agree that there are good laws in existence which have no evidence whatsoever, that it is just our "feeling" that this is not a good thing to happen, or even a neutral one. However, there are people in the world who believe that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.


Once you accept that a large enough group of people can use feelings, not firm evidence, to ban something, it becomes only a matter of where you or I as individuals would draw the line in other matters.

As it happens, I would draw it below hyperflexion and you would draw it above. The fact that it has been banned by the FEI without evidence is neither here nor there, lots of our laws are made that way by a big enough concensus that something is wrong.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			How does my lack of ability to ride affect my ability to reason? I seem perfectly capable of producing philosophical work publishable in peer reviewed journals and monographs by well reputed publishing house WHILE AT THE SAME TIME coming last in a novice dressage test!
		
Click to expand...


Yes well none of us are surprised that you are a published philosopher Booboos, though I am surprised that as a philospher you are so intent on proof.

Your riding experience is directly valid.

If you have not ever sat on one of these huge moving and very sensitive warmbloods then you cannot even imagine what is necessary to put a horse like it into hyperflexion and keep it there for considerable lengths of time, or what effects it has on the way the horse is moving,  or what the alternatives are to achieve the same end (even if that "end" is international success). 

Your question asking for proof that it affects the breathing is a case in point. If you ride a horse in it, you can hear it.


----------



## Zuzan (23 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			..........    Or at least you can support the idea that if you are going to single out a practice it isn't unreasonable to ask why that one and not another.

Btw, perhaps the photos that have surfaced are rolkur done badly? It's at least possible. I have seen video of a demo and a book on the subject where, to be fair, the horses did not look stressed and in the demo the horse did show a marked improvement in relaxation and way of going. Interestingly, that video briefly did the rounds as a fuel for the anti debate but quickly disappeared.

As far as the naturalness of movements, I'm not convinced, sorry. Dressage has a real whiff of the circus about it. Technically gymnasts move naturally but there is ample evidence that at the top levels the toll is significant. And this is of course, the defence of rolkur - if we are going to ask extreme things of our horses we need to prepare them in extreme ways. Again, not saying I agree but the principle deserves examination.
		
Click to expand...

I think there are very good reasons why Rollkur has been singled out   it is quite obvious that a lot of force is being used .. at least in the photos and videos I have seen..  Would be very interested Rollkur done well video / book as have never seen anything that didnt demonstrate a lot of force applied by the human.   

Are there any other methods in modern dressage that should be scrutinised?   

Rollkur seems to be the one method in particular that the FEI / IOC seem to wish to cover up the most..   there must be good reason why they dont want Rollkur discussed in the public domain ..  We are well aware that those that wish to cover something up / squash debate tend to have things they know are destructive and or rooted in self interested at the expense of another/others.   

My personal standpoint is that the general non horsey public probably see the force and the expressions on the horses (whether it is anthropomorphic or not) and see that the horse is being forced against its will .. It demonstrates force as a means to control the horse and force submission  it doesnt demonstrate the horse and human in harmony.   

The great danger is that the non horsey public will assume that all dressage or even all equestrianism requires this level of force.  Equestrianism will then become further exiled from public acceptance / culture and the standpoints will become further polarised,  so that the anti will become anti all equestrianism not simply anti Rollkur.  

Of course you could always argue that the general public are ignorant and that Rollkur is for experts and only experts can validly comment on it but the issue the underpins the Rollkur debate is the level of force clearly exerted.   It doesnt take expertise to see the bracing of the muscles and the force exerted by the rider.  Force is not subtle and doesnt require any special skill.  I think that force takes over when skill and expertise run out.  Force is where communication ceases.

Whilst this debate hinges on reasons why Rollkur is bad I have yet to see or read anything that explains why it is good / useful.   I would like too see a positive justification of the use of force (Rollkur or any other method) that explains why it is better than other methods that achieve the relaxation of the jaw / co-operation of the horse, or whatever other objective, that do not use force. 

My perspective is that governing bodies in equestrian sport need to be exponents of and promote the co-operation and team elements between horse and human and closely examine and be open about practises that do not illustrate this clearly.  This will engage the public more and generate positive (rather than negative) interest in equestrianism and therefore greater knowledge and understanding.   A virtuous cycle.   

Re the naturalness of the horses movement.. I think in its pure sense dressage is a means of show casing the horse..  in a human framework  Horses are great at demonstrating their prowess to each other and predators.. have seen a range of moves that even the Spanish School would be gasping at   Dressage is a means to build a horse up so that it can demonstrate this prowess and grace with a rider .  Circus yes but the imagination for the circus has clearly been inspired by the horses physical gymnastic ability in its natural state.     Grand prix even haute école  I see nothing that a horse wouldnt do in the field it is all movement that they use in the social context and also as prey.   Playing is very much a rehearsal for reality .. and dressage is exactly that in its pure form. 

Re examining principles and general chewing of fat.. (   ) Really I think the debate needs determine how we assess the human effect on the horse and how we categorise something as positive..  

Starting with starting of course  I have witnessed horses being started and prepared correctly they really exhibit an acceptance of their role as mounts and seem to relish it.   A horse brought on well grows in strength and as a physical being so its self confidence builds and it grows more secure in its role both with other horses but also with humans.   So training a horse can be said to be beneficial

This ability to understand and work with humans is obviously something we have selectively bred for otherwise we would all be struggling with Zebra  / Taki type psychology!  Physically too we have changed horses considerably..   However we have 2 very clear examples that how we have changed them does not mean they cannot flourish in what were their natural habitats..  Namib desert horses and of course the mustangs so our selective breeding cannot be said in all cases to be detrimental to the horse.


----------



## SusannaF (23 August 2012)

I'd just like to toss this piece by Epona TV into the ring. It covers the history of the term rollkur and the FEI's approach to it, and is very very interesting.


http://epona.tv/uk/news/show/artikel/editorial/?type=98&cHash=a2014d678367e97acc061a3a68ee545d





			If you want to help ... get your video or still camera (or both) and go see how the riders warm up at a horseshow. Film everything they do and upload it to YouTube. Then circulate the link. You don&#8217;t have to accuse anyone of rollkur or aggressive riding or animal cruelty. Just document the riding and let others decide for themselves. Nobody can sue you for that, even if they might threaten to do so.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## BeesKnees (23 August 2012)

To be frank I don't care whether objecting on emotional grounds is considered viable according to philosophical discussion. The pictures of Rollkur show an objectionable practice. So object I do as is my right.

The term 'hyper' comes from the ancient Greek meaning 'excessive', and I think that says it all.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I believe the sight issue is already proven and as far as the breathing goes, put a horse in it and listen.



Who is going to pay.?



Numbers are too small to be statistically valid.



If you have trained a horse like it and still train horses like it what in the world would make you help prove that it is damaging?



I don't subscribe to the psychological harm claims as they are completely impossible to judge.






Booboos can we agree that it is wrong for a grown man to have anal sex with a boy who is too young to form lasting memories, even though that boy will never be able to remember in the future what was done to him, and assuming no physical damage was caused?

OK?

It is impossible to test whether a child would be harmed by the act or not. Ethically, it simply could not be done.

 Still with me?

Right, then we both agree that there are good laws in existence which have no evidence whatsoever, that it is just our "feeling" that this is not a good thing to happen, or even a neutral one. However, there are people in the world who believe that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.


Once you accept that a large enough group of people can use feelings, not firm evidence, to ban something, it becomes only a matter of where you or I as individuals would draw the line in other matters.

As it happens, I would draw it below hyperflexion and you would draw it above. The fact that it has been banned by the FEI without evidence is neither here nor there, lots of our laws are made that way by a big enough concensus that something is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Could I please have the reference for the sight study? 

As for the 'personal' approach to the breathing 'tests' it is fraught with difficulties. The horse may have respiratory problems already, the rider may have poor hearing, the breathing may be different but without affecting the horse's welfare, the breathing may only be affected if the horse is not used to rollkur, etc. This is why studies should be carried out professionally, e.g. well designed, with control groups, under double blind conditions (as far as possible), with scientific messuring equipment, etc.

Payment: now here I have very constructive advice. Luckily for everyone involved in this debate there are a lot of concerned individuals. I am sure conscientious voices against rollkur like Dr H and Philippe Karl will be only too thrilled to donate the proceeds of their books, DVDs, clinics, demos, etc. to research into this topic. Donations could also come from the public, who as is demonstrated by this forum are very concerned about this welfare issue. The FEI should provide matching funds. 

Small numbers: yes, that's why we need research.

The rape example: I am not completely following this one. One doesn't not need to have knowldge of the harm that has been done to one for it to be harmful. If a person is raped while unconscious and does not notice any evidence the next day it does not mean that they were not harmed by the rape. The violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm. I also don't understand your point that there is no evidence that the rape of children is harmful; sadly children are raped and the evidence of physiological and psychological harm is consistent with what one would expect given our knowledge of human physiology and psychology.

No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm. That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.

I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

tristar said:



			i think the doing what comes naturally bit centers around, that the fei definitions of what can and cannot be performed within a test is based on whether or not it is natural, certain movements are considered un-natural and therefore are not included in competition dressage, sadly they have forgotten to exclude going round with your blood supply cut off in rollkur. however, my horses very often perform movements the fei don't know about!

rollkur is ugly, incorrect, inferior training etc
		
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'natural'? Riding doesn't seem to be natural in the sense you are using the word.

If rollkur horses have their blood supply cut off do they get permenant brain damage as a result or can their brains function with no blood?


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

tristar said:



			booboos , if as you admit to being a, in your own opinion, not brilliant rider, how does that qualify you to attempt to justify the right to practice rollkur?

once you have turned the the key and entered the enchanted castle and ridden with reins light as a feather,sitting on a horse whose sheer power is only directed, not created by harsh aids, you will need no other evidence to form the conclusion that trying to, although you have the right in a free society to argue for the right, for something as pathetic as rollkur training only exposes your lack of understanding of training the horse.

and i do understand that you are saying evidential proof is lacking, but one day you might discover  yourself during your progression as a rider why so many do not find it acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry but again I am lost. What does my being a crappy rider have to do with anything? Are you suggesting you  know rollkur is wrong because you are a great rider and have ridden so well? Is this some form of argument from expertise?

Would you then dismiss the combined expertise of Cornelissen, Anky, EG, PK, their trainers, their vets, all the judges who have ever judged them, etc.?


----------



## BeesKnees (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm. That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.

I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.
		
Click to expand...

The fact is that it doesn't have to be banned in order for things to change. If there is enough negative publicity, which with new media is very powerful and very 'bottom up', people will change what they do. 

It would be interesting to know what Patrick Kittel is currently feeling about his use of Rollkur. It certainly didn't produce a positive outcome for him.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Yes well none of us are surprised that you are a published philosopher Booboos, though I am surprised that as a philospher you are so intent on proof.

Your riding experience is directly valid.

If you have not ever sat on one of these huge moving and very sensitive warmbloods then you cannot even imagine what is necessary to put a horse like it into hyperflexion and keep it there for considerable lengths of time, or what effects it has on the way the horse is moving,  or what the alternatives are to achieve the same end (even if that "end" is international success). 

Your question asking for proof that it affects the breathing is a case in point. If you ride a horse in it, you can hear it.
		
Click to expand...

Taken out of context this does sound like an irrelevant boast, although to be fair it was in direct response to the claim that my poor riding has affected my reasoning skills, so I was merely offering proof that my reasoning skills are fairly well functioning.

If the test is to have sat on Salinero, Totilas, Scandic, Painted Black, etc. then no one else who argues against rollkur has passed this test either (btw if they are very sensitive why do you need a lot of force to get them to curl their necks?)


----------



## tristar (23 August 2012)

booboos, i have not claimed to be anything, even a great rider!

i am  disturbed by your continual references to van grunsen, now gal and assorted others, because i think anky is one of the worst riders i have ever seen, therefore i cannot be intimidated by you using them to make a point, i can only laugh, and i sincerely hope one day you will see them for what they are, when you can, maybe you will not come last in your competitions, i hope you can see through it all, and wish for you,  one day it will result in you having success with your horses.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			Taken out of context this does sound like an irrelevant boast, although to be fair it was in direct response to the claim that my poor riding has affected my reasoning skills, so I was merely offering proof that my reasoning skills are fairly well functioning.

If the test is to have sat on Salinero, Totilas, Scandic, Painted Black, etc. then no one else who argues against rollkur has passed this test either (btw if they are very sensitive why do you need a lot of force to get them to curl their necks?)
		
Click to expand...



You are doing no justice to your self-proclaimed intellect now Booboos. It is not boasting to say that you have sat on a big moving and very sensitive warmblood if you have. Plenty of people own one. I happen to have one whose father is an international Grand Prix horse. That does not make me special, just very lucky. 

Until you have ridden one, you cannot understand what we are talking about. You simply do not have the experience that you need to pass the judgements that you are now passing on others or on hyperflexion. And I would agree with you, anyone else who argues in favour of hyperflexion who has never ridden the type of horse that it was invented for is arguing from a very weak position. 

Your last question is a case in point. You need to ask why it needs force, in spite of being shown multiple pictures where force is being used.

Some of these overbred, oversensitive horses are immensely strong and immensely opinionated. (Totilas was originally turned down by Edward Gal because he felt too explosive to be succesfully trained.) It takes force to put hyperflexion on a horse of the type who fights, as can clearly be seen in the freestyle test by Parzival, where Cornelissen has a very tight hold on the bits. 

The fact that you have to ask why you would need to use force to apply hyperflexion is, for me, the final proof I need that your argument in favour of its use until it is scienticially proved to be detrimental is no longer worth continuing with.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			Would you then dismiss the combined expertise of Cornelissen, Anky, EG, PK, their trainers,
		
Click to expand...

yes because a British team which does not believe in such methods beat them handsomely.



Booboos said:



			their vets,
		
Click to expand...

....wouldn't dare upset such an influential client by suggesting that there was a problem. 



Booboos said:



			all the judges who have ever judged them, etc.?
		
Click to expand...

no, because they can only judge what they see on the day, and also because they are increasingly placing horses not trained that way, ridden with lighter rein contact by the rider, above them. 



Your argument is scraping the barrel now Booboos. Does it make something right just because someone wins by doing it? Or just because someone famous does it? Of course not.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			What do you mean by 'natural'? Riding doesn't seem to be natural in the sense you are using the word.

If rollkur horses have their blood supply cut off do they get permenant brain damage as a result or can their brains function with no blood?
		
Click to expand...

Most horses keep their brain, if they have one, in their forehead not their tongue  Have you not seen the blue tongues that horses in rollkur sometimes show?


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			Could I please have the reference for the sight study?
		
Click to expand...

Look it up for yourself. I'm happy with what I have read over many years about horses' sight, and also know that I could ride a horse which is overbent straight into an obstacle because it can't see in front of it. I did it by accident yesterday with my youngster.  If you go to enough dressage competitions you can see overbent horses have to be pulled off line by their riders to prevent them crashing into another overbent horse who hasn't seen what's in front of it either.



Booboos said:



			As for the 'personal' approach to the breathing 'tests' it is fraught with difficulties. The horse may have respiratory problems already, the rider may have poor hearing, the breathing may be different but without affecting the horse's welfare, the breathing may only be affected if the horse is not used to rollkur, etc. This is why studies should be carried out professionally, e.g. well designed, with control groups, under double blind conditions (as far as possible), with scientific messuring equipment, etc.
		
Click to expand...


You really don't have a great deal of experience of riding horses, do you?




Booboos said:



			Payment: now here I have very constructive advice. Luckily for everyone involved in this debate there are a lot of concerned individuals. I am sure conscientious voices against rollkur like Dr H and Philippe Karl will be only too thrilled to donate the proceeds of their books, DVDs, clinics, demos, etc. to research into this topic.
		
Click to expand...

Why should they? They are the ones who DON'T use it. They have no need to prove it's safe, they have a better way of training already.




Booboos said:



			Small numbers: yes, that's why we need research.
		
Click to expand...

You do actually need a big enough sample size to start with to produce a statistically valid result.




Booboos said:



			The rape example: I am not completely following this one. One doesn't not need to have knowldge of the harm that has been done to one for it to be harmful. If a person is raped while unconscious and does not notice any evidence the next day it does not mean that they were not harmed by the rape. The violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm. I also don't understand your point that there is no evidence that the rape of children is harmful; sadly children are raped and the evidence of physiological and psychological harm is consistent with what one would expect given our knowledge of human physiology and psychology.
		
Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the rape of a child too young to remember the occurrence who is not physically harmed by the experience is damaged in any way.

It cannot be tested. It is purely your own feeling, and that of many others, that  "the violation of their bodily integrity constitutes harm". You have no proof of that. Yet you feel it is wrong and are happy to see it banned.

The fact that a published philosopher who has been peer reviewed cannot see the inconsistency between that and your assertion that it is wrong to ban rollkur becuase a large body of people feel it is wrong is so bizarre that you now seem simply to be clutching at straws to maintain your position.





Booboos said:



			No I do not agree that there are good laws in existence that prohibit practices that cause no harm.
		
Click to expand...

It's not "prohibit practicces that cause no harm" we are talking about BB. Its "prohibit practices that cannot be scientifically proved to cause harm" and all societies have a multitude of those. 




Booboos said:



			That has been my point all along, we should not legislate on the basis of feeling. Some such laws exist, but they are bad laws, they should be repealed and no further laws should be made on the same grounds.
		
Click to expand...


So we'll repeal the law against raping a woman who is completely unconscious and never remembers a thing about it or has any physical manifestation of it having happened, shall we?  Like the one prohibiting a surgeon from sexually assaulting a woman under anaesthetic? No harm done there, is there? 

While we are about it, lets repeal all the planning laws. After all, they are only about one persons feelings about what a building should look like compared to another's. 

I could go on but I'm getting tired of this argument. Your position is, to me,  so clearly incorrect that I am baffled now.





Booboos said:



			I do not agree that people should use feelings to ban practices. But if you do, where you draw the line will be your main problem. I have been trying to argue that if one person's feelings against X are valid, then another person's feelings against Y are equally valid, so anyone committed to banning rollkur on feelings alone is also committed to banning riding as there are others who find riding upsetting.
		
Click to expand...

But this is not correct Booboos. All societies run on the basis that laws are made when a large enough group of people believe something is wrong and that other individual's feelings are not equally valid. This does not have to be scientifically provable to be good law.

But you are immovable on this point so we will just have to disagree, but how you can hold that view living in the society we live in is a complete mystery to me.

I can only think that you are engaging in this argument as a theoretical exercise.


----------



## tristar (23 August 2012)

i use natural under the fei 's own definition, ie. example: spanish walk is not defined as natural and therefore not included in dressage tests.

even though it is natural and horses do it of their own volition

so work that one out someone please


----------



## Bearskin (23 August 2012)

The Power and Paint photo http://www.ericafrei.com/writingofriding/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/powerandpaintlarge.jpg (and their excuses for it....) sums up "rollkur" for me.

Some interesting reading: http://www.eurodressage.com/equestr...ation-science-recognized-2012-ises-conference

Booboos and Tarrsteps, I have really enjoyed reading your posts.  It is very important to have an open mind when considering this subject.

Re the OP's original post:  Should a dressage horse (happy athelete), trained to the highest level and competing in the individual finals of the Olympics, win a medal if its jaw is crossed for the majority of its test? Probably not, in my opinion, but Parzival completed a test without mistakes, with expression, power and elasticity; very hard for the judges to mark down.  Adelinde rode a "clear round" whilst most of the other riders had "fences down".  I hope that with Valegro's victory we will see a shift towards more open framed dressage training.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

tristar said:



			booboos, i have not claimed to be anything, even a great rider!

i am  disturbed by your continual references to van grunsen, now gal and assorted others, because i think anky is one of the worst riders i have ever seen, therefore i cannot be intimidated by you using them to make a point, i can only laugh, and i sincerely hope one day you will see them for what they are, when you can, maybe you will not come last in your competitions, i hope you can see through it all, and wish for you,  one day it will result in you having success with your horses.
		
Click to expand...

You said I am not qualified to judge because I am not a good rider, I said that if that is the kind of argument that will convince you here are loads of good riders who ride rollkur and you ended up being disturbed.

I have to admit I am stumped with that line of argument, but please don't be disturbed and I am pleased you are having a laugh. Thank you for your good wishes for my competition success (not sure how thinking Anky is not a good rider will make me a better one, but I might give it a go and see what happens).


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			Look it up for yourself. 

You really don't have a great deal of experience of riding horses, do you?

So we'll repeal the law against raping a woman who is completely unconscious and never remembers a thing about it or has any physical manifestation of it having happened, shall we?  Like the one prohibiting a surgeon from sexually assaulting a woman under anaesthetic? No harm done there, is there?
		
Click to expand...

The first comment is not fair, since we are having the discussion and we have both done each other the courtesy of engaging with each other's ideas you could do me the favour of providing the reference. Anyone who is more jaded by human nature than I, might assume that this evidence doesn't actually exist, but I am an eternal optimist. 

The second is not very nice. Interestingly it's the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. attacking the person and not the argument and is often the end result of spurious arguments.

The third is attributing to me the exact opposite of the position I actually hold  s(and have gone to great lengths to explain in detail).


----------



## TarrSteps (23 August 2012)

I go out to ride some horses and look what happens!  

Just to belabour the point, but I haven't yet seen anyone DEFEND rolkur, I've seen a few people argue that banning things because you don't like the look of them - in the context of a sport that is questionable already to many people - is not fair. And yes, many things in life are not fair but surely we should be striving to get better about stuff like that.  And, btw, rolkur is not banned, it's continued and sustained use in a warm up situation is controlled.  Also, the people who use it, generally speaking, do not do it to be cruel, the do it because they believe it works.  They may be wrong and other people may disagree, but there seems to be a feeling that these people are intentionally setting out to be cruel and that is simply not the case.  Again, it doesn't really matter but surely part of being a just minded individual (which is at the base of being a good horseman) is accepting that people who feel differently about the world are not necessarily evil.

Again, I go to Mark Twain - "I do not defend what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## TarrSteps (23 August 2012)

Unrelated, but I'm curious to know the origin of the information that Gal turned down Totilas as being too explosive to train.  He certainly has said he didn't like riding him when he tried him (or for sometime after) but the horse had already been out competing quite successfully so must have been fairly ridable.  Which should actually be a big anti-rolkur selling point, as otherwise it would have meant the horse only became ridable AFTER he went to a rider who practices in that school of thought.


----------



## TarrSteps (24 August 2012)

Zuzan said:



			I think there are very good reasons why Rollkur has been singled out   it is quite obvious that a lot of force is being used .. at least in the photos and videos I have seen..  Would be very interested Rollkur done well video / book as have never seen anything that didnt demonstrate a lot of force applied by the human.
		
Click to expand...

The most obvious book is the Bartles' 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ride-Horses-Awareness-Feel-Olympians/dp/0851319637

Video, I cannot found the original link I specified - perhaps it's been removed, more likely I can't remember the right tags, but I'm fairly sure it was a Bemelmans clinic.  Anyway, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5vkFc9piX0  is interesting.  I will warn you off the top, it is Anky doing a demo and specifically discussing her training methods.





			Are there any other methods in modern dressage that should be scrutinised?
		
Click to expand...

Standing horses in the box/putting them on the walker/longeing in SUPER short side reins.  So common as to be almost endemic.  But happens at home. mostly, so not much anyone can do about it!  Um, the requirement for leverage bits and spurs?  I know why this is but I do think it's odd no one seems to go, "Is that REALLY necessary?" At a more basic level, the use of super tight flash/crank/drop noseands.  Again, I see WHY but who decided, in the service that the ideal is to have the horse KEEP (not be forced to, to do so willingly) its mouth closed, that it's okay if we do that for them?

I think there's a good argument that all modern competitive dressage is about extremes and there's a potential ethical discussion to be had about whether or not we have the right to push horses to extremes.  But that is a HUGE can of worms.  And, actually, one of the defences people use of rolkur, LDR (sorry, I don't really see the difference . . . I know I'm supposed to say "there is no use of force in LDR but the minute you put a curb on a horse you're using a lot of force, even with a very light aid), is that extreme requests CAN require extreme training.  I'm not sure that IS a defence but they do kind of have a point, we're so far away from what horses choose to do, it's got to be a question people ask!




			Rollkur seems to be the one method in particular that the FEI / IOC seem to wish to cover up the most..   there must be good reason why they dont want Rollkur discussed in the public domain ..  We are well aware that those that wish to cover something up / squash debate tend to have things they know are destructive and or rooted in self interested at the expense of another/others.
		
Click to expand...

Where have they said people can't discuss it?  They've had open forums on the subject?




			My personal standpoint is that the general non horsey public probably see the force and the expressions on the horses (whether it is anthropomorphic or not) and see that the horse is being forced against its will .. It demonstrates force as a means to control the horse and force submission  it doesnt demonstrate the horse and human in harmony.   


The great danger is that the non horsey public will assume that all dressage or even all equestrianism requires this level of force.  Equestrianism will then become further exiled from public acceptance / culture and the standpoints will become further polarised,  so that the anti will become anti all equestrianism not simply anti Rollkur.
		
Click to expand...


I can see your point but I think a lot of people pretty much assume we force horses into doing things!   Do the general public even take notice of rolkur unless factions within the horse world draw their attention to it?  Again, that doesn't make it right, but I just don't see the general public a) paying much attention or b) caring.  Let's face it, if horse welfare was a massive agenda there wouldn't still be a Grand National! (And before I get jumped on, I'm not attacking horse racing.  I'm merely saying an event in which horses die gets a lot of press coverage and still does not generally incite outrage.)




			Of course you could always argue that the general public are ignorant and that Rollkur is for experts and only experts can validly comment on it but the issue the underpins the Rollkur debate is the level of force clearly exerted.   It doesnt take expertise to see the bracing of the muscles and the force exerted by the rider.  Force is not subtle and doesnt require any special skill.  I think that force takes over when skill and expertise run out.  Force is where communication ceases.
		
Click to expand...

All agreed.  Except that the people who support it say that done well, it does not need force.  Done badly . . .well, we've covered that. 

Re dressage horses sometimes looking very, very strong, that's hardly the provenance of rolkur.  A point was made above about how strong and sharp and explosive modern dressage horses can be - because the job increasingly demands and rewards horses like that - so they occasionally overwhelm their riders.  




			Whilst this debate hinges on reasons why Rollkur is bad I have yet to see or read anything that explains why it is good / useful.   I would like too see a positive justification of the use of force (Rollkur or any other method) that explains why it is better than other methods that achieve the relaxation of the jaw / co-operation of the horse, or whatever other objective, that do not use force.
		
Click to expand...

If you can bear it, have a look at the link above.  Or any LDR video for that matter.  All "unnatural" if we define that by being something horses do not do on their own.


----------



## TarrSteps (24 August 2012)

My perspective is that governing bodies in equestrian sport need to be exponents of and promote the co-operation and team elements between horse and human and closely examine and be open about practises that do not illustrate this clearly.  This will engage the public more and generate positive (rather than negative) interest in equestrianism and therefore greater knowledge and understanding.   A virtuous cycle.
		
Click to expand...

True enough.  And governing bodies do often end up being defensive in the public eye, which is unfortunate.  I would say the only problem is how do you explain things like hitting a jumper that stops or using spurs (I know they are a refining aid but the general public will not) in that context?  Those are "accepted practice" but you can see how some people might not agree.  It's quite hard to defend as a whole without resorting to "We make horses do this stuff because we want to."  Technically, that's not a partnership.  When Carl says he gives his horses a swift kick if they don't move when he tells them to, that's him being their boss.  I am not equating giving a horse a kick with causing it long term pain, but you can see the problem with transparency! 




			Re the naturalness of the horses movement.. I think in it&#8217;s pure sense dressage is a means of show casing the horse..  in a human framework&#8230;  Horses are great at demonstrating their prowess to each other and predators.. have seen a range of moves that even the Spanish School would be gasping at   Dressage is a means to build a horse up so that it can demonstrate this prowess and grace with a rider .  Circus yes but the imagination for the circus has clearly been inspired by the horses&#8217; physical gymnastic ability in its natural state.     Grand prix even haute école  I see nothing that a horse wouldn&#8217;t do in the field it is all movement that they use in the social context and also as prey.   Playing is very much a rehearsal for reality .. and dressage is exactly that in its pure form.
		
Click to expand...

Again, I actually agree.  But then why is Spanish Walk no longer accepted?  I know quite a few horses that do that naturally, not even Spanish ones!  Admittedly we've taken out some of the crazier stuff - cantering backwards etc - but I do think it's entertaining that the living masters (Nuno Olivera comes to mind) so highly praised by the humane idea of classical dressage are the only ones left who even know how to do that stuff.

Technically, the Spanish Riding school movements are martial.  I know, still from what horses do naturally, but only explained that way after the fact.




			Re examining principles and general chewing of fat.. (   ) Really I think the debate needs determine how we assess the human effect on the horse and how we categorise something as positive..  

Starting with starting of course &#8230; I have witnessed horses being started and prepared correctly they really exhibit an acceptance of their role as mounts and seem to relish it.   A horse brought on well grows in strength and as a physical being so its self confidence builds and it grows more secure in its role both with other horses but also with humans.   So training a horse can be said to be beneficial

This ability to understand and work with humans is obviously something we have selectively bred for otherwise we would all be struggling with Zebra  / Taki type psychology!  Physically too we have changed horses considerably..   However we have 2 very clear examples that how we have changed them does not mean they cannot flourish in what were their natural habitats..  Namib desert horses and of course the mustangs so our selective breeding cannot be said in all cases to be detrimental to the horse.
		
Click to expand...

Again, very valid points.  Although technically nowhere mustangs live is or was their natural habitat.  And they now only exist with very stringent human management, including culling and feeding.  I have to say though, I don't think Totillas would last five minutes in Nevada!  

I may perhaps have a jaundiced view of your point about training being inherently beneficial as a great deal of my working life is spent with horses - and their people - for whom training has not really been of long term benefit.  Obviously the argument is it hasn't been GOOD training (or management) but that state of affairs is so incredibly common.  

Phew.   I hope I got all my quotes to work!


----------



## TarrSteps (24 August 2012)

SusannaF said:



			I'd just like to toss this piece by Epona TV into the ring. It covers the history of the term rollkur and the FEI's approach to it, and is very very interesting.


http://epona.tv/uk/news/show/artikel/editorial/?type=98&cHash=a2014d678367e97acc061a3a68ee545d

Click to expand...



Interesting, and reasonably unbiased for Epona.   (And I can agree with them but still think they are biased and inclined to go on a mission.  Doesn't make them right or wrong, nor does my agreeing or disagreeing.  Again, you can feel differently about the message and the messenger.)

Btw, Sjef is always suing someone or being sued.  I do think he detracts from the conversation somewhat! 

The bit from Richard is particularly interesting and fair minded.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Unrelated, but I'm curious to know the origin of the information that Gal turned down Totilas as being too explosive to train.  He certainly has said he didn't like riding him when he tried him (or for sometime after) but the horse had already been out competing quite successfully so must have been fairly ridable.  Which should actually be a big anti-rolkur selling point, as otherwise it would have meant the horse only became ridable AFTER he went to a rider who practices in that school of thought.
		
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that it is an incorrect reporting of an interview of Gal where he says that when he went to view Totilas the movement looked so huge he thought he would fall off so he popped his breaking rider on him for the viewing.


----------



## tristar (24 August 2012)

booboos, i did NOT say you were not qualified, you did,  i merely asked a question!


----------



## tristar (24 August 2012)

re short side reins:  someone enquired about a horse i had, highly qualified etc, during the conversation they said,'of course i would have to lunge it in side reins for one year', i'd never heard of that approach before, and felt uncertain what they were hoping to achieve, muscular development, head carriage, submission? i am lost, specially as let my young horses carry their heads where they feel most comfortable during the first ridden stage.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			The first comment is not fair, since we are having the discussion and we have both done each other the courtesy of engaging with each other's ideas you could do me the favour of providing the reference. Anyone who is more jaded by human nature than I, might assume that this evidence doesn't actually exist, but I am an eternal optimist.
		
Click to expand...

There is no "fairness" in it Booboos. Explanations of how horses sight works are around in abundance. If you can't be bothered to read them and work out for yourself that  a horse in rollkur must have severely restricted vision then that is a lack of willingness and intellect on your part not on mine.




Booboos said:



			The second is not very nice. Interestingly it's the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. attacking the person and not the argument and is often the end result of spurious arguments.
		
Click to expand...

The comment was intended to mean "you cannot have ridden enough if you cannot tell whether a horse that you ride has breathing difficulties which are causing it to breath differently in hyperflexion, or whether it is the hyperflexion that is causing the change in breathing noises." 


Booboos said:



			The third is attributing to me the exact opposite of the position I actually hold  s(and have gone to great lengths to explain in detail).
		
Click to expand...

No it is not. You are not actually responding to the point I am making you are continuing to make a different one.

You want rollkur not to be banned because there is no proof that it causes any harm. You say we cannot ban it just because we feel it is wrong.

Yet you want the fondling of the boobs of a completely unconscious woman while under a general anaesthetic for a surgical procedure to be unlawful, even though there is no way that can have caused her any possible harm unless someone else tells her what was done. It's banned because we feel it is wrong.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			I would hazard a guess that it is an incorrect reporting of an interview of Gal where he says that when he went to view Totilas the movement looked so huge he thought he would fall off so he popped his breaking rider on him for the viewing.
		
Click to expand...

No, it was an interview that I read that the first time he was offered Totilas he turned him down and only accepted him when he went back to view him again a lot later. I will try and find it. I suspect the first offer was before the horse had really begun its career.

To the person who suggests that it proves rollkur works on these horses -

_of course it does, that's why they do it_.

It enables horses who are temperamentally unsuited to be ridden in an advanced fashion, and it enables much younger horses to reach Grand Prix levels than conventional training of the same horse.

That does not make it right.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Here you go, he was offered the horse and would not take it because he was so explosive. The breeders persuaded him to continue to ride him for a month and then he was bought for  him to ride. Only a month, not "a lot later".  In the interview report I read, he said that he originally did not want to buy the horse at all, so the extended trial period managed to change his mind.

http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=2484


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

tristar said:



			re short side reins:  someone enquired about a horse i had, highly qualified etc, during the conversation they said,'of course i would have to lunge it in side reins for one year', i'd never heard of that approach before, and felt uncertain what they were hoping to achieve, muscular development, head carriage, submission? i am lost, specially as let my young horses carry their heads where they feel most comfortable during the first ridden stage.
		
Click to expand...

I'll PM you with the name if you like but a friend of mine pays £90 a lesson to train with a person who trains at least 2 Grand Prix riders.

I went to watch once. They have her start every lesson with her green young mare on the lunge  in very short side reins, to make her give to the bit before she has even got on. At one point, they told her that the mare was losing top line since she had bought it, and that she could shorten the reins further to stop that. I already thought that they were too short!

So - "submission" and topline development were their objectives.


----------



## TarrSteps (24 August 2012)

Thanks, cptrayes, very interesting. I've read a more detailed account of him going to see the horse but not that he'd actually turned the horse down, only that they'd asked for a trial to see if he would get on with the horse. I think he was 5 or 6 at that point and had already successfully contested YH classes with the woman who rode him for his breeders.


----------



## tristar (24 August 2012)

cptrayes, why pm, put the  name of the trainer on here so people can chose for themselves, or is that not allowed? or pm please.

linda tellington do da, notes that the postioning of certain horses eyes,  too far to the side of the head, can affect their visional abilty to see where they are going to start with, so add that into the equation when using rollkur.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			There is no "fairness" in it Booboos. Explanations of how horses sight works are around in abundance. If you can't be bothered to read them and work out for yourself that  a horse in rollkur must have severely restricted vision then that is a lack of willingness and intellect on your part not on mine. .
		
Click to expand...

What was not fair was your refusal to give me the reference, not the argument itself, i.e. that horses cannot see. The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.



cptrayes said:



			The comment was intended to mean "you cannot have ridden enough if you cannot tell whether a horse that you ride has breathing difficulties which are causing it to breath differently in hyperflexion, or whether it is the hyperflexion that is causing the change in breathing noises." 

.
		
Click to expand...

There is no response to this point as anything I say will be because I have not ridden enough. Since you do not accept the evidence of people who have ridden quite a lot (all the top riders who practice rollkur) it kind of suggests that the only people who have ridden enough are people who already agree with you.



cptrayes said:



			No it is not. You are not actually responding to the point I am making you are continuing to make a different one.

You want rollkur not to be banned because there is no proof that it causes any harm. You say we cannot ban it just because we feel it is wrong.

Yet you want the fondling of the boobs of a completely unconscious woman while under a general anaesthetic for a surgical procedure to be unlawful, even though there is no way that can have caused her any possible harm unless someone else tells her what was done. It's banned because we feel it is wrong.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
		
Click to expand...

OK here is my response again:
- harm can occur without the person knowing about it
- rape is not wrong because we *feel* it is wrong, otherwise it would just be right anytime any rapist *felt *it was right. It is objectively wrong because it is the violation of another person's bodily integrity (there is quite a lot to be said here to support the principle of bodily integrity that has to do with how our selves are our bodies, violations of our bodies are violations of ourselves, etc.), a person who has either refused to consent or is unable to consent (children, sleeping adults, those under GA).


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

tristar said:



			cptrayes, why pm, put the  name of the trainer on here so people can chose for themselves, or is that not allowed? or pm please.

linda tellington do da, notes that the postioning of certain horses eyes,  too far to the side of the head, can affect their visional abilty to see where they are going to start with, so add that into the equation when using rollkur.
		
Click to expand...

I just have to say this, I can't hold back: If your argument just has to rely on expert knowledge you are right to go the whole hog and appeal to someone whose 'Doctorate' is an honorary degree from a non-state approved University (the aptly named Wisdom University). 

I couldn't really make these things up if I tried!


----------



## tristar (24 August 2012)

people can say no, a horse has to endure what is done to it, it can only object by rebelling or failing to comply, when it may be punished, this is my personal view: that the horse should be given the benefit of the doubt, in the case of rollkur there  is doubt.


----------



## BeesKnees (24 August 2012)

The idea that laws to prevent activities only do so where harm can be proven is just not true. 

Only today on Radio 4 there was discussion about the extension to the Criminal Justice Act which gives the police the power to stop 'raves' on thr grounds that the music "by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality" . 

'Likely to cause distress'......no harm has to be proven, and indeed how could you prove it? Only by taking people's word for it that they felt distress.

I do agree with Tristar. Where animals are concerned, who cannot voice distress, humans who choose to use those animals for their own enjoyment have a moral duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of welfare. Those parameters are likely to be constantly shifting as knowledge and ideas about what constitutes good husbandry change, and rightly so.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			What was not fair was your refusal to give me the reference, not the argument itself, i.e. that horses cannot see.
		
Click to expand...


Oh, diddums Booboo. There are so many articles about how horses sight works I'd have needed 100 pages.




Booboos said:



			The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately in rollkur the blind spot  "in front" of them is right where they are going to move next. Have you not seen how a horse which feels in danger puts its head UP to see more? Clearly the sight is reduced with a low head position.

I can only restate an argument that you hate. If you put a horse severely overbent, you can easily find out, by mistake as I have, that they cannot see the ground that they are going to walk over, or for a considerable height above that, because you have to stop them walking into things of knee height in their path. You haven't ridden enough to have the experience, obviously.




Booboos said:



			There is no response to this point as anything I say will be because I have not ridden enough. Since you do not accept the evidence of people who have ridden quite a lot (all the top riders who practice rollkur) it kind of suggests that the only people who have ridden enough are people who already agree with you.
		
Click to expand...

Ta da!  Only read this after I wrote the above, so have left it for the amusement of you proving your insight. 



Booboos said:



			OK here is my response again:
- harm can occur without the person knowing about it
		
Click to expand...

so what. Not relevant to the argument. Physical harm I agree. Mental harm I disagree, though the effect may be subconscious. My example was one of no physical or mental harm, which you have conveniently ignored.



Booboos said:



			- rape is not wrong because we *feel* it is wrong,
		
Click to expand...

Of course it is. In the annals of time rape was normal, as it is among many in the animal kingdom. Ducks, for example, which will sometimes rape a female until it drowns. At some point in time we decided that is was wrong and outlawed it, but before that it was considered normal. What changed was not the act, but feelings about the act.  Don't forget that it was only relatively recently that it became illegal for a man to rape his wife.  Until that time, it was considered a wife's duty and not defined as rape.




Booboos said:



			It is objectively wrong because it is the violation of another person's bodily integrity
		
Click to expand...

 It is "objectively" wrong. Not scientifically proven to be wrong. Believed by a concensus of opinion to be wrong. As with all our laws, resulting from a concensus of opinion (feelings) that it is wrong, not, as you so vainly hope, from any actual evidence.

Answer me on the planning laws Booboos. Do you think planning decisions are based on anything but one group of people's feelings about what should be built where compared with anothers?

Would you have the planning laws removed?

It strikes me that you are having real problems in your life with accepting that our society is run by a concensus of opinion and when that concensus is held by a big enough group, laws are made which have no evidence backing them up at all because there is  a strong enough feeling that it is the right thing to do. AND that those laws are often good laws.

 We have reached an understanding that we have a canyon wide difference of opinion over how good laws can be made.  I find your arguments so far to be a considerable distance from the society that I live in, and totally unconvincing that there is no basis to ban hyperflexion.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

tristar said:



			people can say no, a horse has to endure what is done to it, it can only object by rebelling or failing to comply, when it may be punished, this is my personal view: that the horse should be given the benefit of the doubt, in the case of rollkur there  is doubt.
		
Click to expand...

One of those arguments that made me wish I'd come up with it. Spot on TS, too much doubt.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			The argument itself is suspect because of the way a horse's vision works. Horses have almost a 350 degree visual field which suggests that they should be able to see fine in rollkur. If one assumes that horses have the human range of vision, then they would not be able to see in rollkur indeed.
		
Click to expand...


I've done some research, which puts a rather different slant on your assertion that horses see in a 350 degree field so hyperflexion cannot badly affect their sight.

According to this site

http://www.horses-and-horse-information.com/articles/horse-eyes.shtml


a horse cannot focus on anything but the horizon with its head low. That's why horses put their head up when spooked,  to look through a different part of the eyeball to focus at close distance. In rollkur, they can, therefore, see nothing in focus at all.


Gotta give you credit BB, you are certainly fighting like a lion to support your point of view that there is no basis to ban hyperflexion in training International Dressage horses.  You've run out of steam for me though, none of your arguments stack up in my book no matter how many times you repeat them. We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## SusannaF (24 August 2012)

They can see nearly 360 degrees in a loop around their head. But not so well above or below that loop. Which is why they sometimes jump at something they passed without problem earlier - their head is at a different height.


----------



## TarrSteps (24 August 2012)

What a horrendous turn this has taken. 

Can I just point out that we are taking about a RULE not a LAW. There is no law against riding a horse in rolkur, nor is there likely to be one. Can. Worms.

Perhaps a better analogy might be gymnastics. We do not let underage children work but we have no problem letting them practice for hours in a sport that is proven to cause lasting physical damage ri elite participants. We do at least ask that they be a bit older now but, tbf, the FEI got there first. 

Out of curiosity, has anyone watched the link I posted? It doesn't make the practice any more attractive to me, personally, but it does not show a horse stressed to breaking.

I do absolutely see the reasoning of giving horses the benefit of the doubt. It's how I make my living, but unfortunately I think that argument should be applied to all sorts of practices associated with competition riding and human ego.


----------



## pootleperkin (24 August 2012)

I watched it Tarrsteps - I don't know what to think of the whole thing to be honest.

I understand her stretching argument - training the muscle above the level necessary in order for the norm to be easy and light, it's an accepted way to do things in all types of sport......but, it just doesn't look right, does it? It's like the chinese gymnastic coaches forcing little 8 and 9 year old kids to do handstands for hours on end, just to improve their muscle and balance......not great practice.

I don't believe Anky is cruel, nor most of the other top riders - I'm sure they believe in their method wholeheartedly, but if Gold medals can be won by other less extreme methods, with horses going sweetly and not crossing their jaw or grinding teeth, then I'm going to go with that camp. I was at the Olympic Kur, and my overiding memory was of Carl Hester's hands - they just looked so light and giving - wonderful. 

I think as time goes on, the effect of Rollkur will be resolved one way or another, but it would be preferable not to have professional riders being demonised along the way, particularly if in their minds, they are not doing anything wrong - this is where it gets awkward for everyone. Change is always hard, particularly when said practice used to win you gold medals.

Blue tongue is another thing all together.....not acceptable, and one would hope that it would not be acceptable to the rider concerned behind closed doors either.


----------



## tristar (24 August 2012)

i'e seen that link before, and remembered especially how she does'nt know how long they have been down there, 2, 5, 15, minutes and she does'nt clockwatch, so  could  they be there for 20 or 30 minutes? how lovely and considerate not to notice how long.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			The idea that laws to prevent activities only do so where harm can be proven is just not true. 



			Luckily for me this is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that we SHOULD not make laws/regulations/restrictions based on mere feeling, not that these laws don't exist. 



BeesKnees said:



			Only today on Radio 4 there was discussion about the extension to the Criminal Justice Act which gives the police the power to stop 'raves' on thr grounds that the music "by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality" . 

'Likely to cause distress'......no harm has to be proven, and indeed how could you prove it? Only by taking people's word for it that they felt distress..
		
Click to expand...

This seems to me to be a very poor example as noise keeping you awake is a very real harm, loud decibels will cause pain and possibly long term hearing damage, loud sounds are used as a form of torture, etc. 



BeesKnees said:



			I do agree with Tristar. Where animals are concerned, who cannot voice distress, humans who choose to use those animals for their own enjoyment have a moral duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of welfare. Those parameters are likely to be constantly shifting as knowledge and ideas about what constitutes good husbandry change, and rightly so.
		
Click to expand...

If you wish to give up riding to err on the side of caution I respect your decision.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

cptrayes I appreciate you feel the discussion has come to an end, but just to make two points directly on what you say above:
- socially determined moral truths are not objective, they are subjective no matter how many people agree on them.
- the website you cite says nothing about horses not being able to see if their heads are lowered. Horse vision is spherical, the biggest obstacle to it is the nose, so a horse in rollkur should be able to see right in front of it better than a horse with its head in the air. Horses were at one time thought to have no accommodation at all, but they have now been observed having variations of up to 2 diopters between readings however at different parts of the eye. It is the varying nature of this ability that explains why horses are startled by objects that were always there, i.e. the objects come suddenly into focus for them (Sivak and Allen 1975 _Vision Research_, Pick et al 1994 _Applied Animal Behaviour Science_ and Roberts 1992 _Veterinary Clinics of North America_ - should anyone want the complete references PM me. Also, the reference I was asking was for studies that show that rollkur horses cannot see well because of rollkur.


----------



## BeesKnees (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			In democratic, liberal societies the general principle is that the state does not get involved in the private life of individuals unless what they are doing causes harm to others (for which one needs evidence)
		
Click to expand...




Booboos said:



			I didn't say there are no laws that did not conform to the No Harm Principle, but since the French renaissance and the influence of J.S. Mill's liberal ideas, culminating with the Hart/Devlin debate on the Wolfenden report, English law has very much followed the liberal line.
		
Click to expand...

On the contrary BooBoos that is exactly what you have argued above, and the act I quote is a very good example of why you are wrong. The noise levels disucssed are those affecting people who live in the vicinity. Inside their houses with their wondows shut. The decibel levels would not be illegal or harmful, and indeed it is notable that that the wording states ' causing distress' not physical harm. It concerns a single night of disturbance, hardly torture! Who of us hasn't sometimes been kept awake by a neighbours party? 

But there is no imperative in this Act to somehow prove that distress has been caused. It is based on feelings and opinions that such activities are annoying to most people trying to sleep and therefore we should take heed of that and protect their wish to kip. It is law by general consensus.


----------



## BeesKnees (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:





BeesKnees said:



			If you wish to give up riding to err on the side of caution I respect your decision.
		
Click to expand...

LOL that decision was made along time ago due to other reasons. 

However I don't think choosing to err on the side of caution regarding welfare issue equates to not riding at all. In the real world, (as opposed to the world of philosophical discussion perhaps ) we inhabit the grey areas. 

So we may choose to ride, but adhere to current welfare practices i.e. to make sure our horse is seen regularly by a physio and use a correctly fitting saddle, and to build up workload slowly etc etc. 

These considerations change all the time, and are very different now to when I first owned a pony as a child. And they change by dint of general consensus amongst the involved in keepong /riding horses. Not because harm has been 'proven' necessarily but because our opinions about what constitutes good welfare and animal rights etc etc have changed.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			- socially determined moral truths are not objective, they are subjective no matter how many people agree on them.
		
Click to expand...

This is so patently obvious and in line with what I wrote that I cannot understand why you have written it. The fact that they are subjective, of course, does not make them untrue or invalid.



Booboos said:



			- the website you cite says nothing about horses not being able to see if their heads are lowered.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It says that with its head lowered it can only focus on the horizon. And that to bring nearer things into focus the horse must raise its head. A horse with its head in hyperflexion , eyes pointed towards the floor, will therefore have a restricted, but possibly in focus, view of the horizon and a completely out of focus view of anything that it is able to see in its path. This would explain why it is so easy to get an overbent horse to walk into objects that are in its way.



Booboos said:



			Horse vision is spherical, the biggest obstacle to it is the nose, so a horse in rollkur should be able to see right in front of it better than a horse with its head in the air.
		
Click to expand...

Actually the biggest obstacle is its own and its riders body, and there are chunks of the "sphere" missing under its jaw too, but we are talking about seeing forwards so I'll let you off that one   But you also forget the blind spot right in front of it, which will be right where it is trying to move forwards to if hyperflexed. 

In addition to the blind spot, when a horse is hyperflexed, anything it sees in front of it is completely out of focus because of its inability to focus unless it can raise its head and look through the bottom part of its eye.

If a horse is designed to see best out forwards and down and sideways when its head is raised, where do you think it can see best when its head is bent behind the verticle? - downwards and back and sideways. For a horse in hyperflexion to see forwards, even out of focus, it needs to effectively look "upwards" .

Have you ever called to a horse on the level from an upstairs window of your house? It's hilarious, or possibly cruel, I never could quite make up my mind. They don't have a clue where to look, they just stand looking about them, very puzzled. Horses are not programmed to look upwards. In hyperflexion, they have to look "upwards" to see forwards. Hence in that position, it being unatural to look upwards, and with a severe lack of focus, the horse is functionally at least partly sighted, and blind in its blind spot, which is the floor some distance in front of its nose. Just as a horse cannot see the part of the showjump in front of it at the moment of takeoff a horse in hyperflexion cannot see the piece of ground it is about to step on.

I understand that you want proof, and I cannot supply it. However, I do find it possible to put my own experiences of riding over the long term together with what I know about horse sight, and explain the fact that it is easy to cause an overbent horse to trip over things by coming to the conclusion that the horse is, in that situation, partly sighted at best, without some learned PhD person telling me it. 

I am currently schooling my exuberent 6 year old to stop spooking at some plastic barrels that I have by the side of my arena*. In order to prevent him from spinning away and bucking I am putting him into temporary overbend, some moments even hyperflexed, for my own safety. When told to approach those barrels in hyperflexion he will walk right up and into the arena boards and has to be prevented from walking directly into the barrels lent against them (I have no fence around my arena). He isn't a stupid horse, he's just blind immediately in front of his legs when he is hyperflexed.



* yes, everyone wincing, I have tried every other method of desensitising him to them, and he is not the slightest bit concerned about them until he finds something difficult in his work, when they suddenly become horse eaters.


----------



## Clodagh (24 August 2012)

I have found this thread very interesting. Watching the Anky training link I must say the horse she is using in her clinic doesn't seem bothered or fighting the hyerflexion, although it looks unnatural.
Watching Parzival in his test though is awful - how anyone can defend that as looking like proper dressage, which to me ( a hapy hacker and hunter) should be harmony, light and a delight to the eye. It is so far from that. Poor boy.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			On the contrary BooBoos that is exactly what you have argued above, .
		
Click to expand...

I did not, I said 'general principle' and general principles admit to exceptions which I then discussed with another poster (e.g. bestiality, incest).


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2012)

cptrayes said:



			I understand that you want proof, and I cannot supply it.
		
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. It's not me who wants proof due to some bizarre idiocyncratic reason of mine; it's the people who want to ban rollkur who *need* proof. While signing petitions, wearing t-shirts and being upset on the internet may be one way to go, may I respectfully suggest that getting proof that rollkur is harmful is a much more effective strategy for getting the FEI to enforce an effective ban and convincing those who practice it to give it up.

(subjective truths are neither true or false in virtue of being subjective. E.g. whether a person likes Marmite or not is a subjective truth, true for those who like it and false for those who do not, but there is no objective truth of the matter about the likability of Marmite, it's a matter of taste. If morality is subjective then there is no truth of the matter about whether rape is right or wrong, some people feel it is right some feel it is wrong and that's all there is to it - most people baulk at this conclusion and reject the idea of the subjectivity of morality).


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			And therein lies the problem. It's not me who wants proof due to some bizarre idiocyncratic reason of mine; it's the people who want to ban rollkur who *need* proof.
		
Click to expand...

No, we don't. It has been banned by the FEI in warm-up at competitions already. I cannot imagine the ban will be removed, because it would be perceived as such a retrograde step, and I believe that one day it will also be effectively policed or no longer need to be policed because it has stopped being used in public.

I am sorry that it conflicts with your view of how the world should work Booboos but there are plenty of rules and laws which are set on the basis that  a big enough group of people feel that something is right or wrong. 

And in my opinion that does not make them bad rules or laws.


----------



## BeesKnees (24 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			I did not, I said 'general principle' and general principles admit to exceptions which I then discussed with another poster (e.g. bestiality, incest).
		
Click to expand...

Yes I get it. There are 'general peinciples' which adhere to the rules you wish society to ascribe to. Then the are exceptions, which you argue do really adhere to those rules, if we look at them your/the right way. And those that dont adhere and are thus just bad laws/rules which ought to be repealed 

Wow. I can't imagine what it's like to be so convinced that your way of looking at and describing the way society organises itself is so absolutely right.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

Just to clarify again, hyperflexion is not banned in warm ups and has never been. It's continued and prolonged use is controlled by the Stewards, who also police other excesses such as repeated spuring, illegal tack etc. 

World Horse Welfare's recent statement on the subject:
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/information/latest-news?view=show&content_id=5249


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			Yes I get it. There are 'general peinciples' which adhere to the rules you wish society to ascribe to. Then the are exceptions, which you argue do really adhere to those rules, if we look at them your/the right way. And those that dont adhere and are thus just bad laws/rules which ought to be repealed 

Wow. I can't imagine what it's like to be so convinced that your way of looking at and describing the way society organises itself is so absolutely right.
		
Click to expand...

No, the term 'general principle' referred to the claim that the law in England has been developped along liberal lines because of No Harm Principle (which has lengthy defences). That entire claim is a general principle which admits to exceptions. Here is another way of phrasing it: "Most laws or for the most part laws in England follow No Harm Principle lines". None of this is negated by exceptions. J.S. Mill's legacy is still alive and well. For more on this see any philosophy of law textbook, e.g. Tebbit "Philosophy of law" Routledge 2000

For a comparison see Iran where moral social cohesion is highly prized. I am not moving there anytime soon though even if they ban rollkur!


----------



## tristar (25 August 2012)

BeesKnees, makes the point of how own perception of how we treat animals changes over time, i find this very interesting, many advances have been made in the last 25 years, re equipment, horse dentistry, saddles etc spring to mind, i would be intrigued to know how rollkur will be viewed retrospectively say in 25 - 50 years, or indeed dressage comps in general.

tarrsteps, point about policing rollkur and then bringing in exessive spuring, illegal tack, and the before mentioned short side reins, does not paint a pretty picture, what are we doing to horses!

if people at the top are putting very short side reins on 4 year olds, what sort of example is that, what does it say  about their true ability as trainers and riders?


----------



## cptrayes (25 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Just to clarify again, hyperflexion is not banned in warm ups and has never been. It's continued and prolonged use is controlled by the Stewards, who also police other excesses such as repeated spuring, illegal tack etc. 

World Horse Welfare's recent statement on the subject:
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/information/latest-news?view=show&content_id=5249

Click to expand...

Yes it is. It is banned by the FEI when applied by aggressive force. Their interpretation of aghgressive force currently lets most usage of it off the hook but that isn't going to hold for much longer now that there is a groundswell of public opinion against it.

Yes


----------



## BeesKnees (25 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			No, the term 'general principle' referred to the claim that the law in England has been developped along liberal lines because of No Harm Principle (which has lengthy defences). That entire claim is a general principle which admits to exceptions. Here is another way of phrasing it: "Most laws or for the most part laws in England follow No Harm Principle lines". None of this is negated by exceptions. J.S. Mill's legacy is still alive and well. For more on this see any philosophy of law textbook, e.g. Tebbit "Philosophy of law" Routledge 2000

For a comparison see Iran where moral social cohesion is highly prized. I am not moving there anytime soon though even if they ban rollkur! 

Click to expand...

But Booboos your argument has been that whilst exceptions may exist ( although you have not agreed to any that have been suggested), that such exceptions are "bad laws". 

What about the Social Authority principle?  Mill himself talked of occasions where it is acceptable for society to exert "social punishment" to protect the wider society from "actions that are prejudicial to the interests of others" 

This opens up the discussion as to the the legitimacy of controlling actions where it can be anticipated that harm will be caused over a period of time, but where that harm is not immediately visible or proven?


----------



## BeesKnees (25 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Just to clarify again, hyperflexion is not banned in warm ups and has never been. It's continued and prolonged use is controlled by the Stewards, who also police other excesses such as repeated spuring, illegal tack etc. 

World Horse Welfare's recent statement on the subject:
http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/information/latest-news?view=show&content_id=5249

Click to expand...

To be accurate, the FEI defined hyperflexion as being the use of aggressive force, and banned it.

Then they muddied that waters by saying extreme flexion (which is of course the literal meaning of the words hyper and flexion) could be held for short periods of time. 

As long as it wasn't using force. 

Having already said hyperflexion was by definition forceful and aggressive.......

I do agree with Boobos on one thing. The ruling is muddled nonsense and needs clarifying.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

Excessive force in the warm up is banned, period. Which still brings us back to the original question, why is this one particular action so much worse than another? If the horse is not obviously in distress (as in the Anky video) why is this one practice singled out?

Look, I'm probably the last person to comment, as I'd go without a noseband if they let me.  But I still think it's a worthy discussion. This particular discussion was started for personal and political reasons. I get a bit annoyed with epona as they are so clearly on a mission about it and many people seem to have joined the band wagon without doing any of their own research. 

PERSONALLY, there are all sorts of things done in the service of sport that make me nervous, not least because of the trickle down effect. The idea that a mark of ' good riding' is being able to get your horse 'in a frame' has done untold damage, in my opinion.  

But we aren't going to out law dressage any time soon because of some bad practice! And then I've seen some Classical training with stressed, unhappy horses, too. 

I'd agree the FEI is not doing a good job of creating or policing the rules. But I might argue that's at least partly because the rulings on rolkur have all been done in response to people's feelings! They are trying to keep two sides reasonably happy and we all know how that usually goes.


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			But Booboos your argument has been that whilst exceptions may exist ( although you have not agreed to any that have been suggested), that such exceptions are "bad laws". 

What about the Social Authority principle?  Mill himself talked of occasions where it is acceptable for society to exert "social punishment" to protect the wider society from "actions that are prejudicial to the interests of others" 

This opens up the discussion as to the the legitimacy of controlling actions where it can be anticipated that harm will be caused over a period of time, but where that harm is not immediately visible or proven?
		
Click to expand...

I metioned the first exception myself and it was bestiality, then accepted that incest is the other main exception. I do think they are incorrect laws and should be repealed (incest for the cases of consentual adult incest). My argument is not simply that they are bad laws, but that they are bad laws because society does not have the right to restrict the liberty of people whose actions do not cause harm to others.

What you are quoting is part of the ellaboration on the No harm principle, here is the whole thing:

"The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection."

 'Prejudicial to the interests of others' does open the definition of harm to questions of social harm, but to be perfectly honest I don't see the relevant to the rollkur debate either way. Even if we accept social harm, in what way does rollkur constitute a social harm, how is society significantly harmed by its practice?

Not sure what your point about social punishment might be, I don't have any problem with social punishment as stand alone or along side legal punishments, as long as they are appropriately metted out (i.e. where harm is caused to others).

Why do you anticipate that rollkur will cause harm over a period of time? And why isn't that harm evident in horses that have been trained in this way already?


----------



## BeesKnees (25 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Excessive force in the warm up is banned, period.
		
Click to expand...

And as the FEI themselves defined hyperflexion as flexion brought about by using force, hyperflexion is therefore banned. 

Except it's not!


----------



## BeesKnees (25 August 2012)

My point Booboos is that the harm principle is not the only principle by which western liberal democracies create rules/laws/norms, and there are plenty that do not adhere to it that I fully support such as taxation for the purpose of welfare, laws on discrimination, and on environmental issues. The ability to produce prrof of actual physical harm in many of those cases would be difficult.

My point is that the harm principle should not be the only principle by which such rules and laws are created because it is simply insufficient and leaves too many questions. Harm by whose definition? What is the cut off point - a bit upset, very distressed, physical pain? Physical harm, or psychological harm? To what standard of proof does the evidence of harm have to meet? Does the harm have to be intentional?

It is insufficient because it only deals with harm caused by people to each other and largely between individuals. It doesn't deal with people harming themselves or being harmed by other external or social factors. And it certainly doesn't help us with harm to animals.

The harm principle is the refuge of libertarians, but it simply does not and cannot, by itself, create a fair and just society. A society where humans wrestle with the complexities of life and how they interact with others, both human and animal, rather than retreating behind over simplified rules of harm. That's why it relates to Rollkur.


----------



## Goldenstar (25 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			And as the FEI themselves defined hyperflexion as flexion brought about by using force, hyperflexion is therefore banned. 

Except it's not!
		
Click to expand...

Then the FEI has made a distinction between hyper flexion ( their definition being overflexing or overbending achieved by excessive force ) 
However it very easy to get many horses ( including one of mine ) into this postion using no force at all.
So if you get the horse there without 'excessive force ' it's ok?
That's what the FEI rule seems to say.


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2012)

BeesKnees said:



			My point Booboos is that the harm principle is not the only principle by which western liberal democracies create rules/laws/norms, and there are plenty that do not adhere to it that I fully support such as taxation for the purpose of welfare, laws on discrimination, and on environmental issues. The ability to produce prrof of actual physical harm in many of those cases would be difficult.

My point is that the harm principle should not be the only principle by which such rules and laws are created because it is simply insufficient and leaves too many questions. Harm by whose definition? What is the cut off point - a bit upset, very distressed, physical pain? Physical harm, or psychological harm? To what standard of proof does the evidence of harm have to meet? Does the harm have to be intentional?

It is insufficient because it only deals with harm caused by people to each other and largely between individuals. It doesn't deal with people harming themselves or being harmed by other external or social factors. And it certainly doesn't help us with harm to animals.

The harm principle is the refuge of libertarians, but it simply does not and cannot, by itself, create a fair and just society. A society where humans wrestle with the complexities of life and how they interact with others, both human and animal, rather than retreating behind over simplified rules of harm. That's why it relates to Rollkur.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your regarding the complexity of the definition of harm (although as I am sure you know having quoted from On Liberty, many of the questions you raise are already answered there), but when there is no harm whatsoever it's a fairly easy principle to apply, so let me ask again, what is the harm in rollkur? So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

^ Which is the point I was trying to make earlier. My esteemed colleagues are making the point that hyperflexion is (or should be) banned but it's actually the use of force that's banned. The position of the neck is controlled.

I agree there have been some very unpleasant photos posted - mostly by parties with a vested interest - but there are lots of photos of unhappy horses doing all sorts of things. What does that prove? The actual proof which anti-rolkur activists call upon to support a ban of the practice does not seem to be, well, very well proven. They DON'T want to ban it on the basis they don't like it, they want to ban it on the basis it's harmful. Which it may very well be (personally I think there probably is), but there is no actual proof. My point is, if we're going to ban things on those grounds, why is this the line?


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

Goldenstar's point is the one I'm referring to, btw.


----------



## tristar (25 August 2012)

according to one report, a vet , in a study said he  found that 80per cent of horses  they examined  who had worked in rollkur,  had damage to the nuchal ligament resulting  in, and  visiblely manifesting in ossification of the ligament, which in their opinion would cause pain, and could account for the long period some horses take to prepare for competition warm up and many training resistances, problems etc.

it appears there is evidence out there already. 

to me when i look at some of those horses working, they are blocked, which accounts for why i don't like watching them, i want to look at something good that inspires and thrills and  absorb the qualities to aim for.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

That study needs to be made public then. 

Interestingly, I was talking to a vet recently about neck pain - in my experience quite a common factor I in behavioural issues, either as a primary issue or as a knock on effect from some other damage, and she was saying arthritis/joint disease/bony changes/whatever are so standard in the joints at the base of the neck as to be considered normal. Unfortunately they are difficult to detect on x-ray and most vets consider them irrelevant when discussing soundness concerns. I found that an incredible piece of news! Of course I have no proof and maybe she had it completely wrong but given how many horses I see with knots etc in the muscles of the neck it didn't surprise me.


----------



## cptrayes (25 August 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			They DON'T want to ban it on the basis they don't like it, they want to ban it on the basis it's harmful.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. I think the majority of people who are concerned about it want it banned because they consider it distasteful to watch and feel it to be unnecessary to subject a horse to it. I don't know if it damages the parotid glands to be forced out of the side of a horse's face, but I don't want to see it done.  I do know that any horse I have ridden in hyperflexion can't see properly and assume that many of the ones I see will be the same. I don't think that causes long term harm but I don't think it is acceptable. etc.





TarrSteps said:



			My point is, if we're going to ban things on those grounds, why is this the line?
		
Click to expand...

The line is where a big enough group of people can make enough of a noise to make people in authority do something about it. 

That is no different from the way many of our laws are made, and it is how many rules at work and in society are formed.

If the FEI want this noise to go away, they are going to have to prove that it is not harmful and communicate that effectively to those who are getting upset about it. 

That may sound unfair, but it's the way the world works.


----------



## BeesKnees (25 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			I agree with your regarding the complexity of the definition of harm (although as I am sure you know having quoted from On Liberty, many of the questions you raise are already answered there), but when there is no harm whatsoever it's a fairly easy principle to apply, so let me ask again, what is the harm in rollkur? So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know if Rollkur causes harm. I haven't actually said it does. I've objected on grounds of incorrect work and forceful riding. I think it likely it does cause distress, and possible physical discomfort, but I can't prove it,

Frankly though that doesn't worry me. I think the harm principle is of little relevance when discussing Rollkur, or any issues of animal righs and welfare. To me your insistence of proof of harm is a red herring.


----------



## tristar (25 August 2012)

also the amount of saliva foam pouring out of those horses mouths is worrying, is that due to excessive pressure? its all down their chest and legs sometimes, far more the normal saliva output.


----------



## tristar (25 August 2012)

tarrsteps, that's interesting about the  base of neck because i believe that is one of the points where impulsion can block, another good reason to work young horses with an unconstricted front end and try to establish a consistantly stabilised  base of the neck position to allow the impulsion to pass though, maybe?


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2012)

tristar do you have a reference for this study please?

BeesKnees: if you think that questions of harm are not relevant to issues of welfare, it does account for a lot of our differences in this discussion.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

cptrayes, while I see your point that many people have jumped on the bandwagon over this, the original people who drove the debate were not vets or riders, they were journalists and a judge who had a rather contentious relationship with other judges and the FEI. All the reasoning came after. 

Dr. Heuschman has some interesting and thought worthy points (I have met him and seen him speak) but he has not been joined in his campaign by a legion of vets. He has his own explanation, of course  but I do think it's interesting that many of the people who initially supported his views have publicly taken a big step back and, in the case of someone like Balkenhol, I really do not see that their change of opinion is down to community censure. 

The same people continue to drive the debate, publish on line, use social media etc. Yes, this is how revolution comes about and, as I've said, people are perfectly free to make up their own minds on the matter. But this idea that it ORIGINALLY grew out of veterinary concerns is not true.

You are right, if enough people are mobilised to petition the FEI, this can be a route to change. Surely the quickest and most powerful way is to provide hard evidence that this is a harmful training practice.


----------



## TarrSteps (25 August 2012)

Yes, tristar, it interested me particularly as I see so many horses rigid and cramped in that area, even though the poll is far more discussed. In fact I'd say most horses I meet have some limitation there and respond favourably in their posture, relaxation and way of going if it's addressed.  Technically good riding which stretches the neck to the hand and engages the muscles of the core to carry the horse should prevent this happening but I do think it probably starts far earlier, with pulling back when tied etc. Any time we seek to control a horse by directing its head rather than its shoulders I feel we are opening the door to neck damage but to some extent we lack options.


----------



## tristar (25 August 2012)

i think the study under vet. supervision is on sustainable dressage site, somewhere, i think it could be there they also  they said fei decided in 2006 that there was no evidence to support a ban on rollkur.

the report also noted that the study included jumping horses who also had the same poblems, and that interesting rollkur was first used by showjumpers.


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2012)

tristar said:



			i think the study under vet. supervision is on sustainable dressage site, somewhere, i think it could be there they also  they said fei decided in 2006 that there was no evidence to support a ban on rollkur.

the report also noted that the study included jumping horses who also had the same poblems, and that interesting rollkur was first used by showjumpers.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks. I had a little look but the only thing I can find is a paper published by a German publisher (specific link cannot be found and search function does not come up with the paper though I don't speak German and may be missing something). The claim in the website is that "80% of horses used for dressage and jumping had injuries around the attachment of the nuchal cord on the head. Horses used for hacking, trotters, ponies, coldbloods, had these injuries much less or not at all" and then in a magazine the author is claimed to go on to say that this is because of rollkur (those links don't work at all). 

I have seen this website before but I find it quite disappointing. The author does point out that she has not tried to write a scientific paper, but goes on to rely on all sorts of scientific (or scientific sounding) points without a single reference to an academic journal. At best there are incomplete references to magazines and popular books. For me this website captures a lot about what is so deeply disappointing about this debate.


----------



## tristar (26 August 2012)

ok then here is a question, why do you suppose those horses  are producing all that foaming saliva, running all down their legs,? something i have never seen a horse do 'naturally'


----------



## SusannaF (26 August 2012)

tristar said:



			ok then here is a question, why do you suppose those horses  are producing all that foaming saliva, running all down their legs,? something i have never seen a horse do 'naturally'
		
Click to expand...


Ah, I have  But it was the pony I rode as a teenager. On turning into the cul-de-sac where my parents live he would start to dribble and foam like one of Pavlov's dogs in anticipation of the treats he'd get at the front door. Don't think that's what's happening in dressage though


----------



## cptrayes (26 August 2012)

Booboos said:



			.......what is so deeply disappointing about this debate.
		
Click to expand...

If the proof that you are looking for existed, there would have been no debate


----------



## Koala Kate (26 August 2012)

This treatment of any animal is evil beyond belief .


----------

