# Clear name of Bertram Allen



## Lynn11 (23 December 2015)

For those of you who may of been following the happenings at Olympia and thought the decision of disqualifying Bertram Allen of his clean win. 

Feel free to sign the petition below. 

Im all for the rule that anyone should be eliminated for harming their horse etc but I think this time he didn't deserve it. 

What do any of you think?

https://www.change.org/p/people-clear-name-of-bertram-allen


----------



## Follysmum (23 December 2015)

I didn't see this on TV but heard about it on FB.  My first thought to eliminate this situation happening again and to safe guard any future mishaps was perhaps riders ditching the spurs.


----------



## TheMule (23 December 2015)

A rule is a rule.
People need to get over it


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

He was disqualified because what happened contravened the rules its as simple as !  Try looking at the olympia thread(in equestrian news) and you will find that on the whole you will be banging your head against a brick wall. If we have the rules they need to be enforced which they clearly have in this case. There is more evidence came out today that was even more damming for him not sure if you are aware of that. Sorry I for one wont be signing !


----------



## glamourpuss (23 December 2015)

TheMule said:



			A rule is a rule.
People need to get over it
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely what The Mule said. All this carrying on doesn't make the sport look good at all.


----------



## Shay (23 December 2015)

Agree with the above.  Rules are Rules.  There might be an argument to change that rule.  But there is no point in petitioning anyone about a decision made within the rules.

What happened to Bertram was very sad - probably more so to him and to his owners.  No-one says that he deliberately mistreated his horse.  Accidents happen.

I don't see anyone petitioning to re-instate Victoria Guilksson eliminated after winning the six bar for an eligibility breach.  Or for any of the several dressage riders eliminated this year for blood in the mouth.  And rightly so.  Not because those riders have necessarily done anything really wrong.  But because those are the rules of the sport we compete in.

You can't have one rule for some and another for everyone else.  Petition to change the rule is you want to - that would have value.  Don't petition to break the rules.


----------



## EllenJay (23 December 2015)

This was obviously an accident, and I don't think for one minute that anyone believes Bertram is guilty of horse abuse. Howver, there is very clearly blood marks on the horses flanks, the rules state disqualification if this happens.  If you let one minor relaxation of a rule where does it stop?  "I was only a little bit over the alcohol limit" "I only stole a small amount of cash" I know this transgression of a rule isn't comparable to the above two examples, but rules 'should' be black/white, with no flexibility.  So sorry, I will not be signing this petition, however, I think that Bertram is going to have a fantastic career ahead, and hopefully will have learnt something from this horrible event,


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

Realistically OP this wont help Bertram his name has not been tarnished at all he just contravened a rule on which there is no grey area. It will say a lot more about him if he just accepts what happened and learns from it. I suspect at this time he would rather forget about it which this wont help . If he doesnt and is still brewing on it he wont have much of a christmas.


----------



## MungoMadness (23 December 2015)

Ditto all the others. Very unfortunate but blood is blood.


----------



## teapot (23 December 2015)

Accidental or intentional, nice guy or not so nice guy, it doesn't matter - the rules are fairly black and white when it comes to horse welfare and whatever/however they happened, they were broken. 

How it was handled possibly needs to be looked at, but the decision is the right one. 'Oh but he didn't mean too, it's only a tiny rub, please let him be the winner of the class, he rode so well' doesn't put the sport in the best light when there are spur marks on his horse.


----------



## Orca (23 December 2015)

teapot said:



			Accidental or intentional, nice guy or not so nice guy, it doesn't matter - the rules are fairly black and white when it comes to horse welfare and whatever/however they happened, they were broken. 

How it was handled possibly needs to be looked at, but the decision is the right one. 'Oh but he didn't mean too, it's only a tiny rub, please let him be the winner of the class, he rode so well' doesn't put the sport in the best light when there are spur marks on his horse.
		
Click to expand...

This.


----------



## glamourpuss (23 December 2015)

Someone posted this on my Twitter. 
Same ruling, similar scenario....very different & correct response to it. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/steffen-peters-eliminated-reem-acra-fei-world-cup-final


----------



## Feival (23 December 2015)

Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.


----------



## Merrymoles (23 December 2015)

It is a rule made for horse welfare. Asking the stewards to decide how it happened during a competition is just not viable. I was sorry for him but certainly don't want to see a rule change.

I think the great majority of people have recognised it as an unfortunate accident and I don't feel he has been vilified in any way.


----------



## FfionWinnie (23 December 2015)

He doesn't need his name cleared. And what are you proposing to clear it of, anyway?


----------



## gunnergundog (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.
		
Click to expand...

Who do you mean?  The previous jockey of the horse??


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (23 December 2015)

The way in which the whole thing was handled needs looked at. Not what he did - accidental or not.


----------



## EllenJay (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.
		
Click to expand...

There was definately blood, and even in Bertram's statement he has admitted that there was blood. It doesn't matter how much, but it was a breach of the rules.


----------



## jrp204 (23 December 2015)

There was blood, there is a rule. Very unfortunate but the rule was broken, irrelevant if it was an accident, a tiny bit of blood, nice guy, great round etc.


----------



## SpottyMare (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.
		
Click to expand...

I've looked at the picture posted by his groom and yes, you can still see the mark, even though it's small. And I imagine it would have been tidied up a bit.  And yes, he seems like a really nice guy, and a much better rider than a lot of the others, so it's unfortunate for him.  But it's a rule.

The whole event has been caused by a spur mark on a horse.  Anything else is just hearsay and rumour unless you can substantiate that claim.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

Lynn11 said:



			For those of you who may of been following the happenings at Olympia and thought the decision of disqualifying Bertram Allen of his clean win. 

Feel free to sign the petition below. 

Im all for the rule that anyone should be eliminated for harming their horse etc but I think this time he didn't deserve it. 

What do any of you think?

https://www.change.org/p/people-clear-name-of-bertram-allen

Click to expand...

So essentially you are arguing that its ok for a horse to have blood on its flanks if it clearly wasn't hammered.  Im sorry, I do not hold with that and will not sign to that effect.  Im in support of the decision.  There is a reason most endurance riders use bitless bridles, its because they know that no matter how light their hands the horse can still get a cut mouth and therefore be disqualified, stop expecting people to bend rules and find another way. No blood = no disqualification, simple.


----------



## Orca (23 December 2015)

glamourpuss said:



			Someone posted this on my Twitter. 
Same ruling, similar scenario....very different & correct response to it. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/steffen-peters-eliminated-reem-acra-fei-world-cup-final

Click to expand...

A refreshingly dignified and reassuringly responsible reaction to elimination.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.
		
Click to expand...

There clearly was a mark.  Are you saying all the vets and stewards were dodgy?   Thats quite an accusation.  I do not care if it was picked up by a vet, steward or rider... it was there, a mark, and blood.  Thats disqualification in the rules.  Bertram will get over it, so should others.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

Orca said:



			A refreshingly dignified and reassuringly responsible reaction to elimination.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, as it should be.  All this toy throwing and stamping of feet because the poor wee man looked devastated.   Ridiculous!


----------



## southerncomfort (23 December 2015)

Another one here who thinks that rules are rules and the stewards did the right thing. 

He broke the skin of the horse.  There was blood.  He had to be disqualified.


----------



## ManBearPig (23 December 2015)

Bertram has no reason to "clear his name"; I don't think anyone anywhere has suggested that he has or would ever harm any of his horses intentionally. But regardless of intentions, the rules of the sport as they currently stand were broken which resulted in his disqualification from the competition, as it should. The rules prohibit blood on the flanks, regardless of the amount - the same way a football player attempting to play a ball from a "slightly" offside position is still offside.

I think the best thing that can happen from this is that Bertram can accept the consequences of the incident with good grace, learn from it and come back bigger and better; he is a very talented young rider and I think he has a bright future ahead of him.


----------



## DressageCob (23 December 2015)

I don't understand the uproar. It's undoubtedly disappointing for both the rider and the horse's owners. However, it's a breach of the rules. I'm glad someone has brought up Peters - exactly the same scenario and a much more dignified response. I will say though, I don't see much complaint from Allen himself. His statement was measured and fair. It's all the social media mouthpieces who are getting their knickers in a twist. 

He broke a rule (albeit unintentionally...but there again only a sadist would deliberately cause the flank to bleed) and paid the price. I don't think it was handled particularly well by the stewards, leaving it to the last moment to inform him (when he'd already been told he'd won and was preparing to mount for the prizegiving) when the horse was inspected as he left the arena and it's incredibly disappointed for Allen, but the horse's welfare is paramount and that's why the rule is there. Perhaps the wording of the rule could be changed for the future to account for this scenario...I don't know. But as it stands, the rule is there and it was broken. Simple. 

This is an utterly pointless petition. I do hate the present culture of drafting these terrible online petitions in response to everything.


----------



## glamourpuss (23 December 2015)

The claim that Ben Maher was involved in this is COMPLETELY unfounded & appears to be based purely on rumours Ben's groom laughing in the background on the televised back stage fiasco & the fact he used to ride the horse.

None of the statements from Olympia or Bertram support this & all suggest it was the steward who spotted the blood. 

I hate ridiculous social media Chinese whispers!


----------



## splashgirl45 (23 December 2015)

I felt it was sad that he was disqualified as he rode the horse so well, BUT the rules are there to protect the horses and the decision was absolutely correct and the owners and connections should have accepted the decision with good grace, and there wouldn't have been all the discussions in the collecting ring......i did notice his legs swung back and up a lot so maybe he needs to look at a different type of spur (if he really needs them), how sharp are the spurs they use?  and should there be a ruling on the type of spurs allowed?


----------



## Red-1 (23 December 2015)

glamourpuss said:



			Someone posted this on my Twitter. 
Same ruling, similar scenario....very different & correct response to it. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/steffen-peters-eliminated-reem-acra-fei-world-cup-final

Click to expand...

Thank you for this, yes, that is how I would feel too. TBH though, I have not seen a statement by Bertram Allen, so I don't know what his reaction has been.

The petition..... not sure what you are hoping to achieve? I don't think anyone has said he did this deliberately. He has not been accused of animal cruelty, as far as I am aware? 

All anyone has said is that a horse he was riding, in a competition with a clear rule structure, had marks on its flanks, and there was blood present. I don't believe Bertram Allen has disputed this. There are rules covering that very scenario, and he loses his winnings, simple as. 

If we had to decide what the intent was in every case of marks on a horse's side, if we had to establish mens rea, then it would be impossible. In every case people will have a different view, some people will think he did intend it, others that he did not intend it, no one would ever be pulled up as we can't see inside anyone's mind. I believe this would be a real backward step in horse welfare. 

I too have had sensitive horses, it is difficult. But, I appreciate that the rules are clear, marks and blood is elination.

As for Geoff Billington, I was disappointed. If he does not like the rules then try to change them, or leave the organisation that uses them if he feels that strongly. But, to use such foul language, and to be so personally abusive to a steward doing his job, and enforcing a clear rule, that is upsetting.


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

I will be signing - it was a ridiculous decision.


----------



## EllenJay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			I will be signing - it was a ridiculous decision.
		
Click to expand...

I totally respect your opinion on this, but what outcome do you want?  A change in the rule, that if the rider seems like a nice guy then we will bend the rule, a complete abolishment of the rule that injury to the horse will not result  in disqualification or something else?


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

There are rules - but there can also be common sense and discretion - this was in no way a 'welfare' issue. It makes no sense at all, particularly in light of the way some of the other horses at the show were being ridden - practically having their jaws broken.


----------



## Feival (23 December 2015)

SpottyMare said:



			I've looked at the picture posted by his groom and yes, you can still see the mark, even though it's small. And I imagine it would have been tidied up a bit.  And yes, he seems like a really nice guy, and a much better rider than a lot of the others, so it's unfortunate for him.  But it's a rule.

The whole event has been caused by a spur mark on a horse.  Anything else is just hearsay and rumour unless you can substantiate that claim.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I can as I am aware of someone that moves in my 'circle' of friends, that was with the owners of the horse the entire evening and witnessed the entire event. The stewards that saw the horse told Bertram he was unlikely to get a yellow card, BUT this rider pressed the issue to make it worse.


----------



## EllenJay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			There are rules - but there can also be common sense and discretion - this was in no way a 'welfare' issue. It makes no sense at all, particularly in light of the way some of the other horses at the show were being ridden - practically having their jaws broken.
		
Click to expand...

Currently there are no rules about heavy hands - there are rules about blood. If the heavy hands caused blood in the mouth then the rider would have been disqualified. And you haven't answered the question about what do you want to happen?


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

I want the prize to go to the rider and horse that won it! The steward should have used common sense and discretion.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			There are rules - but there can also be common sense and discretion - this was in no way a 'welfare' issue. It makes no sense at all, particularly in light of the way some of the other horses at the show were being ridden - practically having their jaws broken.
		
Click to expand...

Lets just chuck those rules out then shall we, I mean, end of day who really cares two hoots about a cut and blood on the horses side... I mean, really, thats just stupid!  Im all for no rules and letting people get away with anything... as long as they make it over the jumps the fastest... thats all we should care about


Honest to god... some people!!


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			There are rules - but there can also be common sense and discretion - this was in no way a 'welfare' issue. It makes no sense at all, particularly in light of the way some of the other horses at the show were being ridden - practically having their jaws broken.
		
Click to expand...

Lets just chuck those rules out then shall we, I mean, end of day who really cares two hoots about a cut and blood on the horses side... I mean, really, thats just stupid!  Im all for no rules and letting people get away with anything... as long as they make it over the jumps the fastest... thats all we should care about


Honest to god... some people!!


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

Prancer and Vixen said:



			Lets just chuck those rules out then shall we, I mean, end of day who really cares two hoots about a cut and blood on the horses side... I mean, really, thats just stupid!  Im all for no rules and letting people get away with anything... as long as they make it over the jumps the fastest... thats all we should care about


Honest to god... some people!!
		
Click to expand...

It was a tiny mark - get real!


----------



## EllenJay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			I want the prize to go to the rider and horse that won it! The steward should have used common sense and discretion.
		
Click to expand...

Won it by cheating?  Over zealous use of Spurs?  Whether in your opinion or not, the horses skin was cut.


----------



## AdorableAlice (23 December 2015)

I was disqualified for blood on my horse at Addington a few years ago.  Horse bucked, unseated me and my insecure lower leg scrapped the spur up his side, broke the skin and that was the end of my day.

I broke the rules and paid the price.  It matters not whether the class was a novice dressage test or a grand prix, rules are rules.


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

There really are some holier than thou people on here!


----------



## Amymay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			The steward should have used common sense and discretion.
		
Click to expand...

Steward?


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

amymay said:



			Steward?
		
Click to expand...

Don't understand your question


----------



## hairycob (23 December 2015)

Mle22 I'd you bothered to.actually read the FEI rules you would realise that there is zero scope for discretion by the officials in the case of blood on flanks, in mouth or from nose. Or are you suggesting that rules should only apply when it suits you? The rider is a professional. He knows the rules & that, in choosing to wear spurs, he takes a risk.of this happening. It didn't pay off this time. It has been argued that the horse has sensitive skin & so was easily marked - I'm sure he must have been aware of the greater level of risk.


----------



## MungoMadness (23 December 2015)

I can't get my head around the thinking that spur cuts of any kind are okay? Because that's essentially what supporters of this petition are saying. Welfare comes first.


----------



## Amymay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			Don't understand your question
		
Click to expand...

It's the Stewards role to report any issues of concern relating to a horse to the ground jury.  The ground jury then investigate that issue.


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

Ok - you are all right and I'm wrong - and I obviously don't care about horse welfare either - I'm still going to sign the petition along with thousands of others x


----------



## Amymay (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			I'm still going to sign the petition along with thousands of others x
		
Click to expand...

To what end?  &#128559;


----------



## windseywoo (23 December 2015)

If a horse has a cut to the mouth and is disqualified, then there is seemingly more blood due to the saliva being produced, but it could be a very small cut and there is no complaint from the rider then. Would it have then been more acceptable to the OP if there had been more blood? To say that another rider is involved (and then someone implicating the rider) on a public forum is disgraceful no matter who the supposed rider is and if that is the case (of a rider being involved?) then showjumping needs to have a good long look at itself. I actually think Bertram Allen will come out of this fine. He was clearly upset which is to be expected, but there was never anyone saying that it was deliberate or that he abuses his horses; just that as the rules stand he broke them and was disqualified. Also to say thought Michael Whitaker was very dignified when he was given the class.
I don't compete but would be devastated if I ever rode my horse and when I came back there was blood from the bit or where I have my heels (not say from a bramble scratch). I would hope that's how most people would be and not be saying its ok to be using spurs in a way that it cuts the horse no matter how slightly.


----------



## Clodagh (23 December 2015)

So it is unacceptable for Miss Nobody at Norton Heath to make her horse bleed with spurs but OK for the top people? I don't get it. Move on, he made the horse bleed, he therefore lost the class, done and dusted.


----------



## EventingMum (23 December 2015)

I feel it has been a very unfortunate incident and Bertram rode with great flair and sensitivity from what was seen on tv. Sadly at some point his spur has caught the horse but I'm sure it was unintentional. I have known horses that mark very easily to the point that spurs just cannot be worn on them, others have a patch left unclipped to prevent marking, I'm sure in the future Bertram will do something to prevent it happening again. I totally understand the need for these rules, no one wants the welfare of the horse compromised but is it really any different from being out hunting or going xc and a horse getting a nick from jumping a hedge or brush fence? You could argue the horse's welfare is compromised by the rider choosing to jump that type of fence. However first and foremost riders need to know that the rules are going to be applied fairly and consistently and blood / spur marks will definitely mean elimination as this article suggests this is not the case:

http://equnews.com/miscellaneous/gr...ilippe-le-jeune-react-on-bertram-allens-case/

It should also be marks of any kind as what draws blood on one horse will only leave a small mark on a less sensitive skinned horse. Bertram will have learnt a lot from this incident and long term I'm sure it won't affect his career, he's a very exciting prospect for the future.


----------



## littletrotter (23 December 2015)

There are two separate problems here.

There is the fact that the horse was injured, and bled, during the class.

There is the fact that the media repeatedly said, "it's a welfare issue" over and over, without giving better details, which made it SEEM, particularly to non-horsey types watching, that Bertram was being accused of outright abuse.  Also they should never have filmed him backstage having to go through what he did so very very publicly.

The latter has NOTHING to do with the former.  If anything the petition should call for the media to apologise for insinuating that Quiet Easy was deliberately injured in order to "make" it jump and that Bertram was cruel.  

The rule itself, and the disqualification, should stand.  The rule doesn't address abuse, it addresses blood.  The horse bled.  Some other riders wore no spurs, or left a bit of length to the coat where the spurs are used.  Many others wore spurs and risked this sort of thing but were luckier.  And Bertram rode very quietly and kindly, unlike some others who were socking their horses in the mouth two or three times per fence.  But the rule doesn't say "ride kindly" the rule says "no blood".

Threads like this always make me wonder - how many here find it genuinely difficult to NOT leave their horses bleeding when they ride?  I am very novicey, and have never made a horse bleed.  I have never left welts with a stick or visibly injured a mouth with a bit.  I have never worn spurs (i don't feel i could do so safely).  I am totally positive, having seen him ride, that Bertram caught the horse accidentally when scaling one of those enormous fences, and that he in no way rode harshly or intended injury.  But the horse bled.  The decision should stand.  He is already an exceptional rider, i bet he comes out of this even better.  If the rules were applied uniformly at all levels it would be better - them being applied at this level is brilliant.  There was an Italian rider who should have been MUCH more worried about blood in the mouth than he seemed to be when he rode.  If the up and coming riders see this sort of thing happening the sport will get kinder, because people will not want to risk elimination they will leave the spurs off, have kinder hands, just carry their whip.  IMO all those things are positive, not negative.


----------



## SusieT (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Yes I can as I am aware of someone that moves in my 'circle' of friends, that was with the owners of the horse the entire evening and witnessed the entire event. The stewards that saw the horse told Bertram he was unlikely to get a yellow card, BUT this rider pressed the issue to make it worse.
		
Click to expand...

not sure that counts as substantiation... 'friend of a frined of a friend' - very reliable (not!)


----------



## ycbm (23 December 2015)

The horse has THREE holes in his side with blood on.

Accidental or deliberate, that's not acceptable. The disqualification was correct. The petition is not.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			Ok - you are all right and I'm wrong - and I obviously don't care about horse welfare either - I'm still going to sign the petition along with thousands of others x
		
Click to expand...

I will tell you now their would be a petition 10 times that size to uphold the judgement!


----------



## MargotC (23 December 2015)

Truly, I am beginning to think those wanting the decision to eliminate him overturned are making the matter into a much, much bigger one than it needs be. Bertram is a fantastic rider who will go far (and he already has!). I massively enjoy seeing him ride. But there needs to be an equality for rules no matter who you are, well liked or not, and ultimately there was blood on the horse caused by the rider. It is just one of those things; accidents can happen to the best. He doesn't need his name "cleared" over an accident!

I would however like to see progress when it comes to available spurs as surely it is in the interest of everyone to as far as possible eliminate the risk of spur marks, when spurs are worn.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Yes I can as I am aware of someone that moves in my 'circle' of friends, that was with the owners of the horse the entire evening and witnessed the entire event. The stewards that saw the horse told Bertram he was unlikely to get a yellow card, BUT this rider pressed the issue to make it worse.
		
Click to expand...

Hate to say it after the other thread! However I hope you have the evidence to back that claim up as you may need too the person you are eluding too has a very good solicitor(not sure if they have dinner parties though). Also if you are a BS member tread carefully as they are quite strict on disrepute proceedings . Engage brain before mouth!
There is a difference by the way between a yellow card which are given for bad riding and a horse being disqualified for an infringement of the rules!


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

Could I suggest people have a look on the Team Ireland Equestrian FB site for some interesting discussion


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			Could I suggest people have a look on the Team Ireland Equestrian FB site for some interesting discussion
		
Click to expand...

Lifes to short the rulings clearcut ! you wont change it ! The person who will suffer most will be the guy you are supporting ,give him a break as at his age you may find it screws him up .I certainly dont wish that on him.


----------



## ycbm (23 December 2015)

Many people posting on this thread don't seem to have seen this photo. Three holes. Blood on three holes. Not a gentle scrape on an easily marked horse. Accidental or not, unacceptable, imo.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It was a tiny mark - get real!
		
Click to expand...

Lets be accurate 3 marks


----------



## Pebble101 (23 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Hate to say it after the other thread! However I hope you have the evidence to back that claim up as you may need too the person you are eluding too has a very good solicitor(not sure if they have dinner parties though).
		
Click to expand...


----------



## sarahann1 (23 December 2015)

TheMule said:



			A rule is a rule.
People need to get over it
		
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree.


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

It's an interesting and nuanced debate on there popsdosh but if you can't be bothered ...


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			I want the prize to go to the rider and horse that won it! The steward should have used common sense and discretion.
		
Click to expand...

Stating the obvious the prize has gone to the horse that won!!


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It's an interesting and nuanced debate on there popsdosh but if you can't be bothered ...
		
Click to expand...

So whats your take on the small marks in the picture above ! They look obvious to me and very noticeable dont you think . Slightly different from the cleaned up version coming from Bertrams camp!

Have you no thoughts for the rider or do you all blindly assume this is what he wants!


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It's an interesting and nuanced debate on there popsdosh but if you can't be bothered ...
		
Click to expand...

Sorry dont do FB its the home of the devil himself!!!


----------



## its_noodles (23 December 2015)

MungoMadness said:



			Ditto all the others. Very unfortunate but blood is blood.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid I do agree. Sorry to see what had happened but rules are rules.
:eek3:


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It was a tiny mark - get real!
		
Click to expand...


Oh my dear, I am very real... The rules say no blood. I'm disgusted at anyone that thinks it should be overlooked for WHATEVER reason!  He did not win, technicality or not, he lost!


----------



## KautoStar1 (23 December 2015)

Clear the name of Bertram Allen ? For god's sake he's hardly on death row. Can't believe someone has actually set up a petition for this.  If BA wants to revoke the decision of the stewards he can do it himself via the appropriate chanels.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			There really are some holier than thou people on here!
		
Click to expand...


I know exactly what you mean! I've seen some right idiots on this thread


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

Prancer and Vixen said:



			Oh my dear, I am very real... The rules say no blood. I'm disgusted at anyone that thinks it should be overlooked for WHATEVER reason!  He did not win, technicality or not, he lost!
		
Click to expand...

I can feel the love! time for a glass.


----------



## Orca (23 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Lets be accurate 3 marks
		
Click to expand...

3 marks plus numerous wheals by the look of it. The wheals might not meet disqualification criteria but surely they help clarify that spur repeatedly met flank in an undesirable manner. 

My mind is well and truly boggled by the number of people struggling against the decision to disqualify. I'm disappointed.


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			Could I suggest people have a look on the Team Ireland Equestrian FB site for some interesting discussion
		
Click to expand...


Of course you can... But I'm still very clear on my opinion without that


----------



## Queenbee (23 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It's an interesting and nuanced debate on there popsdosh but if you can't be bothered ...
		
Click to expand...


So, simple question for you... Should those three clear spur marks be ignored and Bertram awarded first prize?


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

Orca said:



			3 marks plus numerous wheals by the look of it. The wheals might not meet disqualification criteria but surely they help clarify that spur repeatedly met flank in an undesirable manner. 

My mind is well and truly boggled by the number of people struggling against the decision to disqualify. I'm disappointed.
		
Click to expand...

I must admit I am a little disappointed by the lack of support for the decision from some of the more senior riders, however I try to make allowance for the fact they came into SJ when they cantered around white city in a cloth cap and a fag hanging out their mouths. I havent seen a lot of the younger generation of riders saying the same.


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

Prancer and Vixen said:



			I know exactly what you mean! I've seen some right idiots on this thread
		
Click to expand...

Glad you're agreeing with me at last x


----------



## mle22 (23 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			I must admit I am a little disappointed by the lack of support for the decision from some of the more senior riders, however I try to make allowance for the fact they came into SJ when they cantered around white city in a cloth cap and a fag hanging out their mouths. I havent seen a lot of the younger generation of riders saying the same.
		
Click to expand...

Oinks - eh !


----------



## Dubsie (23 December 2015)

I think that many people were surprised to hear of the disqualification, as Bertram Allen is known to be quite a sympathetic rider unlike some other riders who are known for not being so kind to their horses....but rules are rules there was blood therefore he is disqualified. I'm sure he'll learn from this, and make the appropriate changes to his regime.


----------



## jhoward (24 December 2015)

ycbm said:









Many people posting on this thread don't seem to have seen this photo. Three holes. Blood on three holes. Not a gentle scrape on an easily marked horse. Accidental or not, unacceptable, imo.
		
Click to expand...

funny enough i made a post the other day about squares being left on where the spurs go and i noticed it on a few horses on this years olympia. its said times on both arguments that could be made when horses need an extra few bits of hair to prevent a spur mark.


----------



## hairycob (24 December 2015)

Interesting. We are likely to be selling my son's horse next year. Maybe I shall ask potential buyers their view on Tbilisi issue because he sure seen shell won't be sold to someone who thinks it's acceptable to leave a horse cut after a round. I can appreciate the occasional accident but I would expect to see remorse.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 December 2015)

The ruling that would have a rider disqualified should there be any blood seen on a horse,  is in place to prevent abuse.  Were the decision to be overturned on the grounds that the rider intended no harm to his horse,  then that would set a precedence and would lead to any future disqualification for the same 'offence' being brought in to question,  and were that to happen,  then those who adjudicate at such events would be in the position of having to decide whether the rider was 'careless'  or 'reckless'.  If a horse bleeds from either abuse,  neglect or any form of rider contact,  then the decision has to be upheld.  

A blanket ruling is the only way forward,  even though that will carry along with it,  those who have perhaps been no more than careless.  We're quick enough to berate judges and juries who neglect to apply rulings,  and when they do it seems,  then they still can't get it right! 

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (24 December 2015)

Clear his name of what ?
This whole thing is ridiculous , the rule is clear , and it's not like he's been found guility of murder. I did not see the class but I have no difficuly in believing that the marks were not intentionally made or as a result of rough riding but stuff happens and it's bad luck for him .
He needs someone to buy him some rubber spurs for Christmas .


----------



## Bernster (24 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			The ruling that would have a rider disqualified should there be any blood seen on a horse,  is in place to prevent abuse.  Were the decision to be overturned on the grounds that the rider intended no harm to his horse,  then that would set a precedence and would lead to any future disqualification for the same 'offence' being brought in to question,  and were that to happen,  then those who adjudicate at such events would be in the position of having to decide whether the rider was 'careless'  or 'reckless'.  If a horse bleeds from either abuse,  neglect or any form of rider contact,  then the decision has to be upheld.  

A blanket ruling is the only way forward,  even though that will carry along with it,  those who have perhaps been no more than careless.  We're quick enough to berate judges and juries who neglect to apply rulings,  and when they do it seems,  then they still can't get it right! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly this ^^


----------



## Cragrat (24 December 2015)

I don't think leaving squares of unclipped hair will prevent spur damage such as seen on the photo above, but it will make it harder to see, thus masking the problem and allowing some riders to get away with it.

Why not ban rowled spurs?


----------



## acorn92x (24 December 2015)

The Tank said:



			Have you seen the horse, there is no mark, the whole event has been caused by another competitor, who we all know of, he comes from Essex and has a problem with Bertram's horses owners.
		
Click to expand...

As a person who lived in Essex for the first 20 years of my life, I find this incredibly offensive. What does the riders origin have to do with his response to the OBVIOUS spur marks on the flanks of Bertram's horse?! You need to open your eyes and look at the pictures I'm afraid. Rules are rules, blood is blood. Simple.


----------



## Luci07 (24 December 2015)

I agree that rules need to be adhered to. I haven't researched this heavily but haven't seen anything from BA asking for this decision to be over turned. The only thing I can see that would need to be changed (if these facts are true) would be if he really was told it would be a yellow card and then it was changed. I do balance that by the fact that I am assuming there wouldn't be a lot of time to ponder on this as Olympia moves fast. Now I understand what some of these massive elastic strips are I have seen some riders wearing. I have marked a thin skinned chestnut with rubs, not blood so switched to covered spurs. Mare was so fine skinned everything marked easily.


----------



## sarcasm_queen (24 December 2015)

Really lovely to see that the vast majority of people agree to the ruling. 
And I'm another who was disappointed in Geoff's comments, especially the very harsh things he said about the stewards.


----------



## Sheep (24 December 2015)

acorn92x said:



			As a person who lived in Essex for the first 20 years of my life, I find this incredibly offensive. What does the riders origin have to do with his response to the OBVIOUS spur marks on the flanks of Bertram's horse?! You need to open your eyes and look at the pictures I'm afraid. Rules are rules, blood is blood. Simple.
		
Click to expand...

I think the reference to Essex was more to hint more strongly as to the identity of this other rider.

It is a shame for BA that this has happened, however rules need to be black and white for the sake of the horses. His comments seemed to be fairly accepting of this fact, it's the uproar from everyone else that is affecting perception of the incident. At the end of the day, if he has accepted the ruling then so should we, end of. It's a pity but he's only a youngster, he has a hell of a future ahead of him and hopefully this will be a real learning experience for him.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2015)

sarcasm_queen said:



			Really lovely to see that the vast majority of people agree to the ruling. 
And I'm another who was disappointed in Geoff's comments, especially the very harsh things he said about the stewards.
		
Click to expand...

If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way  himself.


----------



## acorn92x (24 December 2015)

ycbm said:



			If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way  himself.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. A very unprofessional response from a well regarded so called professional in the equestrian world.


----------



## popsdosh (24 December 2015)

Luci07 said:



			I agree that rules need to be adhered to. I haven't researched this heavily but haven't seen anything from BA asking for this decision to be over turned. The only thing I can see that would need to be changed (if these facts are true) would be if he really was told it would be a yellow card and then it was changed. I do balance that by the fact that I am assuming there wouldn't be a lot of time to ponder on this as Olympia moves fast. Now I understand what some of these massive elastic strips are I have seen some riders wearing. I have marked a thin skinned chestnut with rubs, not blood so switched to covered spurs. Mare was so fine skinned everything marked easily.
		
Click to expand...

The yellow card really is a red herring! He may have initially thought he might get one but that would only be the case if the ground jury suspected it was deliberate and they obviously decided it wasnt .The yellow card is a totally different thing to horse having bloody marks as that is a straight DQ whatever the reason.


----------



## Spudlet (24 December 2015)

This is really silly. 

The rule says no blood. There was blood. The rule does t say 'some blood' or 'a tiny bit' or 'ok, so long and it was an accident'. So it clearly applies. 

If one wanted to be really harsh, you'd argue that a professional world class rider shouldn't be having those sorts of accidents... They should avoid them either through their choice of equipment for a tin skinned horse or through their skills. Of course accidents do happen in the real world - which is why you will probably always get this sort of thing happening on occasion, but that's no reason not to enforce a pretty clear cut rule. 

If you say 'oh ok, as long as it wasn't on purpose...' Where does that end? What about all the riders people are (rightly) saying were rough with their hands? If they don't care for their horse's mouth, why would they care about their sides, if they can claim it was an accident and keep the win?


----------



## popsdosh (24 December 2015)

ycbm said:



			If he was a football manager, he would be being fined and banned from the touchline for bad mouthing the officials. Shame on him, they were only applying the rules. He should be disciplined in some way  himself.
		
Click to expand...

I think you may find down the line there will be repercussions from this . I really feel for the steward as they cannot DQ him it would have been a discussion between the FEI vet and the Ground jury so a joint decision but it was clear cut anyway ,I think the bigger controversy would have been if it had been ignored personally.


----------



## EQUIDAE (24 December 2015)

I think the attitude of the other rider who was disqualified was far more gracious...


----------



## Pedantic (24 December 2015)

Don't like spurs, end of for me.


----------



## Toby_Zaphod (24 December 2015)

No one is saying that Bertram Allen was being cruel to his horse or that he did it deliberately, that would be a totally different story. Unfortunately, no matter how brilliant his round of jumping was, & it was brilliant, he unfortunately marked his horse & drew blood. The rule related to blood being drawn & it was drawn so he gets disqualified.

Some are saying well it was only a bit of blood? You cannot in reality go down that route because if that action is taken we would then get into the debating how much blood is allowed to be drawn or how big an injury should be before action can be taken. Then no one would have any idea what the rule actually is. The rule is there to protect the welfare of the horses & it should stay then everyone knows where they stand.

I have a horse that has very sensitive skin & he marks easily. When he is competed we have him wear a belly bandage to prevent him being marked, possibly Bertram Allen should have considered that prior to entry?


----------



## teapot (24 December 2015)

I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all... 

Which if I'm right, (will never know), sends a 'but it's only a tiny bit of blood but he won so it's ok' message and I'm not comfortable with that idea at all.


----------



## kez81 (24 December 2015)

Lynn11 said:



			For those of you who may of been following the happenings at Olympia and thought the decision of disqualifying Bertram Allen of his clean win. 

Feel free to sign the petition below. 

Im all for the rule that anyone should be eliminated for harming their horse etc but I think this time he didn't deserve it. 

What do any of you think?

https://www.change.org/p/people-clear-name-of-bertram-allen

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The rule is there to protect horses, whether injury caused is accidental or not and regardless of who caused it. If we start letting riders off the rules will be very open to abuse. The decision must stand for the credibility of the sport.


----------



## Orca (24 December 2015)

For those under the impression that BA accepted his disqualification with good grace - I'm not sure he did. He appealed, in conjunction with the horses owner. The appeal was rejected, of course but the act of appealing gives the impression that BA and the horses owner felt that blood and wheals were in some way excusable.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 December 2015)

Spudlet said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

If one wanted to be really harsh, you'd argue that a professional world class rider shouldn't be having those sorts of accidents... They should avoid them either through their choice of equipment for a thin skinned horse or through their skills. 

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Not harsh at all,  and perhaps if BA were to read your post,  he may consider his tactics in the future.  Nobody wants to knock a young and successful rider,  but I hope that the young man concerned (and others too) has and have,  learned a lesson.  All pro-riders are responsible for themselves.

Well said Spudlet.

Alec.


----------



## Steerpike (24 December 2015)

Prancer and Vixen said:



			So essentially you are arguing that its ok for a horse to have blood on its flanks if it clearly wasn't hammered.  Im sorry, I do not hold with that and will not sign to that effect.  Im in support of the decision.  There is a reason most endurance riders use bitless bridles, its because they know that no matter how light their hands the horse can still get a cut mouth and therefore be disqualified, stop expecting people to bend rules and find another way. No blood = no disqualification, simple.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.


----------



## EQUIDAE (24 December 2015)

teapot said:



			I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all... 

Which if I'm right, (will never know), sends a 'but it's only a tiny bit of blood but he won so it's ok' message and I'm not comfortable with that idea at all.
		
Click to expand...

He wasn't the only rider who lost his first place though - the other rider (I forget his name), conceded that he had accidentally injured his horse and accepted the disqualification. He said he was absolutely mortified that he had made his mount bleed and agreed with the decision.

ETA I have done a Google search to find who it was and could only find 3 pages of BA, none of the other rider who was disqualified.

ETA2 - has anyone posted the second picture of the horse's flank? The one where there is not one nick, but 3 and they seem to be quite clear holes...


----------



## popsdosh (24 December 2015)

EQUIDAE said:



			He wasn't the only rider who lost his first place though - the other rider (I forget his name), conceded that he had accidentally injured his horse and accepted the disqualification. He said he was absolutely mortified that he had made his mount bleed and agreed with the decision.

ETA I have done a Google search to find who it was and could only find 3 pages of BA, none of the other rider who was disqualified.

ETA2 - has anyone posted the second picture of the horse's flank? The one where there is not one nick, but 3 and they seem to be quite clear holes...
		
Click to expand...

Yes about 2/3 pages back funnily not heard a lot from the pro camp since they appeared and certainly no reconition they saw it! http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?716344-Clear-name-of-Bertram-Allen/page7


----------



## Pebble101 (24 December 2015)

teapot said:



			I'd love to know if the petition would have been set up if he hadn't won the class. I have a feeling if he'd only been third or fourth, the topic wouldn't have been discussed in huge amounts of detail, if at all...
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round.  If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future 

If they took away the 'no blood rule' so it was down to someone's discretion then that wouldn't be fair either - what one person would let through another wouldn't.


----------



## EQUIDAE (24 December 2015)

Pebble101 said:



			It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round.  If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future 

If they took away the 'no blood rule' so it was down to someone's discretion then that wouldn't be fair either - what one person would let through another wouldn't.
		
Click to expand...

The way he won it? There were 3 holes in the side of the horse, so it wasn't just one 'accident'. In the heat of the moment it might have looked an exciting round, but it wasn't very kind on the horse...


----------



## ester (24 December 2015)

Steerpike said:



			I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
		
Click to expand...

Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.


----------



## teapot (24 December 2015)

Pebble101 said:



			It wasn't just the fact he won but also the way it was won, it was an amazing round.  If nothing else it will raise his profile and I expect him to be offered lots of good horses to ride in future 

Click to expand...

The way it was won, that amazing round left the horse with the marks it had... 

Anyone with their eyes open recognises the talent he has so I don't think a petition for the win to be reinstated gains anything in the long run.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2015)

EQUIDAE said:



			The way he won it? There were 3 holes in the side of the horse, so it wasn't just one 'accident'. In the heat of the moment it might have looked an exciting round, but it wasn't very kind on the horse...
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, though I actually think it makes it worse not better, I think it is one incident that made the holes (though not the other weals, they are extras). 

I think the spur dug into the horse and dragged back over the skin for several inches as he swung his leg back over a fence (you can see the weal if you expand the picture enough). By then, there was a bunching of skin at the end of the arc, and the spur then cut across the top of three wrinkles, leaving three holes of decreasing size.

So it was a one off injury in causing bleeding, but a fairly substantial misuse of the spur to have caused such a mark.


----------



## mle22 (24 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Yes about 2/3 pages back funnily not heard a lot from the pro camp since they appeared and certainly no reconition they saw it! http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?716344-Clear-name-of-Bertram-Allen/page7

Click to expand...

I saw it - on the night it happened


----------



## EstherYoung (24 December 2015)

Steerpike said:



			I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
		
Click to expand...

Endurance horses have to be fit to continue at every vetting, so if any injury could be exacerbated by continuing they should be spun (in theory). Even at the final vetting.

Yes bitless bridles are popular for reasons of eating and drinking, but also because one of the hardest things with endurance is trying to find tack that doesn't rub. For some horses, just the act of wearing a bit for eight plus hours can cause chafing, regardless of the rider's hands. Hence you see a lot of very minimalist tack and a lot of sheepskin being used.


----------



## mle22 (24 December 2015)

Have a read at Bertram's interview on the world of show jumping site - shows just how badly it was handled and the support he has from other top riders.


----------



## Steerpike (24 December 2015)

ester said:



			Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
		
Click to expand...

But a horse can continue with a laceration or sore as long as it's not likely to be aggravated, which I have seen myself in FEI competition when a horse tripped on a middle loop and continued on to finish and pass the final vetting.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			.. - shows just how badly it was handled and the support he has from other top riders.
		
Click to expand...

So the top riders don't agree with the decision?  OK,  that's not a problem,  except,  would you have them running the governing body?  There'd be horses going round on three legs!  The governing body,  *'IF'* they're so wrong, :wink3: need replacing,  not the rule book.  The Rule Book protects both horse and rider.  The Rule Book must either be respected,  or altered.

Otherwise,  I agree with you,  from what I see it wasn't managed too well.

Alec.


----------



## Queenbee (24 December 2015)

Steerpike said:



			I think you will find most endurance riders use a bit less bridle so the horse can eat and drink well out on course, as far as I am aware there is no rule in endurance to say if a horse has a cut mouth it is disqualified.
		
Click to expand...

Well I assumed there was as I have seen horses disqualified for this very thing.  Admittedly its not an area of equestrianism that I am very familiar with, however, many moons ago I did spend some time going out on the circuits to watch a friend and help out, it was always my understanding/was led to believe that this was one of the reasons for bitless and as I've said, I've certainly seen a horse stopped from going on due to damage in the mouth from a bit.


----------



## Queenbee (24 December 2015)

ester said:



			Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
		
Click to expand...

Thank god... Im not going bonkers! Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## rachk89 (24 December 2015)

Follysmum said:



			I didn't see this on TV but heard about it on FB.  My first thought to eliminate this situation happening again and to safe guard any future mishaps was perhaps riders ditching the spurs.
		
Click to expand...

I am with you on this. I wouldn't wear them for a competition just incase that happened. I don't anyway but still wouldn't. 

Rules are rules sadly he broke it. Need to just move on.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 December 2015)

ester said:



			Soreness, Laceration and Wounds: any evidence of soreness, lacerations
and wounds in the mouth, on the limbs and on the body, including girth and
saddle galls, must be recorded. If participation in or continuation of the
Competition is bound to seriously aggravate any such soreness, lacerations or
wounds, the Horse will not be allowed to continue.
		
Click to expand...

Considering the last word 'Continue',  presumably this would be taken in its literal sense,  but as the horse in question had '_completed_' the competition,  would the same ruling be applied to disqualification,  and in a retrospective sense?

Alec.


----------



## Queenbee (24 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Considering the last word 'Continue',  presumably this would be taken in its literal sense,  but as the horse in question had '_completed_' the competition,  would the same ruling be applied to disqualification,  and in a retrospective sense?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think so, for example... if a horse trots up lame or does not go back to a resting heart beat soon enough its eliminated, would assume it would be the same for other issues too


----------



## Orca (24 December 2015)

ycbm said:



			To be fair, though I actually think it makes it worse not better, I think it is one incident that made the holes (though not the other weals, they are extras). 

I think the spur dug into the horse and dragged back over the skin for several inches as he swung his leg back over a fence (you can see the weal if you expand the picture enough). By then, there was a bunching of skin at the end of the arc, and the spur then cut across the top of three wrinkles, leaving three holes of decreasing size.

So it was a one off injury in causing bleeding, but a fairly substantial misuse of the spur to have caused such a mark.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. This was my take on it from the outset. It's a shame really, that no-one sought to address his leg position with him at some point before this. The toe out/ heel in and swinging leg style of his jump stance is not conducive to safe spur use. There is one 'scrape' and numerous wheals, all of which could have been avoided.

I understand that it can be difficult to hold a good position over high jumps but it is not difficult to be aware of where spurs are at any given time. In fact, that really is a prerequisite to using them at all.


----------



## Amymay (24 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			Have a read at Bertram's interview on the world of show jumping site - shows just how badly it was handled and the support he has from other top riders.
		
Click to expand...

It _may_ have been handled badly, and it's great that that BA has the support from other riders - because we would all agree that he did not intentionally set out to hurt the horse.

BUT, rules are rules, and if you cause your horse to bleed you are quite correctly disqualified. There's not really any discussion to be had around the subject.


----------



## Pebble101 (24 December 2015)

EQUIDAE said:



			The way he won it? There were 3 holes in the side of the horse, so it wasn't just one 'accident'. In the heat of the moment it might have looked an exciting round, but it wasn't very kind on the horse...
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't defending him, my reply was to another post which suggested that had he been further down the line there might not have been a petition. My point was that if he had only just won without such a huge margin in such company it might not have caused such a furore - maybe I didn't put my point across very well.

Personally I think a lot of competition isn't very kind on the horses and that goes far wider than the way they are ridden.


----------



## EstherYoung (24 December 2015)

Prancer and Vixen said:



			I think so, for example... if a horse trots up lame or does not go back to a resting heart beat soon enough its eliminated, would assume it would be the same for other issues too
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. They still have to be fit to continue at the finish. The rule of thumb is that they have to be fit to do another 15% of the distance again. So on a 100 miler, the vet wants to see that the horse could do another 15 miles easily. 

I've seen horses eliminated for bruised mouths etc too.


----------



## DiNozzo (24 December 2015)

Is the issue not more that the Italian officer (can't remember his name!) being seen to ride in a manner which is far more likely to cause damage than BA?

I agree that he should eliminated under the current rules, but I do not think that the current rules are adequate. There are others who would have caused far more damage to their horses, through bruising or other internal damage through horrific riding who were allowed to continue also.


----------



## FfionWinnie (24 December 2015)

Two thoughts I've had today re him appealing. He's a young guy, the top riders and probably the owners were saying to him it's a tiny mark etc. You can see why he appealed. He did say in one interview I read that in the cold light of day he wants to just move on. 

Now, it IS a tiny mark in the scheme of things. However, spurs is spurs at the end of the day and you cannot justify that mark or any other mark made by them!

How can you expect the viewing public to understand spurs and their use if something like this was allowed. 

Accidents happen, yes. Should we castigate him for this one accident, no. 

In my other life I run my sheep dogs in trials. The dog is not allowed to bite the sheep. Of course in a work situation it may need to and in a trial situation I would prefer my dog bit the sheep and I was disqualified than it let the sheep run over the top of it but would it be acceptable to change the rule and say FfionWinnie had a great run before the dog bit the sheep so let her win. No. Rules are there for a reason. Ultimately he hurt the horse he has to pay and I bet he will not do it again and the more furore there is the more he will be remembered for this so best to let it go, probably chuck out the spurs and not have the issue arise again. 

Incidentally this is the most frustrating post I have ever had to write due to my iPhone's absolute insistence that spurs and mark must be capitalised and my determination that they will not. Argh!


----------



## KautoStar1 (24 December 2015)

Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.


----------



## MungoMadness (24 December 2015)

DiNozzo said:



			Is the issue not more that the Italian officer (can't remember his name!) being seen to ride in a manner which is far more likely to cause damage than BA?

I agree that he should eliminated under the current rules, but I do not think that the current rules are adequate. There are others who would have caused far more damage to their horses, through bruising or other internal damage through horrific riding who were allowed to continue also.
		
Click to expand...

That's a whole other argument though. The fact that someone else was worse is no justification at all, it's like saying oh let this man off for murder because someone else committed a mass murder which is worse. 

I don't disagree that harsh hands are an issue, but the way I see it it's not measurable so it'd be impossible to rule, so we need to think of a way to make it measurable. Whether there is blood or not is measurable, I think itd be a mistake to change that rule. But fundamentally they are two different arguments.


----------



## popsdosh (24 December 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree! It takes time for the steward to call a vet and then the Vet to brief the ground jury . Time would have been spent making sure the ruling was correct as he had won the class so it made it more important that the decision was right .The question of a yellow card would also have been looked into which would have involved watching different camera footage. Also knowing what happens I am sure GB and some others would have already been giving the Ground jury some grief. I am sure from their point of view the easiest option would have been to ignore it but credit to them they did the right thing.


----------



## popsdosh (24 December 2015)

MungoMadness said:



			That's a whole other argument though. The fact that someone else was worse is no justification at all, it's like saying oh let this man off for murder because someone else committed a mass murder which is worse. 

I don't disagree that harsh hands are an issue, but the way I see it it's not measurable so it'd be impossible to rule, so we need to think of a way to make it measurable. Whether there is blood or not is measurable, I think itd be a mistake to change that rule. But fundamentally they are two different arguments.
		
Click to expand...

Of course if those hands are hard enough to cause the horse to bleed action would be taken. 
I see a lot of criticism of heavy hands at olympia every year  in part due to the nature of big courses in a tight arena ,I think it always looks worse than it is as you are always having to shorten them up quick. Also the crowd and the cameras are very close to the action and you see things you would not at say Hickstead for example. Modern HD cameras make things more obvious as well


----------



## Supertrooper (25 December 2015)

I don't for one minute think he meant to harm the horse but the rule is there for a reason. You can't have one rule for one and another for someone else. How is that for the horses benefit.........

There was blood on the horses side, he was disqualified, end of........

On another note though did someone see in the Puissance that a horse in that had a square of hair left either side of flank where the spurs were sitting. Never seen that before.


----------



## onemoretime (25 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			He was disqualified because what happened contravened the rules its as simple as !  Try looking at the olympia thread(in equestrian news) and you will find that on the whole you will be banging your head against a brick wall. If we have the rules they need to be enforced which they clearly have in this case. There is more evidence came out today that was even more damming for him not sure if you are aware of that. Sorry I for one wont be signing !
		
Click to expand...

  Apparently there was blood on the horses side and photos were taken and also steward put on surgical gloves and wiped over the horses side and this was bagged up and taken to the judges.  It went on until 3am but the judges decision stood.  The situation was pretty serious and the right action was taken, I am another that wont be signing the petition.


----------



## onemoretime (25 December 2015)

mle22 said:



			It was a tiny mark - get real!
		
Click to expand...

  It was not a tiny mark in fact there were several marks with blood on the horses side and was pretty serious.  My neighbour was one of the judges there and saw the whole business through until 3am in the morning!!!


----------



## onemoretime (25 December 2015)

amymay said:



			To what end?  &#128559;
		
Click to expand...

  Exactly - nothing will come of this stupid petition!


----------



## onemoretime (25 December 2015)

ycbm said:



			The horse has THREE holes in his side with blood on.

Accidental or deliberate, that's not acceptable. The disqualification was correct. The petition is not.
		
Click to expand...

  this is correct.


----------



## onemoretime (25 December 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Was this incident really that badly handled on the night or is the use of social media and the opinions that people like to give on a situation they were not involved in actually contribute to the perception that the situation was badly handled.
		
Click to expand...

  I dont think the situation was badly handled at all, in fact it was well handled and the officials decision was upheld end of.  Hopefully the rider will learn from this, people setting up petitions only make the whole business drag on and cause further upset to all involved - let it drop.


----------



## minkymoo (25 December 2015)

Shay said:



			Agree with the above.  Rules are Rules.  There might be an argument to change that rule.  But there is no point in petitioning anyone about a decision made within the rules.

What happened to Bertram was very sad - probably more so to him and to his owners.  No-one says that he deliberately mistreated his horse.  Accidents happen.

I don't see anyone petitioning to re-instate Victoria Guilksson eliminated after winning the six bar for an eligibility breach.  Or for any of the several dressage riders eliminated this year for blood in the mouth.  And rightly so.  Not because those riders have necessarily done anything really wrong.  But because those are the rules of the sport we compete in.

You can't have one rule for some and another for everyone else.  Petition to change the rule is you want to - that would have value.  Don't petition to break the rules.
		
Click to expand...

This. I'm sorry for the guy, but maybe he should have been more careful with his Spurs?

You can't have people whining about how unfair it is he loses his first place because of blood on his horse when on the other hand complaining about rolkur and blood in the mouth. Rules are rules and need to be adhered to.


----------



## gnubee (26 December 2015)

I don't think his disqualification reflects poorly on him. He has a reputation for being a quiet rider and these things sometimes happen. However, rules are rules and need to be non-judgemental and clean cut, and all the arguments for not dq-ing seem based on him having a good reputation and not the facts of this instances. Do petition signers want all riders rating as good guy or bad guy before they enter the ring to determine whether the rules should apply to them? I also don't think you can conclusively say that without the cut and the action of the spurs pressing into it subsequently he would still have won the round. There is certainly cause to suspect that after the accident the horse might have been more reactive to otherwise gentle use of the spurs. 

I do think his reputation is being damaged now though by the appeal and now support more widely that it was an accident and ok. My horse threw a hissy fit last weekend and in throwing her head to the ground her mouth has been bruised. Nothing I could do about it save completely drop the reins and put us both in danger, but when the dentist came this week I was so embarrassed about him seeing her mouth, apologised to him and explained what happened before I let him look at her.  To me it seems normal to be ashamed whenever we injure a horse, even if there is nothing we could do about it. In a situation like this I would be mortified if anything about my response to the situation suggested I thought the damage was ok. To appeal a result in this scenario and allow this support to build up afterwards makes it look a lot to me like he is not such a good guy and thinks there is nothing wrong with a horse ending up like that as long as you are winning.


----------



## MrsMozart (26 December 2015)

gnubee said:



			I don't think his disqualification reflects poorly on him. He has a reputation for being a quiet rider and these things sometimes happen. However, rules are rules and need to be non-judgemental and clean cut, and all the arguments for not dq-ing seem based on him having a good reputation and not the facts of this instances. Do petition signers want all riders rating as good guy or bad guy before they enter the ring to determine whether the rules should apply to them? I also don't think you can conclusively say that without the cut and the action of the spurs pressing into it subsequently he would still have won the round. There is certainly cause to suspect that after the accident the horse might have been more reactive to otherwise gentle use of the spurs. 

I do think his reputation is being damaged now though by the appeal and now support more widely that it was an accident and ok. My horse threw a hissy fit last weekend and in throwing her head to the ground her mouth has been bruised. Nothing I could do about it save completely drop the reins and put us both in danger, but when the dentist came this week I was so embarrassed about him seeing her mouth, apologised to him and explained what happened before I let him look at her.  To me it seems normal to be ashamed whenever we injure a horse, even if there is nothing we could do about it. In a situation like this I would be mortified if anything about my response to the situation suggested I thought the damage was ok. To appeal a result in this scenario and allow this support to build up afterwards makes it look a lot to me like he is not such a good guy and thinks there is nothing wrong with a horse ending up like that as long as you are winning.
		
Click to expand...


This ^^^


----------



## Pigeon (26 December 2015)

It wasn't a clean win if it drew blood....


----------



## DD (26 December 2015)

onemoretime said:



			Apparently there was blood on the horses side and photos were taken and also steward put on surgical gloves and wiped over the horses side and this was bagged up and taken to the judges.  It went on until 3am but the judges decision stood.  The situation was pretty serious and the right action was taken, I am another that wont be signing the petition.
		
Click to expand...

^^^^^^
this. 
I think banning spurs  is what the BSJA should do.


----------



## splashgirl45 (26 December 2015)

Downton Dame said:



			^^^^^^
this. 
I think banning spurs  is what the BSJA should do.
		
Click to expand...

banning all spurs is a bit drastic but I think  it would be sensible to have some sort of standard for spurs,   however even blunt spurs can cause bruising if used forcefully enough ..its a difficult one..


----------



## Illusion100 (26 December 2015)

Spurs should only be a 'directional' aid and used carefully and lightly.

To even mark a horse with spurs is never good. To draw blood/have visible wounds etc is just not cricket. 

As a fellow countryperson, I'd love for Bertram to have won but I stand by the rules. 

I cannot support blood being drawn from a horse, for whatever reason to win, especially at that level.


----------



## MagicMelon (27 December 2015)

TheMule said:



			A rule is a rule.
People need to get over it
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is my thoughts on it too. Spurs shouldn't leave marks on a horses skin and for actual blood to be drawn is totally unacceptable and is cruel, his clearly did therefore ruling was correct IMO. Think riders need to simply ditch the spurs.


----------

