# Controversy at Olympia...



## suffolkmare (21 December 2015)

As I'm just watching on Red button I'm wondering if anyone knows more about why the young Irish lad has been disqualified? His jump off round was amazing, so what was wrong? Glad to see MW do so well though.


----------



## asterope (21 December 2015)

Horse welfare issues, apparently, although evidently not serious enough for there to be a clear-cut decision about whether he should be DQed or not.


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (21 December 2015)

Pity as was an amazing round


----------



## Goya (21 December 2015)

Apparently there was spur marks on the horses flanks.


----------



## Indigoice45 (21 December 2015)

Yes me too! Apparently it was a welfare issue! So can only assume spur marks or blood in the mouth! But horse n rider jumped super round as he did last night! N really looked amazing and happy in collecting ring! My issue is all horses checked coming out of ring so why was he not told then! He was totally shocked to here prior to prize giving! And y not tell us! All that Scott Brash has done for British Show jumping will be blighted by this n no more show jumping on BBC! Hx


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (21 December 2015)

I have seen people walloping the horses and ponies at BS shows-no one says anything-if they are going to disqualify over this they should up their welfare standards across the board.


----------



## asterope (21 December 2015)

horsemadmum1 said:



			I have seen people walloping the horses and ponies at BS shows-no one says anything-if they are going to disqualify over this they should up their welfare standards across the board.
		
Click to expand...

Yep. And I think certain riders who yank on their horse's mouth etc should be spoken to as well - far more potential for lasting damage than an accidental jab with a spur (not that that shouldn't be ruled against!)


----------



## suffolkmare (21 December 2015)

Agree with you, Indigoice45! Can't help thinking it wouldn't have seemed so bad if Michael's round had been earlier, i.e. he had actually been in the lead at one point...probably illogical...


----------



## Indigoice45 (21 December 2015)

Thank you ! Obviously there are rules n welfare to be taking into account! But what a super rider n happy horse to jump that round, at no point war that horse put under pressure! I agree with earlier comment we see more abuse in collecting rings at local BS, which gets no reprimand then this! Totally ridiculous a super young guy n lovely horse! Such a shame gx


----------



## sasquatch (22 December 2015)

Olympia have said on twitter they will be making a statement.

There's photos floating round of the apparent spur marks, but I'm not sure how real they are.

Imo, it's time to look at the rule books, and define what is included under 'horse welfare/abuse of horse' and severity of punishment. Not saying Bertram shouldn't be punished if the horse was bleeding, but that some of the other riding I have seen definitely looked much much worse than his, and that there needs to be much more consistency and a press/procedure to be followed at shows when this situation arises that lets the public and spectators know what is going on and why the delay is happening without letting rumour and speculation arise.


----------



## Indigoice45 (22 December 2015)

I agree totally! Let's see what transpires n hopefully a true account will be forthcoming other than the usual rumour and speculation. Although still think under no point did that horse look under duress or pressure! But I wasn't there to see inspection! But the indecision n time it took has to be questioned. Gx


----------



## Orca (22 December 2015)

In the first photo of the H&H article about this, as they go over the red and gold parallel (black wings), it's easy to see how a spur injury could have happened. Toe at a right angle to the flank, heel dug in. I'm pleased he was disqualified.


----------



## sasquatch (22 December 2015)

Indigoice45 said:



			I agree totally! Let's see what transpires n hopefully a true account will be forthcoming other than the usual rumour and speculation. Although still think under no point did that horse look under duress or pressure! But I wasn't there to see inspection! But the indecision n time it took has to be questioned. Gx
		
Click to expand...

the story so far is that spur marks/blood was seen on his horse, which seems to be viable but the truth is no statements have been made and no one is 100% sure as of yet.

I feel the show should have had something in place to explain to the crowd, even if it was 'Bertram Allen has been disqualified due to an ongoing investigation into rule x regarding x'


----------



## kassieg (22 December 2015)

Orca said:



			In the first photo of the H&H article about this, as they go over the red and gold parallel (black wings), it's easy to see how a spur injury could have happened. Toe at a right angle to the flank, heel dug in. I'm pleased he was disqualified.
		
Click to expand...

Your leg position is always perfect over 1m60 is it? 

He rode fantastically there is no 2 ways about it! I've seen terrible riding all week & he is disqualified. 

Having ridden a chestnut who I had to cake in vasaline when she was clipped because she got rubbed so easily from boots & spurs I can see how easily it happens! There was a guy in the puissance who had actually left patches on the sides where his legs sat because he obviously had the same issue on his chestnut.

Such a shame for the sport !


----------



## minesadouble (22 December 2015)

I missed this however Geoff Billiington has commented on FB saying the rider rode a beautiful round and the Stewards are very much in the wrong - his wording is slightly more extreme than mine! Everyone seems to be in agreement with Geoff, apparently it was a travesty that the win was taken from him.


----------



## AmieeT (22 December 2015)

Michael Whitaker gave him the rosette, I doubt he'd have done that if he thought it fair.

Considering some of the frankly rough hands we've all seen this week, it does seem harsh, but rules are rules.

Of course, I'm not saying for one second I could do any better- I definitely couldn't.


----------



## MagicMelon (22 December 2015)

I really dont get why ALL of them wear spurs anyway. Hopefully this sort of thing will encourage less spur usage. No matter how nice his round, if there was blood then thats totally unacceptable and the right decision was made, no matter what Geoff Billington sprouts off!


----------



## Old Bat (22 December 2015)

It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding  chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!


----------



## kassieg (22 December 2015)

Old Bat said:



			It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding  chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!
		
Click to expand...

Yep it was the first thing I noticed having owned a chestnut & had exactly this issue!! I thought what a good idea it was!

If the picture that is going round is correct it is so similar to the marks my mare used to get & she got those without me having spurs on as well as when I used them! Hence why she got coated in vasealine to avoid it happening. 

I think its 1 thing when the public think its a wrong decision but when other riders are backing him so clearly having been there I think we can put it down to bad decisions. 

When I watched the round I remember thinking I wish more riders rode so positively & just let their horses run & jump & yet he had perfect control at the touch on its mouth to make the turns unlike some of the other riders.


----------



## acorn92x (22 December 2015)

I think it was right he was disqualified. A cut from a spur is still a cut - how would you feel if you got off of your horse and saw a cut on it's side from when you were wearing spurs, even if it was accidental? I like to think most people would at least feel slightly guilty! I'm fully aware some horses are more sensitive than others and my answer to that would be put vaseline or grease on the horses sides for a little bit of protection or even more simply - do not wear spurs if the horse is that sensitive to them (In the sense that they bleed/rub after use). 

It's a real shame for Bertram as he is a very talented young rider and rode a super round but at the end of the day, rules are rules and should be adhered to, especially at this level. What message would it send to riders in lower BS (And BD for that matter) levels if he was allowed to get away with leaving spur marks on his horse?! I do think that there needs to be a real overhaul in rule books as to what the true definition of a welfare case is though as there have been some shocking examples in recent years of unhappy horses being socked in the mouth, booted over jumps and hit far too hard/riders not using the whip appropriately where the rider has gone unpunished. If Bertram was penalised for this, I really do believe that the Italian rider in the puissance who was socking his horse in the mouth before/after every jump should have been too as that was shocking.


----------



## Wimbles (22 December 2015)

I watched Bertram's jump off round and thought it was really inspiring and enjoyed it immensely.  The horse and he were an incredible partnership and no amount of rough riding will ever make a horse try for you like that horse did for him.

Obviously I don't know the full story but I was quite saddened to hear the many people criticising the stewards.  They are given a job to do and they are there to report on horse welfare.  If it is a spur mark then these things can and do happen but I personally believe that it would be a sad day if this was just completely ignored.

I do think that Bertram should not have been disqualified but Olympia could maybe have taken a similar approach to racing and given some sort of ban or fine if indeed the horse's welfare had been compromised.


----------



## stencilface (22 December 2015)

Old Bat said:



			It was a beautifully ridden round and all credit to Bertram for taking it on the chin with dignity in the backstage footage. Its a chestnut horse, they are notorious for marking easily. Bad stewarding in my opinion unless there was blood showing but didn't look like it from the footage we could see.

Don't know if anyone else noticed in the puissance that someone else riding  chestnut had left a square of hair unclipped behind the rider's legs to avoid the issue!
		
Click to expand...

Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (22 December 2015)

Wimbles said:



			I watched Bertram's jump off round and thought it was really inspiring and enjoyed it immensely.  The horse and he were an incredible partnership and no amount of rough riding will ever make a horse try for you like that horse did for him.

Obviously I don't know the full story but I was quite saddened to hear the many people criticising the stewards.  They are given a job to do and they are there to report on horse welfare.  If it is a spur mark then these things can and do happen but I personally believe that it would be a sad day if this was just completely ignored.

I do think that Bertram should not have been disqualified but Olympia could maybe have taken a similar approach to racing and given some sort of ban or fine if indeed the horse's welfare had been compromised.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, some kind of fine and a warning, what ever he did was surely not deliberate and he was not rough in any way.


----------



## acorn92x (22 December 2015)

stencilface said:



			Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!
		
Click to expand...

I watched a local BSJA competition a few weeks ago and noticed a couple of riders that had these patches and thought what a good idea it was. Both were wearing spurs so it was obvious as to what it was for. If a horse is sensitive and you MUST (I rarely believe in the use of spurs I must admit) use spurs, surely this is a sensible idea? Vaseline/grease behind the riders leg is also a good protective barrier too.


----------



## MagicMelon (22 December 2015)

stencilface said:



			Surely leaving patches on a horse side for a practical reason is something that people could get behind, especially if you coudl do different shapes and bling them up?!
		
Click to expand...

One of the riders in the Sunday class had some sort of very wide stretchy band round the horse (like a super wide girth) which looked to cover where spurs would touch, I assumed it was for this very reason - that the horse was sensitive skinned and it was to help stop marks. However, if the horse is THAT sensitive, I still wonder why they need to use spurs full stop. Personally, I dislike spurs and don't use them. I'd be horrified if I saw ANY mark on my horses sides caused by them. The ground jury were correct IMO, they followed through on a rule that is in place and applies to all riders. I do agree though, that the Italian rider yanking his horse in the mouth in the puissance should equally have had something done about him.


----------



## acorn92x (22 December 2015)

MagicMelon said:



			One of the riders in the Sunday class had some sort of very wide stretchy band round the horse (like a super wide girth) which looked to cover where spurs would touch, I assumed it was for this very reason - that the horse was sensitive skinned and it was to help stop marks. However, if the horse is THAT sensitive, I still wonder why they need to use spurs full stop. Personally, I dislike spurs and don't use them. I'd be horrified if I saw ANY mark on my horses sides caused by them. The ground jury were correct IMO, they followed through on a rule that is in place and applies to all riders. I do agree though, that the Italian rider yanking his horse in the mouth in the puissance should equally have had something done about him.
		
Click to expand...

I think you're reading my mind this morning, couldn't agree more!


----------



## Clare85 (22 December 2015)

Anna Ross has written a good post on her Facebook page with a photo of Bertram's horse's sides, a photo of her horse's mouth (who was also disqualified due to blood in the mouth) and a photo of an endurance horse with a bright red mouth (which was not eliminated). I have to say, I struggled to see the blood on hers or Bertram's horse in the photos - although appreciate you do really need to see these things in the flesh.

Obviously the blood rule is there for good reason and should be upheld in all cases imo. However, the FEI need to seriously look at the consistency of their tolerance for welfare issues across all equestrian sport. It's pretty disgusting that they will deal with incidents like yesterday's with such a firm hand, yet turn a blind eye to much more serious issues in other parts of the world. 

I feel bad for Bertram, as it is the tiniest of grazes and I'm sure it was totally unintentional. But the fact remains that the graze was caused by his spur. I imagine he feels bad for the horse and devastated at losing out after such a cracking round.


----------



## popsdosh (22 December 2015)

Clare85 said:



			Anna Ross has written a good post on her Facebook page with a photo of Bertram's horse's sides, a photo of her horse's mouth (who was also disqualified due to blood in the mouth) and a photo of an endurance horse with a bright red mouth (which was not eliminated). I have to say, I struggled to see the blood on hers or Bertram's horse in the photos - although appreciate you do really need to see these things in the flesh.

Obviously the blood rule is there for good reason and should be upheld in all cases imo. However, the FEI need to seriously look at the consistency of their tolerance for welfare issues across all equestrian sport. It's pretty disgusting that they will deal with incidents like yesterday's with such a firm hand, yet turn a blind eye to much more serious issues in other parts of the world. 

I feel bad for Bertram, as it is the tiniest of grazes and I'm sure it was totally unintentional. But the fact remains that the graze was caused by his spur. I imagine he feels bad for the horse and devastated at losing out after such a cracking round.
		
Click to expand...

The FEI dont run endurance anymore hence the bending of the rules! ;-)

The stewards are in an impossible position because whatever the cause there is no defence to disqualification for blood in FEI sport. I know its crazy,most people know its crazy but thats the rules they have to work to,they cant exactly turn a blind eye at a high profile show like olympia where things like this easily show up on HD television footage everybody is watching.


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

FEI has different blood rules for different sports though, discretion is permitted in driving and Eventing for the presence of blood. 

I think I sit on the rules is rules side, but not with any additional vilification, or that how it is appalling that over these sorts of fences someone's legs might swing going over the fence. Gingers are particularly prone to rubs, I am not sure whether keeping longer patches works as they have to be in the right place (over the jumps the chestnut I saw with them they would have been too far forwards) and IME longer hair can tend to rub more (my lad is better clipped) but it may work to cover an issue up more.

In the world cup one was naked in the first round and came back with a belly band for the jump off so obviously the start of an issue was spotted maybe by steward on way out?


----------



## crabbymare (22 December 2015)

I think the wording in the rule book is to the effect that its blood or marks indicating excessive use of whip or spurs that would be the cause of any appeal he may or may not make as its clear from the round that he was not using the spurs excessively. and for info I have seen a chestnut marked from the seam of a riders boots when they were not wearing spurs so some horses do mark very easily. its a huge shame they did not speak to him immediately they saw the marks and made the decision to take it further as it would have made things a lot clearer from the start


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

I wondered if it came up more between end of round and prize giving so was only spotted later?


----------



## ljohnsonsj (22 December 2015)

I think common sense should of been used. We all saw Bertram's round,if he was kicking and flapping all over, I'm sure this whole thing would have a much different outcome, but he rode beautifully, showed everyone how it's done and set the standard well and truly. We have seen the pics, the horse had small rubs on it's sides, everyone who knows anything about horses knows how sensitive chestnuts are. Had the horse of been pouring with blood then yes, we would all have a different opinion again. The whole thing is a shambles, he was robbed of a well deserved first place and the fact Michael Whitaker gave him the first place rosette and all his fellow competitors said they couldn't barely see a mark on the horse says it all really


----------



## Orca (22 December 2015)

kassieg said:



			Your leg position is always perfect over 1m60 is it? 

He rode fantastically there is no 2 ways about it! I've seen terrible riding all week & he is disqualified. 

Having ridden a chestnut who I had to cake in vasaline when she was clipped because she got rubbed so easily from boots & spurs I can see how easily it happens! There was a guy in the puissance who had actually left patches on the sides where his legs sat because he obviously had the same issue on his chestnut.

Such a shame for the sport !
		
Click to expand...

I don't know how my leg position would be at 1.6m but that is really irrelevant. Have a look at the leg position of others who regularly jump that height - they seem to manage to keep their spurs off. Of course, anyone can take a jump less well than usual but the majority of photos of BA show this as his jumping style (along with several of him being very heavy handed). 

I used to manage over 4' regularly (not as high, I know!) on my clipped chestnut TB, with spurs and without causing injury. I used ball point spurs and wouldn't have dreamed of using anything else on a thin skinned horse, just as you took measures to look after yours.

Is it really too much to ask, that riders at the top ensure their mounts are protected from injury too? Whether that is achieved by addressing leg position, wearing less harsh spurs, not clipping or greasing? Until riders and their teams take measures to ensure their horses comfort, any injury for which a rider is culpable should lead to DQ.



MagicMelon said:



			I really dont get why ALL of them wear spurs anyway. Hopefully this sort of thing will encourage less spur usage. No matter how nice his round, if there was blood then thats totally unacceptable and the right decision was made, no matter what Geoff Billington sprouts off!
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## jrp204 (22 December 2015)

Just had a look at the photo on Anna Ross's FB page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153501805323025&set=pcb.10153501820963025&type=3&theater. Just below half way down the LH side there is a triangular mark. I am guessing this is the issue? That picture does look like a nick where the skin has pinged apart. Am I seeing this wrong?
I watched the round and he rode beautifully, but, and I mean but. If that is a wound albeit a small one should it be ignored?
I would really like to be proved wrong.


----------



## MagicMelon (22 December 2015)

The fact that there are clear marks on the horses sides in the photos all over the internet, he has therefore used the spurs inapproporiately. Spurs should never leave marks, pretty simple. If marks ARE left then the rider is causing them in whatever way or the horse IS in fact very thin skinned however then those spurs shouldn't be used. I dont know why there's been so much fuss about this, the rule is there for everyone to see. The fact he seems to be a liked guy, did a nice round and had "won" a grand prix and is now very disappointed should make no difference. It doesn't matter that he LOOKED to be riding so nicely, we all know it would be pretty easy to hide digging your heels in. The FEI can never win. I stand by my question of WHY every single showjumper seems to wear spurs nowadays? 

With regard to comparing it to endurance, we can't really as we all know the endurance world is having big welfare / rule dodging issues.


----------



## sarahann1 (22 December 2015)

I thought this take on it was pretty good. http://e-venting.co.uk/2015/12/save-it-for-the-fei/

Rules are rules, there is no fine line with blood, it's either there or it's not, the stewards aren't at fault here. The aggrieved riders should be taking it up with the rule makers, not the poor sods on the ground who have to enforce them.


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

jrp204 said:



			Just had a look at the photo on Anna Ross's FB page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153501805323025&set=pcb.10153501820963025&type=3&theater. Just below half way down the LH side there is a triangular mark. I am guessing this is the issue? That picture does look like a nick where the skin has pinged apart. Am I seeing this wrong?
I watched the round and he rode beautifully, but, and I mean but. If that is a wound albeit a small one should it be ignored?
I would really like to be proved wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Actually no, I don't think I saw anyone not swinging their legs back in the world cup on Sunday.


----------



## dixie (22 December 2015)

Wimbles said:



			I watched Bertram's jump off round and thought it was really inspiring and enjoyed it immensely.  The horse and he were an incredible partnership and no amount of rough riding will ever make a horse try for you like that horse did for him.

Obviously I don't know the full story but I was quite saddened to hear the many people criticising the stewards.  They are given a job to do and they are there to report on horse welfare.  If it is a spur mark then these things can and do happen but I personally believe that it would be a sad day if this was just completely ignored.

I do think that Bertram should not have been disqualified but Olympia could maybe have taken a similar approach to racing and given some sort of ban or fine if indeed the horse's welfare had been compromised.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.
Stewards are doing their duty and who are they to draw a line on how much of a mark is acceptable.
My view is that disqualification is too harsh and that a warning system could be in place or similar.


----------



## KautoStar1 (22 December 2015)

The rules are there to be adhered to and applied accordingly.  And that is why there is a ground jury with a vet in attendance. It is a collective decision.   The rules were applied in this case.  Perhaps the decision could have been better explained at the time.
I don't agree with a public flogging though.  There seem to be a lot of 'holier than thou' commenting on FB, twitter etc, those suggesting they would never mark their horses or that BA was a rough rider.  Clipped horses do mark easily but from the fuss being made you'd think he'd gouged his horses sides out and the poor creature was on its last legs.  Some perspective is needed people.

Personally I am far more concerned about the novice riders I see out at dressage comps, riding their fat unresponsive cobs round a walk trot test, flapping away with their spurs and whip.


----------



## popsdosh (22 December 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			The rules are there to be adhered to and applied accordingly.  And that is why there is a ground jury with a vet in attendance. It is a collective decision.   The rules were applied in this case.  Perhaps the decision could have been better explained at the time.
I don't agree with a public flogging though.  There seem to be a lot of 'holier than thou' commenting on FB, twitter etc, those suggesting they would never mark their horses or that BA was a rough rider.  Clipped horses do mark easily but from the fuss being made you'd think he'd gouged his horses sides out and the poor creature was on its last legs.  Some perspective is needed people.

Personally I am far more concerned about the novice riders I see out at dressage comps, riding their fat unresponsive cobs round a walk trot test, flapping away with their spurs and whip.
		
Click to expand...

Too true! It is a very fine line the stewards have to tread and it would have had considerable input from the vet. However in slightly different circumstances a lot would have him hung drawn and quartered for leaving those marks


----------



## Mooseontheloose (22 December 2015)

'It doesn't matter that he LOOKED to be riding so nicely, we all know it would be pretty easy to hide digging your heels in.'
Er, really? I don't think so. (Unless of course it's a hairy cob to camouflage it)
and yes, Kautostar, you'd  think the world was full of brilliant riders, far better than Bertram Allen, to judge by some posts. Funnily enough, I don't see them..........


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

ester said:



			Actually no, I don't think I saw anyone not swinging their legs back in the world cup on Sunday.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry jrp, it was meant to quote Orca!


----------



## hairycob (22 December 2015)

The rule is that blood on the flanks is disqualification. The or applies to excessive use that does not cause marks. Under the current rules once a horse is marked to the extent it bleeds there is no option not to disqualify.


----------



## jennyf (22 December 2015)

Rules are rules, and don't forget, the Stewards at Olympia are highly trained in rules and welfare.  There must have been enough cause for this call to be made.  He did however, ride a blinding round, one of the best I've ever watched on TV.  I think it's a shame that all riders have to wear spurs and have their horse's heads tied up with all sorts of gadgets these days just to get results.  I used to be a BS Judge some years ago but gave it up when I realised that I cared more for the horse's welfare than I did for the show jumping.


----------



## Charlie007 (22 December 2015)

In my opinion for what it's worth i thought he rode a masterclass of a round. No yanking and pulling, just lovely and flowing.  The horse looked happy all the way round. Had he been visibly digging his spurs in to get the horse going, yes definitely disqualification but he must have just caught the horse wrong. A few riders last night were bouncing all over their horses backs, that to me is more if a welfare issues at that level.


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

the jump off is just on repeat on the red button, I kept a really good eye on that side but other than his legs mostly ending up by his numnah (which for a sjer was actually big enough, and understandable at that height) I couldn't see anything untoward.


----------



## sasquatch (22 December 2015)

Daniel Bluman has posted the photo without a filter on it, and imo, the spur marks look even less noticeable without a filter on them that adjusts/changes the colour.

https://www.facebook.com/blumandani...9384734763385/928129537222233/?type=3&theater

looks like Bertram was most likely unlucky in that he caught the horse accidentally who had been clipped short/recently and the horse felt it and the 3 tiny marks showed up. If the horse had been darker they may not have been noticed, but unfortunately for Bertram they were. No, he is not a horse abuser, he has just happened to catch his horse and for it to be recorded in a big televised class. I don't know if it's on both, or one side of his horse.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 December 2015)

It's a shame he had spurs on. On such a forward going horse I wouldn't have thought it was needed.
Feel sorry for him as it did look a lovely round. However rules are rules I guess and they can't change them.


----------



## Clannad48 (22 December 2015)

Geoff Billington's comments on FB are interesting.......  to say the least


----------



## Pigeon (22 December 2015)

A lot of competitions have a no tolerance rule for blood, even if the horse has just bitten its tongue or whatever. I actually think this is essential. While I don't think he used the spurs excessively, it was probably a momentary accident, the photos don't lie, and you need to apply the same rules to everybody. Public opinion of equestrian sport isn't always great, and if you add 'animal cruelty' into the mix, that will only result in less televised SJ, less funding, removal from the Olympics etc etc etc. Presumably they are making an example of him.

I don't think leaving spur marks on your horse should be acceptable. I don't think blue tongues or bloody mouths are either. Apparently others disagree.


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

a lot do, not all FEI sports do - endurance, eventing and driving do not have zero tolerance for blood. If blood is automatically a horse welfare issue then surely they should all have it. Of course blood is also not really directly correlated to pain so..

They aren't even where he would have used his leg if he wanted to! Also not where you would automatically leave unclipped patches and am not sure a belly band would quite reach it either.







I have caused spur marks on my chap, he also gets girth rubs (the amount of dead sheep on this chap suggests he is perhaps similar, he is ginger . I was pretty distraught at the former but have found with experience with him that he is better clipped and with spurs - he is more easily rubbed with winter coat and heels/leg contact. It is a big penalty for a completely unintenional slip up (I don't think a blue tongue etc is ever unintentional).


----------



## NiceNeverNaughty (22 December 2015)

ester said:



			They aren't even where he would have used his leg if he wanted to! Also not where you would automatically leave unclipped patches and am not sure a belly band would quite reach it either.
.
		
Click to expand...

possibly caused by his lower leg swinging back so far - an amazing round I agree but I did notice his leg swinging back over fences, a lot


----------



## Alec Swan (22 December 2015)

Some horses,  without question,  are thin skinned.  Such horses will mark easily,  I'd have thought.  The rider should have been aware of this and worn spurs which weren't so likely to mark the animal.  

It was desperately sad to see such a top class round cancelled,  BUT &#8230;&#8230;.. Rules is Rules,  and without those rules then the blatant disregard for the welfare of the horse in sport,  would only grow.

The disqualification,  for the betterment of horse welfare,  must stand,  however it may not really be justified in this specific case.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (22 December 2015)

ester said:



			a lot do, not all FEI sports do - endurance, eventing and driving do not have zero tolerance for blood. If blood is automatically a horse welfare issue then surely they should all have it. Of course blood is also not really directly correlated to pain so..

They aren't even where he would have used his leg if he wanted to! Also not where you would automatically leave unclipped patches and am not sure a belly band would quite reach it either.







I have caused spur marks on my chap, he also gets girth rubs (the amount of dead sheep on this chap suggests he is perhaps similar, he is ginger . I was pretty distraught at the former but have found with experience with him that he is better clipped and with spurs - he is more easily rubbed with winter coat and heels/leg contact. It is a big penalty for a completely unintenional slip up (I don't think a blue tongue etc is ever unintentional).
		
Click to expand...

Eventing does have zero tolerance for blood in dressage and SJ phases horse on CC will be stopped and checked by the Vet and its their decision. Not sure why everybody is defending it ! He contravened the rules for whatever reason, it may seam harsh to some but rules are rules maybe we shouldnt have any.


----------



## HashRouge (22 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Eventing does have zero tolerance for blood in dressage and SJ phases horse on CC will be stopped and checked by the Vet and its their decision. Not sure why everybody is defending it ! He contravened the rules for whatever reason, it may seam harsh to some but rules are rules maybe we shouldnt have any.
		
Click to expand...

Yes this is the thing. I agree it seems harsh BUT if those are the rules then we have to abide by them. We can't say "oh well it was only a little bit of blood, so it doesn't matter".


----------



## sasquatch (22 December 2015)

NeverEver said:



			possibly caused by his lower leg swinging back so far - an amazing round I agree but I did notice his leg swinging back over fences, a lot
		
Click to expand...

A lot of top level riders seem to swing their leg back over fences, not all to the same level as Bertram's always does, but hey, we are not all perfect.

He has most likely caught the horse by accident, no one is suggesting it was a deliberate act of abuse and he hasn't had any reports of bad horsemanship so far, so I think it is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt this time and assume it was accidental and the marks have shown up on a horse with a recently clipped horse.

The person who spotted it must have a very good eye, and he was rightfully disqualified under the rules. However, people are allowed to question the rules, and how it was carried out at the show by both the media behind the scenes, commentators and the general confusion there seemed to be. 

I do feel like an example will be made of Bertram because he has been such a high profile 'rising star' and is making a name for himself atm, whether this is fair or not, I'm not sure, because there have definitely been worse incidents swept under the mat at top level that haven't been televised live and been caused by riders who aren't necessarily as well known. 

I still stand by my thoughts of maybe it's time to revisit the rules and edit them, especially when riders who are very heavy handed, or have other questionable techniques and practices, are allowed to do so without any repercussions. I can imagine the Italian horses that had the man who rode round without any elasticity in his contact, and landed on their backs with a thump, will be a lot sorer in the morning than a horse with 3 very small, most likely very shallow, grazes. 

I think the way the showjumping community has come together in defence of Bertram Allen is admirable, he's obviously very well liked and respected and it's desperately sad to see a big class and show ended in such a way, leaves a bitter, sour taste in the mouth. 

Not impressed with the footage the BBC showed where they were trying to eavesdrop, and you could see poor Bertram looking very confused and upset as he seemed to not know what was going on either. I'm surprised they left it until prize giving to tell him, surely they should have let him know sooner than that, so he at least didn't look so shocked on camera?


----------



## crabbymare (22 December 2015)

no problem with the rules being enforced but the findings should always be made clear to the rider at the time and not a few minutes before a prizegiving. the rules should also be consistant and be applied in all disciplines. I am thinking back to the american rider who at 2 fei shows had blood coming from the horses mouth x-c from the bit/noseband? pinching but was allowed to continue because it was not considered serious. they really do need to take out the part of the rule that says "Blood on Horses may be an indication of abuse of the Horse and must be reviewed case by case by the Ground Jury" because it seems that its leaving people like Bertram who have not fought the horse being penalised and others are allowed to continue when (using the above example of the american lady) the horse has obvious blood coming from the mouth but because it stops bleeding is not serious enough for the stewards to say disqualification. the fei really do need to clarify if blood on the body after a quiet ride = elim or if it = discretion and a warning


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (22 December 2015)

Does each horse get inspected before and after its round?


----------



## KautoStar1 (22 December 2015)

Clannad48 said:



			Geoff Billington's comments on FB are interesting.......  to say the least
		
Click to expand...

Geoff Billington should be ashamed of himself. When you start calling people *********g idiots on social media you loose the moral high ground imo.  Totally disrespectful to all those stewards who give up their time foc across the country week in week out to make sure the shows that he attends run smoothly.  If anyone should be disqualified it's Mr Billington.


----------



## Peregrine Falcon (22 December 2015)

I watched the round and thought how well the horse jumped.  Yes, you can see marks on the horse.  No-one here saw the marks in person, the ground jury/stewards did and therefore applied the rules.  Harsh but at the end of the day it's a reminder to all concerned.  

I am sure Bertram didn't go into the arena with the intention of damaging his horse and I wish him success in the future as his forward riding was lovely to watch.  He will learn from this experience.  

I saw far worse riding IMO from others than him.  Perhaps a warning system needs to be in place too to prevent further embarrassing situations as witnessed by many watching on television.


----------



## ester (22 December 2015)

I like a friend's suggestion to copy racing and let the horse keep the win and ban the jockey for a bit. 

For eventing it is:
abuse of horse definition includes:
f) Horses bleeding on the flank(s) or back indicating excessive use of the whip and/or spurs
Blood on Horses may be an indication of abuse of the Horse and must be reviewed case by case
by the Ground Jury.
In minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its tongue
or lip, or minor bleeding on limbs, after investigation the Ground Jury may authorise the Athlete
to continue. 

But abuse of horse can be dealt with by lots of options!:
a) Recorded Verbal Warning.
b) Yellow Warning Card.
c) Elimination.
d) Fine.
e) Disqualification.


SJ
Mandatory disqualification:
Horses bleeding on the flank(s), in the mouth or nose or marks indicating excessive use of spurs or of the whip anywhere
on the Horse (in minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its tongue or lip, Officials
may authorize the rinsing or wiping of the mouth and allow the Athlete to continue; any further evidence of blood in the
mouth will result in Disqualification.);

Driving

2. Wounds and Lacerations
2.1. Blood on Horses may be an indication of abuse of Horse and must be investigated case
by case by any member of the Ground Jury.
2.2. In minor cases of blood in the mouth, such as where a Horse appears to have bitten its
tongue or lip, or minor bleeding on limbs, after investigation the Athlete may be
authorized to continue.

4. Penalty
Acts deemed as Abuse of Horse will result in the imposition by the Ground Jury of any or a
combination of the following penalties:
a) Yellow Warning card
b) Fine
c) Elimination
d) Disqualification from the Event

Endurance (2016)
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.

So eventing/driving seem to have a system in place where 1) it is reviewed by ground jury and 2) said ground jury have the option of a number of different penalties not just disqualification and I don't really understand why this latter options does not exist across the board.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 December 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Geoff Billington should be ashamed of himself. When you start calling people *********g idiots on social media you loose the moral high ground imo.  Totally disrespectful to all those stewards who give up their time foc across the country week in week out to make sure the shows that he attends run smoothly.  If anyone should be disqualified it's Mr Billington.
		
Click to expand...

Grudgingly perhaps,  I have to agree with you.  Were Billington placed in the position of applying the rules,  would he have ignored the precepts and then applied his own?  If we don't or are unable to,  show respect to those who judge,  then we don't disrespect them publicly,  we replace them.  

Alec.


----------



## Zoejl (22 December 2015)

The FEI do run Endurance


----------



## SkewbyTwo (23 December 2015)

Orca said:



			In the first photo of the H&H article about this, as they go over the red and gold parallel (black wings), it's easy to see how a spur injury could have happened. Toe at a right angle to the flank, heel dug in. I'm pleased he was disqualified.
		
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish. Watch the round on video, and see this fence as it was taken. A more fluid and enabling rider, you will unfortunately almost never see. These days. If there were indeed marks on this horse, they were not made during this stunning round.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (23 December 2015)

Orca, how sad it is that you're pleased someone is eliminated. It's happened. He's taken his punishment. He's not an axe murderer, nor has he gouged holes in his horse's side nor ripped it's mouth to shreds.
I think Michael Whitaker has shown much more generosity of spirit than you have.


----------



## Kathy657 (23 December 2015)

Rumour is that another rider complained. There also is a photograph of Ben Mayer's groom laughing in the background as the result of the decision was given to Bertram. Maybe sour grapes because the ride was taken from Ben?
The marks were minuscule and I know how sensitive chestnuts can be.


----------



## Kathy657 (23 December 2015)

crabbymare said:



			I think the wording in the rule book is to the effect that its blood or marks indicating excessive use of whip or spurs that would be the cause of any appeal he may or may not make as its clear from the round that he was not using the spurs excessively. and for info I have seen a chestnut marked from the seam of a riders boots when they were not wearing spurs so some horses do mark very easily. its a huge shame they did not speak to him immediately they saw the marks and made the decision to take it further as it would have made things a lot clearer from the start
		
Click to expand...

Apparently another rider complained, so maybe when the steward originally looked at the horse when he came out of the ring he didn't notice it as it was so small?


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

Zoejl said:



			The FEI do run Endurance
		
Click to expand...

If you think that you are very naive!! They may like to think they do!


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

Ester the reason those two disciplines  are judged differently is because they both involve the possibility that the horse may contact an obstacle and cause small lacerations which the ground jury can then review . I promise you if a horse had come out of the dressage or show jumping phases showing blood it would be eliminated. There has to be a bit of wiggle room were the horse could be lacerated by an external means.
Jock Paget at Burghley was stopped CC in his infamous year with the horse bleeding, however he was only allowed to go on after it became obvious from camera footage that the horse had a small wound caused by the brush at the previous fence.There was a very lengthy discussion before he was allowed to carry on , I think maybe with what transpired he wishes he had called it a day then.


----------



## 1life (23 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Some horses,  without question,  are thin skinned.  Such horses will mark easily,  I'd have thought.  The rider should have been aware of this and worn spurs which weren't so likely to mark the animal.  

It was desperately sad to see such a top class round cancelled,  BUT &#8230;&#8230;.. Rules is Rules,  and without those rules then the blatant disregard for the welfare of the horse in sport,  would only grow.

The disqualification,  for the betterment of horse welfare,  must stand,  however it may not really be justified in this specific case.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

This exactly and brilliantly put; no ruling body can say 'These are the rules BUT in this instance.....'. I don't think anyone would say the harm was intentional but it was done and should be acknowledged, and possibly learnt from. The injury was not in an area where the horse would have repeated exposure to spur pressure (as training over 1m60 is not done too repeatedly), so possibly a 'softer' spur should have been used. Things like this need to be considered.


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (23 December 2015)

Well at least the horse's mouth will be in perfect order, he never took a pull during the whole round. Pity he hadn't worn gentler spurs.


----------



## ester (23 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Ester the reason those two disciplines  are judged differently is because they both involve the possibility that the horse may contact an obstacle and cause small lacerations which the ground jury can then review . I promise you if a horse had come out of the dressage or show jumping phases showing blood it would be eliminated. There has to be a bit of wiggle room were the horse could be lacerated by an external means.
Jock Paget at Burghley was stopped CC in his infamous year with the horse bleeding, however he was only allowed to go on after it became obvious from camera footage that the horse had a small wound caused by the brush at the previous fence.There was a very lengthy discussion before he was allowed to carry on , I think maybe with what transpired he wishes he had called it a day then.
		
Click to expand...

I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification. 
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

ester said:



			I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification. 
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.
		
Click to expand...

I would love to see how you propose policing the damage caused by spurs then! It is all to easy to give a horse a crafty boot,and I must admit you are all trying to defend this lad yet he has marked the horse and drawn blood thats not easy by accident. Would you have the same attitude to a racehorse with a whip wheal as there are a few of them that dont race anymore because they mark to easily and nobody will risk riding them.


----------



## ester (23 December 2015)

well as above damage from spur is not an external factor and therefore would equal disqualification. 
Or are you suggesting you won't be able to tell if it is from a spur or a tree?

I'm not defending him particularly I just think if it is because of the welfare of the horse than all things should be equal in all equestrian sports and think it is an interesting discussion to have.


----------



## ester (23 December 2015)

I nosied at reining. 
that is very definite too, with absolutely no leniency for mouth bleeding at all re. bitten lips/tongue

If the Equipment Judge or Chair Judge discovers fresh blood in the Horse&#8217;s mouth or in
the area of the spurs during the equipment check , the Horse and the Athlete will be
eliminated. If there is blood elsewhere on the Horse, an FEI Veterinarian is to be called to
decide if the Horse is fit to continue.


----------



## kerenza (23 December 2015)

It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

But rules are rules. I thought it was odd that we didn't hear straight away that he was disqualified though - as surely the stewards saw the blood when he came out of the ring. I can't help thinking that they were hoping he would be put out of the running by someone following him and that they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy. Would they have bothered to disqualify him if he was seventh? I think it was awful for him to watch and with every horse think he was closer to winning - only to have it taken away.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (23 December 2015)

Kathy657 said:



			Rumour is that another rider complained. There also is a photograph of Ben Mayer's groom laughing in the background as the result of the decision was given to Bertram. Maybe sour grapes because the ride was taken from Ben?
The marks were minuscule and I know how sensitive chestnuts can be.
		
Click to expand...


If a rider complained I think they should arrange the following words in the correct order:
Without sin he cast stone first who is the
Or
Calling pot black kettle
Or
Go I there God grace the for


----------



## DragonSlayer (23 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			If you think that you are very naive!! They may like to think they do!
		
Click to expand...

Not a very helpful post. I have no clue what happens in the endurance world as its not my thing, I am slightly aware however that there seems to be an undercurrent of controversy surrounding this area of equestrianism. Calling someone naive because they are reporting on what they believe is correct with regards to the ruling body of the sport is a tad childish yourself.


----------



## ycbm (23 December 2015)

kerenza said:



			It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

But rules are rules. I thought it was odd that we didn't hear straight away that he was disqualified though - as surely the stewards saw the blood when he came out of the ring. I can't help thinking that they were hoping he would be put out of the running by someone following him and that they wouldn't have to deal with the controversy. Would they have bothered to disqualify him if he was seventh? I think it was awful for him to watch and with every horse think he was closer to winning - only to have it taken away.
		
Click to expand...



I got the same reaction from my OH.

Also, no-one seems to be commenting on the fact that there are three separate holes in the horse, all with blood on them. This isn't some gentle brushing of an easily marked horse. This is a spur which somehow got caught in a bit of skin and was dragged across two ridges of skin which formed behind the first point of contact, making three marks in total.

I think the decision was correct.


----------



## ycbm (23 December 2015)

kerenza said:



			It's funny, but I think we all get a bit blindsided by this sort of thing because we know horses and ride. I saw the picture (from Twitter) and thought the ruling was harsh, especially after such a great round. But then I showed the picture to my partner (who is not at all horsey) and is was a clear no no to him - his words were 'if that's what it takes to win, then that's not fair on the horse'. He was surprised that, loving horses as I do, I didn't take it seriously. And you know what, I think he's right. It is unnecessary to hurt a horse in this manner - and the horse certainly didn't seem like it needed spurs anyway to my eye! Hopefully, Bertram will lean from this.

.
		
Click to expand...



I got the same reaction from my OH.

Also, no-one seems to be commenting on the fact that there are three separate holes in the horse, all with blood on them. This isn't some gentle brushing of an easily marked horse. This is a spur which somehow got caught in a bit of skin and was dragged across two ridges of skin which formed behind the first point of contact, making three marks in total.

I think the decision was correct.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (23 December 2015)

The ruling was correct. Perhaps if a rider cannot guarantee that a spur won't cause bleeding, they shouldn't wear them.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

DragonSlayBells said:



			Not a very helpful post. I have no clue what happens in the endurance world as its not my thing, I am slightly aware however that there seems to be an undercurrent of controversy surrounding this area of equestrianism. Calling someone naive because they are reporting on what they believe is correct with regards to the ruling body of the sport is a tad childish yourself.
		
Click to expand...

It was tongue in cheek and the only comment the poster had made was in response to my earlier comment so I dont think it was childish just a different sense of humour. Endurance does its own thing much to the FEIs embarrassment!


----------



## MrsMozart (23 December 2015)

There are marks.

There is blood.

How much blood does one need to have caused to leak from a creature before it is 'wrong'?


----------



## Orca (23 December 2015)

SkewbyTwo said:



			Utter rubbish. Watch the round on video, and see this fence as it was taken. A more fluid and enabling rider, you will unfortunately almost never see. These days. If there were indeed marks on this horse, they were not made during this stunning round.
		
Click to expand...

Have a look at the photos on the previous page of this thread. The marks appear where his heel meets flank, due to his jumping leg position.



Mooseontheloose said:



			Orca, how sad it is that you're pleased someone is eliminated. It's happened. He's taken his punishment. He's not an axe murderer, nor has he gouged holes in his horse's side nor ripped it's mouth to shreds.
I think Michael Whitaker has shown much more generosity of spirit than you have.
		
Click to expand...

Several are displeased. I am pleased, therefore displeased his horse was harmed. I feel no obligation to show generosity towards someone who blames his horses ' sensitivity' for it's injuries, rather than, with awareness of that sensitivity take steps to avoid causing harm. So, yes, I am of course pleased that welfare procedure was adhered to and that he was eliminated &#55357;&#56842;.


----------



## EstherYoung (23 December 2015)

ester said:



			I am quite aware that they may contact an obstacle :rolleyes3:, yet the endurance rules are mentioning specifically issues with tack and rubbing so not just external factors. And yes we all know the situation in endurance but on paper I don't see why the rules cannot be the same. 1) blood caused by external influence/obstacle subject to further consideration 2) blood subject to the use of tack/equipment/rider disqualification. 
I also do not see why blood in the mouth should not have a blanket rule for all disciplines.
		
Click to expand...

Spurs are banned in endurance, period. Current controversies aside, as a rule endurance horses tend to be ridden in minimal tack, quite often they are bitless, and you don't get the OTT tack that you see elsewhere if for no other reason that a) it will rub and b) the horse needs to be able to eat and drink freely.


----------



## Pebble101 (23 December 2015)

KautoStar1 said:



			Geoff Billington should be ashamed of himself. When you start calling people *********g idiots on social media you loose the moral high ground imo.  Totally disrespectful to all those stewards who give up their time foc across the country week in week out to make sure the shows that he attends run smoothly.  If anyone should be disqualified it's Mr Billington.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.  He of all people should realise he's taking it out on the wrong people - stewards are only there to make sure the rules are adhered to.  He should be ashamed of his comments, without those people the shows wouldn't happen.  Maybe it's easier for him to take it out on someone who won't bite back like the FEI could - bully boy tactics.

I steward at RC events and there are things that happen that make me wonder why I bother.  I do it not because I like doing it, but I am trying to put something back into the sport for all the years fun I had.


----------



## sav123 (23 December 2015)

Just to give a different take on the possible cause of the marks.....

Does anyone else remember some years ago a rider eliminated at Burghley (I think) for spur marks and it turned out that it was the corner of the part of the spur where the strap goes through rather than the actual spur? (Hope that makes sense!)

I noticed on the photo on here http://e-venting.co.uk/2015/12/save-it-for-the-fei/ of the rider&#8217;s foot that where the strap goes through is square whereas other spurs are oval here (eg. http://www.robinsonsequestrian.com/riding-apparel/footwear/spurs/shires-ball-end-spurs.html ).

The photo on e-venting doesn&#8217;t appear to be the same horse as it hasn&#8217;t got a sheepskin girth like the one in the photo of the marks, nor does it say that it is Bertram Allen&#8217;s foot anyway. But if his spurs have the &#8216;square&#8217; rather than the &#8216;oval&#8217;, then is it possible that that&#8217;s what made the marks rather than any use or misuse of the spur itself?


----------



## ladyt25 (23 December 2015)

Personally I think the ruling was wrong. I appreciated the rules being there and, yes if I horse is bleeding from the mouth or it's tongue is blue then that's an obvious issue. However, a small nick from a spur I don't believe warrants disqualification. A warning maybe but not disqualification. 

Some horses mark easier than others - mine can get a rash after clipping, does that mean his welfare is compromised? No, it means he has sensitive skin. Maybe Betram should have followed suit and left an unclimbed square where his heels would be. I noticed a few had so that suggests this ruling has caused issue before.

Spurs are a useful aid as they make the aid clearer and avoid the need for kicking. Yes, they can be misused and misuse should be tackled but I don't think that was the case in this instance. I think some common sense should be applied (hey, maybe it was. I wasn't there so can only speculate). However, what would have happened earlier had the horse nicked itself on its leg or something? Would he have been disqualified then? 

I just think it all seems rather ott even though I fully appreciate the thought process behind it and the rules that exist. I hope they get to show their skills again without anyone finding a way to take away their glory!


----------



## Holly Hocks (23 December 2015)

On this forum, I repeatedly read about how people are against rollkur and other forms of cruelty etc and the comments generally veer towards "the riders should be banned" or "something needs to be done about it".  In this case, the stewards did take action and appear now to be being criticised for it.  Perhaps the marks on the horse were accidental, but you can't let one person get away with it and then take action against another one.  Now that would be unfair!  The stewards were doing the job they are there to do and took action accordingly.


----------



## Alec Swan (23 December 2015)

Just a question for those who ride at a 'level';  When I see the top riders,  holding on to horses with the most surprising arrangement of ironmongery in their mouths,  and an array of strap-on aids which have me grateful that I don't ride,  and then considering that most of these high octane horses are being 'held-back' only to be released at the right moment,  then what is the point to an aid,  a spur which is likely to only up the anti?

Genuine question,  and I'd like to know the answer.  When I'm working a serious and hard going dog,  the last thing that I need to do is kick its arse and bring on a lunatic! 

Alec.


----------



## ladyt25 (23 December 2015)

I do not ride at any sort of 'level' although did a bit when I was younger. A lot of horses do seem to have a lot of metal in their mouths but then some have hardly anything. I would like to think riders use the tack that suits the horse. They are all individuals and certain tack is there for safety of both horse and rider as, an excitable, keen horse may require certain levels of 'control' in the form of bridle wear than another. This makes things 'safer' for both horse and rider. The last thing you need is an over-keen horse hurtling into a fence! 

Spurs are to enhance / make for a more definite/precise aid. They are not 'harsh' but mean a leg aid can be given more gently than a 'kick' of the heels but gets a quicker reaction. However, IF they are used incorrectly (ie the rider does kick) then they can cause injury.


----------



## NiceNeverNaughty (23 December 2015)

i dont ride at any level haha, far from it. I had a very forward going and strong horse who going XC was bitted up and wore a martingale and grakle noseband. I also rode in small spurs as he was a spooky boy with a sod of a stop on him and they enabled to push a bit of a turbo button at the last and crucial moment if he was about to say no and land us both in a heap.


----------



## moosea (23 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			Just a question for those who ride at a 'level';  When I see the top riders,  holding on to horses with the most surprising arrangement of ironmongery in their mouths,  and an array of strap-on aids which have me grateful that I don't ride,  and then considering that most of these high octane horses are being 'held-back' only to be released at the right moment,  then what is the point to an aid,  a spur which is likely to only up the anti?

Genuine question,  and I'd like to know the answer.  When I'm working a serious and hard going dog,  the last thing that I need to do is kick its arse and bring on a lunatic! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I don't ride a 'a level' Alec, but spurs are supposed to assist in giving fine tuned aids. While it may appear that riders are 'kicking it's arse' and holding it in, they are actually creating and holding impulsion, without which the horse would flatten over the fences.

The differing bits all act differently on the horses head. Some bits use pressure on the bars of the mouth, some on the roof of the mouth, others act to influence the position of the horses head. Most bits do more than one thing.


----------



## popsdosh (23 December 2015)

ladyt25 said:



			I do not ride at any sort of 'level' although did a bit when I was younger. A lot of horses do seem to have a lot of metal in their mouths but then some have hardly anything. I would like to think riders use the tack that suits the horse. They are all individuals and certain tack is there for safety of both horse and rider as, an excitable, keen horse may require certain levels of 'control' in the form of bridle wear than another. This makes things 'safer' for both horse and rider. The last thing you need is an over-keen horse hurtling into a fence! 

Spurs are to enhance / make for a more definite/precise aid. They are not 'harsh' but mean a leg aid can be given more gently than a 'kick' of the heels but gets a quicker reaction. However, IF they are used incorrectly (ie the rider does kick) then they can cause injury.
		
Click to expand...

You are running the risk of contradicting yourself if you go to the 'tackroom ' near the end of the thread you will see a picture of the horse with 3 nicks and a couple of clear wheals caused by the spurs maybe that may alter your take on things.


----------



## SpringArising (24 December 2015)

MotherOfChickens said:



			The ruling was correct. Perhaps if a rider cannot guarantee that a spur won't cause bleeding, they shouldn't wear them.
		
Click to expand...




MrsMozart said:



			There are marks.

There is blood.

How much blood does one need to have caused to leak from a creature before it is 'wrong'?
		
Click to expand...




Holly Hocks said:



			On this forum, I repeatedly read about how people are against rollkur and other forms of cruelty etc and the comments generally veer towards "the riders should be banned" or "something needs to be done about it".  In this case, the stewards did take action and appear now to be being criticised for it.  Perhaps the marks on the horse were accidental, but you can't let one person get away with it and then take action against another one.  Now that would be unfair!  The stewards were doing the job they are there to do and took action accordingly.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I struggle to see how some people can justify drawing blood on a horse in the name of winning, TBH. Certainly makes you realise that not everyone has the best interest of the horse at heart. I would be MORTIFIED if I ever drew blood from riding in spurs.


----------



## hackneylass2 (25 December 2015)

Stewards did the right thing.  Accidental or not, if you ride a sensitive skinned horse in spurs in a highly competitive environment, 'accidents' can happen. Spur of the moment?
I would say that a lot of horses competing at this level don't need to be ridden in spurs if they are highly tuned anyway. Like in football, it's  money that is creating the 'machine' mentality.  Maybe I am just old?


----------



## hairycob (25 December 2015)

I do wonder how often spurs are worn as just "part of the riding uniform". I went to a TREC training session a couple of months ago. I was the only TREC enthusiast pin my group, the others were all dressage riders out for a bit if fun. Competed at a decent level, all wore spurs. I  was a bit surprised that they felt the need for that sort of activity on a well schooled horse.


----------



## Orca (25 December 2015)

I find spurs to be a useful bit of kit. Because they don't touch the flank unless employed, even when worn they aren't necessarily in use. It shouldn't be any different from carrying a whip. They are just there if needed and in the very distracting, high energy atmosphere of high level competition, I can see where they could be useful in generating a timely response to aids for turning, etc. 

But - they have to be used correctly, kindly and without causing harm. Maybe the spur length and tip type should be confined to something effective but not potentially painful, if some riders can't effectively monitor their own safe use of them? I only use ball points and only ever have. Personal choice. I want to nudge, not stab!


----------



## Holly Hocks (25 December 2015)

hackneylass2 said:



			Like in football, it's  money that is creating the 'machine' mentality.
		
Click to expand...

So totally agree with this sentiment.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (25 December 2015)

I think he has done a fantastic job with a horse which had rather lost the plot, don't think if he'd treated like a machine it would be jumping like it is for him.


----------



## SpringArising (25 December 2015)

Orca said:



			I find spurs to be a useful bit of kit. Because they don't touch the flank unless employed, even when worn they aren't necessarily in use. They are just there if needed
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's just not true given the amount of SJers/people in general who seem to have a very unstable lower leg.

ETA - Useful comparison in the difference a good lower leg will make to the harshness of the spurs: 

Bertram - involuntarily digging them in over each fence:







Beezie:







IMO Bertram should not be allowed to use them until he's sorted his leg out.


----------



## Orca (25 December 2015)

Mooseontheloose said:



			I think he has done a fantastic job with a horse which had rather lost the plot, don't think if he'd treated like a machine it would be jumping like it is for him. It was a shame, unfortunate, sad and all these things but not a brutal or cruel act and he did not leave 'stab' holes in the horse's side.
		
Click to expand...

No, he 'scraped' holes and wheals into the horses flank. A fantastic job? No.


----------



## Orca (25 December 2015)

Orca said:



			I find spurs to be a useful bit of kit. Because they don't touch the flank unless employed, even when worn they aren't necessarily in use. It shouldn't be any different from carrying a whip. They are just there if needed and in the very distracting, high energy atmosphere of high level competition, I can see where they could be useful in generating a timely response to aids for turning, etc. 

But - they have to be used correctly, kindly and without causing harm. Maybe the spur length and tip type should be confined to something effective but not potentially painful, if some riders can't effectively monitor their own safe use of them? I only use ball points and only ever have. Personal choice. I want to nudge, not stab!
		
Click to expand...




SpringArising said:



			Unfortunately that's just not true given the amount of SJers/people in general who seem to have a very unstable lower leg.


IMO Bertram should not be allowed to use them until he's sorted his leg out.
		
Click to expand...

As I said, they need to be used correctly. My first post on this thread was to point out BA's leg position over jumps and on another thread, I suggested that someone should have addressed this with him before now, so yes, I agree!


----------



## asterope (25 December 2015)

SpringArising said:



			Bertram - involuntarily digging them in over each fence:
		
Click to expand...

He's hardly "digging" his spurs in - they're flush with the horse's side. A LOT of riders at that level swing their legs back over the fence to some extent and I hardly think it's indicative of a particularly unstable lower leg (over fences that large).

Ludger Beerbaum -






John Whitaker -






Scott Brash - 






Simon Delestre - 






You get the picture.


----------



## peaceandquiet1 (25 December 2015)

I can't believe this is an isolated occurrence. I don't mean with Bertram Allen, but if he managed to damage his horse with his fluent riding there must be other incidents where there is spur damage in SJ in general. Or did we just hear about it because he was about to win an important class which was being televised?


----------



## Mooseontheloose (26 December 2015)

I think you can find photos of anyone in any equestrian sport in a less than perfect position. 
Let's have some lovely photos of posters on this forum in their wonderful riding positions. Preferably over something more than 75cm.  Obviously there are some realy experts out there. I do hope we see them at Olympia next year - jumping not shopping that is.


----------



## popsdosh (26 December 2015)

Mooseontheloose said:



			I think you can find photos of anyone in any equestrian sport in a less than perfect position. 
Let's have some lovely photos of posters on this forum in their wonderful riding positions. Preferably over something more than 75cm.  Obviously there are some realy experts out there. I do hope we see them at Olympia next year - jumping not shopping that is.
		
Click to expand...

Doesnt change the fact his horse had three punture wounds on its flank it does not matter if you look pretty or not the blood is the damming evidence and the others that didnt look pretty managed to avoid putting holes in their horses.
I dont see how anybody can defend those marks in any circumstances at best they are careless!


----------



## popsdosh (26 December 2015)

asterope said:



			He's hardly "digging" his spurs in - they're flush with the horse's side. A LOT of riders at that level swing their legs back over the fence to some extent and I hardly think it's indicative of a particularly unstable lower leg (over fences that large).

Ludger Beerbaum -






John Whitaker -






Scott Brash - 






Simon Delestre - 






You get the picture.
		
Click to expand...

The biggest difference none of those show bleeding punture wounds.


----------



## Exploding Chestnuts (26 December 2015)

In racing, any horse with even a Bead of blood on its skin due to whip use will lead to the jock called up before the stewards. Spurs are not allowed [I think it will be in T&C]
One can argue that spurs are only used to abuse the horse, and should be banned. I think they should be....
I don't think lower leg in a high position really makes any difference to the horse, what is vital is that the rider is in balance with the horse,


----------



## Orca (26 December 2015)

Bonkers2 said:



			In racing, any horse with even a Bead of blood on its skin due to whip use will lead to the jock called up before the stewards. Spurs are not allowed [I think it will be in T&C]
One can argue that spurs are only used to abuse the horse, and should be banned. I think they should be....
I don't think lower leg in a high position really makes any difference to the horse, what is vital is that the rider is in balance with the horse,
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the high leg position is the issue but that swing, coupled with the toe turned out and heel dug in as he jumps, has led to harm by his spurs. Spurs capable of gouging should be banned, yes. There are styles incapable of gouging though and if they are to be banned then whips should be too. Both are capable of bruising if used improperly.


----------



## SpringArising (27 December 2015)

Mooseontheloose said:



			Let's have some lovely photos of posters on this forum in their wonderful riding positions. Preferably over something more than 75cm.  Obviously there are some realy experts out there. I do hope we see them at Olympia next year - jumping not shopping that is.
		
Click to expand...

Not that argument again! Doesn't matter how high the rest of us jump - I don't think any of us leave blood on our horses.


----------



## JayCeeme (4 January 2016)

I bet he wishes he had you to teach him!  In the first photo he is riding a grey and if the spurs were digging in it would show up in the second the spurs are not being used.  Armchair critics should stick to armchairs.


----------



## JayCeeme (4 January 2016)

Nonsense that horse has gone well and won with many riders including Jessica Botham Ben Maher Chloe Aston Swedish Rider (forgotten her name).  As for losing the plot he has done nothing but win and been placed including winning three cars a month or so ago.


----------



## popsdosh (5 January 2016)

JayCeeme said:



			Nonsense that horse has gone well and won with many riders including Jessica Botham Ben Maher Chloe Aston Swedish Rider (forgotten her name).  As for losing the plot he has done nothing but win and been placed including winning three cars a month or so ago.
		
Click to expand...

However he broke the rules so end of ! There is no mitigating circumstances that mean it gets dropped ,he cut the horse with his spurs

FGS let the lad get on with his life he will recover and be wiser for it!


----------



## teapot (5 January 2016)

Seems a shame that this is still rumbling on when Irish Sj has bigger things to move on from ie they won't be going to Rio...


----------



## pip6 (18 January 2016)

I truly disgusting thing that I think should be highlighted beyond this thread is the total lack of a blood rule in endurance (and yes I am an EGB member)  because all to often they occur to horses ridden from certain countries who pour money into the FEI. In yet another example of the FEI looking the other way to get money, this is something which I personally have witnessed. I know of a vet at a major EGB ride who was going to eliminate a horse due to large amounts of blood in her mouth due to poor riding, but was told her couldn't as the horse was being ridden by a high level sheik. Incidents as this are not uncommon! It should be a blanket rule across ALL FEI sports. Please help keep pressure on the FEI to take control of endurance back out the hands of the money givers. You should not be able to buy/cheat your way to success.


----------

