Read most recent communication from Hilda regarding the elimination at Pau.  Captain Mark Phillips wrote on the subject and was published in Horse & Hound.  Dr. Scott Langton also writes about the experience from his perspective- all included here along with new pictures.  Look for video from Pau coming soon- available in free members section.  

Being eliminated for dangerous riding at any level in any discipline is a serious offense. I was in total disbelief when stopped on course at Pau CCI**** having had a good run and with only four fences left to jump, I was eliminated for “dangerous riding”. The irony is that the ground jury assured me that I at no time rode dangerously, but they did not like my horse’s inverted jumping style. I was told that if the brush fences we jumped had been tables we may have landed on the table. Extravagance never touched any of the tables. He is an experienced horse who knows to jump through brush. He never hit a solid fence, never caught a stifle, hung a leg nor twisted. Noteworthy is that in Extravagance’s entire career he has only incurred one 20 and several years ago a 60 for a fall with his previous rider. His jumping style may not be classic, but it has served him well. There have been numerous successful event horses that have had their own unique jumping technique.

In the nine months I have owned this special horse he has completed 4 FEI events (earning 4^th and 6^th at two ), and three Advanced horse trials and never once has his jumping style been questioned. Indeed his jumping has improved significantly as he was purchased with a history of taking many show jumping rails; however in his last two events (one being a CIC***) he jumped clean.

I would have liked to have show jumped at Pau. I was unfairly denied that opportunity.

I made safe, sensible decisions on course and never rode fast or dangerously. There were other riders who had questionable fences, they were not stopped. When I asked about this the ground jury stated that there was a rider they wanted to stop but could not! They also agreed that it was not possible to watch every rider at all times. If a system is in place to eliminate riders it needs to be fair and applied to all riders, not just one like myself, who could be stopped. Further, there needs to be clarification regarding the “dangerous riding” rule. After all, I was charged with this, but told I did not ride dangerously. Not only did I find this perplexing and absurd, it also caught the eye and concern from Captain Mark Phillips who submitted this article that was published on October 29, 2009 in Horse and Hound magazine:

“To yellow card or not?…These days controversy never seems to be far away.  The ground jury quite correctly stopped Alison Springer’s Destination Known from going across country at Pau - the horse was uncomfortable all over after its long journey from the US.  However, Hilda Hick Donahue, after a similar journey, was stopped just four fences from home because Extravagance was jumping in an “upside down” shape.  She was not going fast and sensibly had taken some long routes.  And there was no yellow card for dangerous riding.  In stark contrast Tim Price and Vortex hit a number of fences so hard that he was ejected out of the saddle more than once and it was only with extreme athleticism that he managed to stay on, yet he was not stopped.”

Several yellow cards were issued at Pau. I did not receive one, yet was eliminated. There was a strong belief at Pau that in the aftermath of Burghley, where a rider was not stopped and his horse ended up on a fence, the ground jury at Pau was on high alert to react.

I applaud all officials everywhere for their increasing attention to safety, and while the judgment of dangerous riding is a subjective one, it is important that it not be used to turn our sport into a “style competition”. Likewise, no individual should be granted permission to establish what they consider an “appropriate” jumping technique in cross country. Nowhere in the rulebook is there mention of a horse’s jumping form being judged, yet my horse’s fashion is what got him eliminated. At present the USEF defines dangerous riding and the penalties for it as follows:

1. Any competitor who rides in such a way as to constitute a hazard to the safety or wellbeing

of the competitor, horse, other competitors, their horses, spectators, or others will

penalized accordingly.

2. Any act or series of actions that in the opinion of the Ground Jury can be defined as

dangerous riding shall be penalized by 25 penalties or elimination and/or the issuance of a

Warning Card, at the discretion of the Ground Jury. In addition, the overall score for the

horse/rider combination shall not be considered a National Qualifying Result.

EC 5/19/08 Effective 12/1/08

3. If such actions are reported, the Ground Jury shall decide if there is a case to be

answered. If an individual member of the Ground Jury observes such actions, he may eliminate

or penalize the competitor forthwith on his own authority. There is no appeal against a

Ground Jury decision.

4. The Ground Jury and the Technical Delegate have the authority to stop a rider on the

cross country course for dangerous riding, riding an exhausted horse, excessive pressing of

a tired horse, riding an obviously lame horse, excessive use of the whip and/or spurs or riding

in an unsafe way.

5. The President of the Ground Jury may, in addition, designate one or several deputies

(i.e. Eventing Officials up to the level for which they are licensed and not in an official function

at the Event, any Level 3 or 4 USEA ICP Instructor or any rider who has represented

the USA in a World Championship, Olympic Games, or Pan American Games) for the Cross

Country to advise the Ground Jury regarding any action described in 1 or 4 (above).

Deputies and obstacle judges will be provided with a red flag to be waved at the rider, at the

direction of Ground Jury, to stop the rider if the situation continues or if the infringement of

the above is deemed to be serious.

The consequences of my elimination are far reaching. Extravagance’s record is now tarnished. Explaining the Pau experience to supporters and sponsors does not portray our sport in a favorable manner, and as a result, my career has been interfered with. These costs are tremendous. Dollars aside, I would NEVER have subjected my special partner to the rigorous trip to Pau (we left Florida on Oct 7^th) if I had known his jumping style was going to be scrutinized and would result in elimination.

We all make mistakes in riding and life and progress is dependent on being mature and honest enough to admit these mistakes and learn from them.  This is certainly my philosophy.  In this situation there seems to be no doubt that the ground jury made a mistake.  Whether or not they admit this mistake will be an indication of what type of decisions we can expect from ground juries in the future and their willingness to learn. I realize that officials do not have an easy job, and unlike some sports there is no instant replay in eventing. My request is made on behalf of all riders and while maintaining a watchful eye, officials must apply the rules consistently and fairly. Officials must continue to work to clarify the definition of “dangerous riding” so that cross country does not evolve into a situation where personal preferences determine competition results. As the FEI focuses more on safety and horse welfare, it is increasingly clear that officials are going to need more guidance from training videos and the like to get more consistency in their decisions.

At the end of the day I am so thrilled with my wonderful horse. He did, in essence, jump around a **** track. He and I will continue on our program working with some of the best professionals available. I look forward to a safe and successful 2010.

‘Everyone brought their game-face to the competition….except…’

October 24, 2009 may possibly be the most learned day in my veterinary career.  After traveling a great distance with horse, rider, equipment, and support personnel, a stark reality was realized that day in Pau, France.  Despite the pomp and circumstance of an international CCI****, no competitor would compete in a fair, equitable event….; in fact, subjectivity,  arbitrary enforcement of regulations, obscure or absent standards prevailed over such an OBJECTIVE phase of the event.  Standards for cross-country are apparently changing so rapidly, there is not time to formally adopt such changes, much less put in print.

After personally interviewing the FEI ground jury, other competitors and trainers, and better understanding the technical logistics of the competition, several certainties were realized.  Assuming the best intentions of the ground jury, any sort of fair, honest oversight of the cross-country portion of this event was not possible.

“We are human, mistakes are made, and we are not able to watch every horse/rider throughout the progress of the course.” was the reply I received when interviewing the three ground jury officials.  ”Attempts were made to pull up other riders while on course, but were unsuccessful….we (officials) were not able to get them stopped, and, unfortunately, were able to complete the course.”

This was an incredibly accurate statement.  After the mind-boggling amount of time, energy, practice, and financial resources each competitor committed, the very agency in charge of insuring a safe, fair competition failed to implement the personnel and technology to properly make huge decisions, in a fair, decisive manner.  Such is the case with deciding to stop, and eliminate a rider with only four obstacles remaining to complete.  However, given the fact there are three (possibly four) riders on the course at one time, two ’spotters’ to observe 200+ acres of cross-country terrain, and one ground jury looking at a few LCD screens (which did not allow them to look at all the horses on course), ‘real-time’ decision making about a horse/rider on course IS dangerous.  It is also irresponsible, which undermines the basic premise of having rules and regulations in place to safeguard the horse and rider.

My learned day includes understanding the fear competitors have of the FEI.  Without the appropriate qualified personnel and technology (video coverage of every obstacle), no more than 50% of any ‘unsafe’ or ‘dangerous’ rides could POSSIBLY be observed, much less judged by a clear objective standard). Thus, running cross-country is a double entendre of ‘rolling the dice’.  Once with the horse/rider combination…the other with decision making ability of the officials.

Scott Langton, DVM