What do YOU all think about this? - Page 2
   

       The Horse Forum > Riding Horses > English Riding > Jumping

What do YOU all think about this?

This is a discussion on What do YOU all think about this? within the Jumping forums, part of the English Riding category
  • Adelinde cornelissen crying
  • Adelinde cornelissen welfare case

Like Tree37Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    08-06-2012, 02:20 PM
  #11
Yearling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~anebel~*~    
Choose - do you want the FEI to uphold welfare or not?!
I want the FEI to upload welfare when there is risk to the horse, rider or an unfair advantage. Team Canada has stated, it was a SCRATCH or a nick of sorts and had zero effect on the horses soundness. The FEI took a rule to protect the horses and applied a blanket ruling here. Even though I am a Canadian, I would not have agreed to this ruling regardless of the country.

Edit:

I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not the rule needs to be there, but as a commentator stated it's unlikely when the rule was drafted it was meant to apply to what has been referred to as a minor scratch. A total gross understanding of the rule...
princess warrior likes this.
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    08-06-2012, 02:31 PM
  #12
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinxremoving    
I want the FEI to upload welfare when there is risk to the horse, rider or an unfair advantage. Team Canada has stated, it was a SCRATCH or a nick of sorts and had zero effect on the horses soundness. The FEI took a rule to protect the horses and applied a blanket ruling here. Even though I am a Canadian, I would not have agreed to this ruling regardless of the country.

Edit:

I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not that the rule needs to be there, but as a commentator stated it's unlikely when the rule was drafted it was meant to apply to what has been referred to as a minor scratch. A total gross understanding of the rule...

And you were there and saw the injury?? Or are you speculating??

Of course the Canadians are downplaying the size of the "scratch". The FEI veterinarian has said that it is BOTH a cut AND a CRACK in the hoof and that the horse is hypersensitive and there is enough of a result on a thermo scan to determine the horse unfit to compete. IMO The FEI went through all routes of testing available to them to determine if the horse was fit to compete or not. Of course it is subjective, of course it sucks for the girl but a statment from the FEI vet: "Allen said that if the horse was his he would not ride it and would administer antibiotics." raises flags to me on the severity of the injury.
A cut the size of the end of a pen was enough to eliminate Adelinde Cornelissen from the WEG - how is this ANY different. The FEI is simply upholding the welfare of the horse as they have been asked to do before on other issues. And now everyone is crying about them "crushing a girl's Olympic dreams"??? So what should there be a welfare of the rider clause now too???
Gremmy, HowClever and AlexS like this.
     
    08-06-2012, 02:52 PM
  #13
Yearling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~anebel~*~    
And you were there and saw the injury?? Or are you speculating?
Just once in my life, I would like to respond with: Yes. I was there and here are the photographs. See that arrow, since without it, you wouldn't know what you are looking at because it's so small, but that's the scratch and here's the video of him in the warm-up ring 5 minutes after being disqualified jumping like he's in the prime of his life. :)

...

Your comment regarding Adelinde Cornelissen was also mentioned as being another pathetic example of the FEI applying a blanket ruling. Like most riders, it's safe to assume they would put the safety of the horse over the honour of winning a medal. Obviously I wasn't there, but if Team Canada is saying the horse is 100% sound than I'm obligated to believe them. This isn't the first time an Olympic ruling turned out to be malicious with regards to Canada... so it's not a far stretch to suspect something like that.

The option of an appeal should be allowed regarding hyper-sensitivity because it really is an open ended book... perhaps an independent team of vets composed of several countries for total non-bias. It's just not fair that a team of ground judges, numbers + nations unknown, get to rule on something like this with no recourse for the competing team to dispute.
princess warrior likes this.
     
    08-06-2012, 03:13 PM
  #14
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinxremoving    
Just once in my life, I would like to respond with: Yes. I was there and here are the photographs. See that arrow, since without it, you wouldn't know what you are looking at because it's so small, but that's the scratch and here's the video of him in the warm-up ring 5 minutes after being disqualified jumping like he's in the prime of his life. :)

...

Your comment regarding Adelinde Cornelissen was also mentioned as being another pathetic example of the FEI applying a blanket ruling. Like most riders, it's safe to assume they would put the safety of the horse over the honour of winning a medal. Obviously I wasn't there, but if Team Canada is saying the horse is 100% sound than I'm obligated to believe them. This isn't the first time an Olympic ruling turned out to be malicious with regards to Canada... so it's not a far stretch to suspect something like that.

The option of an appeal should be allowed regarding hyper-sensitivity because it really is an open ended book... perhaps an independent team of vets composed of several countries for total non-bias. It's just not fair that a team of ground judges, numbers + nations unknown, get to rule on something like this with no recourse for the competing team to dispute.

Serious?? Just because Canadians are severely underfunded and have very few qualifiers in their home country does not mean the FEI is malicious or rules against them!! Give your head a shake!
They DID appeal - the appeal was then denied. Everything has followed FEI policy and appeal rules. Suck it up buttercups.

FEI was not applying a "blanket ruling" to Adelinde either. The ruling was extremely clear in that matter that if there is any blood on the horse the ground jury must eliminate them. The resulting backlash led into a huge inquiry and it was determined that MOST decent people don't want an FEI horse trotting around the ring with blood running out of it's mouth BUT they added in a discretionary clause. So now the blood rule is discretionary, the same as the sensitivity rule.

Having actually been to, helped run and competed in international competitions (and with a horse with a nasty bit of scratches) I can tell you that the ground jury, the FEI vets, the FEI stewards, etc.. are all there to uphold the welfare of the horse, but not to keep riders from competing. Throughout the whole competition I was in constant contact with the vet over my horse's scratches and had filled out exemption requests for using a low grade antibiotic to get the horse through the competition. The horse was fine with any amount of poking and prodding and passed all the horse inspections just fine, including a hypersensitivity test.

Also - at these competitions there is a body of vets, stewards and judges from many countries making the decisions. They are all also very unbiased! The fact you would suggest that is rather appalling.
     
    08-06-2012, 04:22 PM
  #15
Yearling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~anebel~*~    
Serious?? Just because Canadians are severely underfunded and have very few qualifiers in their home country does not mean the FEI is malicious or rules against them!! Give your head a shake!
They DID appeal - the appeal was then denied. Everything has followed FEI policy and appeal rules. Suck it up buttercups.
Yawn.

I ride at a barn with a member of the Canadian Equestrian Team and I know with 100% confidence that our team is just as well funded as the Americans and British. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the finances and people made available to them, princess. The appeal was denied BECAUSE THE RULE SAYS THERE ARE NO APPEALS! That's the only reason, and that's complete and utter BS.

You will probably never have the opportunity to make it to an FEI sanctioned event hence the sheer bitterness spewing from your fingers...
     
    08-06-2012, 04:33 PM
  #16
Yearling
Furthermore, princess, let me direct you to this link:

2002 Olympic Winter Games figure skating scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it happened in figure skating with one rogue judge it can happen in the FEI's ground jury with one rouge vet. For all we know, there could have been a single vet that was responsible for the decision. Maybe there were a few involved but the senior (rouge) vet convinced everyone else to agree with his decision, his completely incorrect decision at that. Who knows!

Regardless though, I have a hard time believing if you were in Tiffany Fosters shoes you would have just sat back and accepted the decision "for the safety of the horse" KNOWING FULL WELL THE HORSE IS 100% SOUND. You like to make it sound that the CET is full of idiots, who don't have their own vets, who don't have any money and that they would have rode an injured horse. There isn't a single member of the CET and our Olympic governing body who agrees with you, but hey, what do they know.
     
    08-06-2012, 04:33 PM
  #17
Trained
Really? That's very nice. And yes I have been both on the organization and competition end of a CDI. I believe the FEI operates in a fair manner and does a good job of representing the international equine community in an unbiased fashion. This speaking from experience of working with them and their delegates, stewards, vets and judges. Many of whom I know personally and have trained at some of their facilities.

It's really nice you think they have a "personal vendetta" against Canadians. And that I'm "bitter". The bitter one is the one blaming a huge, international organization for eliminating a rider based on rules which have been studied and discussed by numerous councils to promote fair sport and welfare of the horse. If you really have an issue with the operation of the FEI, maybe you should right them a letter instead of spewing on a forum.

An BTW both Germany and Saudi Arabia to name a few countries have medalled in thus Olympics due in no small part to public or government funding. The EC can't even afford to hire Robert Dover to coach the Dressage. So while many individuals may be well funded as individuals, as a whole the govt can't even give $20 grand to a rider through OTP. Which might cover a box overseas and quarantine. Canadian Equestrians are severely underfunded by govt and their sport body compared to the countries doing well at this Olympics.

ETA you think I've never been on the **** end of an elimination? Wow. If I was Tiffany Foster I probably would have first made some different decisions and then sucked it up a bit better. **** happens, its horses. Adelinde was never crying in the media.
Posted via Mobile Device
jinxremoving and HowClever like this.
     
    08-06-2012, 04:37 PM
  #18
Yearling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~anebel~*~    
Really? That's very nice. And yes I have been both on the organization and competition end of a CDI. I believe the FEI operates in a fair manner and does a good job of representing the international equine community in an unbiased fashion. This speaking from experience of working with them and their delegates, stewards, vets and judges. Many of whom I know personally and have trained at some of their facilities.

It's really nice you think they have a "personal vendetta" against Canadians. And that I'm "bitter". The bitter one is the one blaming a huge, international organization for eliminating a rider based on rules which have been studied and discussed by numerous councils to promote fair sport and welfare of the horse. If you really have an issue with the operation of the FEI, maybe you should right them a letter instead of spewing on a forum.

An BTW both Germany and Saudi Arabia to name a few countries have medalled in thus Olympics due in no small part to public or government funding. The EC can't even afford to hire Robert Dover to coach the Dressage. So while many individuals may be well funded as individuals, as a whole the govt can't even give $20 grand to a rider through OTP. Which might cover a box overseas and quarantine. Canadian Equestrians are severely underfunded by govt and their sport body compared to the countries doing well at this Olympics.
Posted via Mobile Device
I don't know much about the dressage or cross country, but the Canadian show jumping team is funded enough. Sure we don't have $40,000,000 horses like the Saudi's but we're certainly not a poor team or struggling by any means. :)

Either way, I apologize for my rudeness directed at you. This whole thing just bugs me and as a Canadian I feel insanely wronged. While we don't know factually how bad Victor's injury is, I'm still inclined to believe our team and not just what the FEI has stated. I guess my main gripe is, the lack of having an appeal. (As I stated the appeal was denied because in the rules, it states there are no appeals... lol.)
     
    08-06-2012, 06:13 PM
  #19
Foal
I didn't read this article(unless it's the same one I read yesterday) but in my opinion the DQ was a bit ridiculous. The article I read said it a was superficial cut, in which case it most likely was not bad at all, and the article I read said they didn't even jog him to see if he was sound. It's so easy to get a superficial cut, and it probably caused no damage and would not have hurt the horse to have shown at all. I feel bad for Tiffany that her first olympic experience ended like this. Also, this doesn't 100% relate to this thread, but I think horse's should jog for soundness/vet check first & then be allowed to have certain precautionary medications, such as bute. 1.60m for multiple days in a row is HARD on a horse. And yes, I realize the FEI does all of this for the horse & rider safety, but still, it's a bit over the top sometimes...
     
    08-06-2012, 06:31 PM
  #20
Yearling
I agree with the ruling (and I'm Canadian). Horse welfare aside, there has to be a zero tolerance policy for things like this, otherwise it opens the door for some teams to be treated differently than others. As soon as you start adding if's, and's, or but's into the equation you leave room for officials to make decisions based on the wrong reasons.

We weren't really in medal contention anyway. I think we did well considering. We'll never be as successful as we were when we had Hickstead.
     

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0