DefinitelyDressage.com

Chisamba wrote:so she has been "outed" and "harassed" and there are people who still claim its not bullying? really?

Exactly. Of course it's bullying.

I still think the person who wrote the initial article decrying abuse, etc. is still in for a lawsuit.
I know it's been said that the show organizer allowed the transmission of the ride feeds. I am positive
that taking the video and rebroadcasting it to make a personal attack on the rider is outside of the
generally accepted use of the livestream.

galopp wrote:(The Hampton classic rider was suspended and fined $5000.) The Del mar rider has her own agency, it's not outing, it's pretty easy to investigate. For me, it is the judging criteria is what must be under serious scrutiny. Meanwhile, who protects the horses???

Not at the event. It was given after investigation from the video.

As for who protects the horse, I have already given my clear opinion that all the blabbering has done nothing to protect the horse...

But since YOU asked who do you think should?

If people on the internet discuss their favourite football players, and are disappointed in their performance is that bullying?
If they talk about the performance and want a player reprimanded or dropped from the team, is that bullying?

What you seem to be saying is that a discussion, that is not directed towards the rider is bullying the rider.
You need to be clear. How is that bullying? Might be defamation if the statements made are false, but it isn't bullying. Might also be defamation of the TD, if people are saying that she was treated differently because of her financial status.

If someone sent her the link, and told her she was crap, that might be bullying. If someone threatened her, or called her names, that is.
A discussion? Even one holding strong opinions is not.

To be bullied involves some actual personal involvement. Harassment needs personal involvement.

Who is pledged to protect the horse/the rules? The judges/TDs and the teachers/trainers. When they don't, then it is incumbent upon all horsemen to do so. And that, on most social media, has been the point. It is not the rider per se, it is the score given (esp the rider score) as well. This has to be stopped, and it is happening more and more (have seen it at two shows, and it is the TDs which have eliminated not the judges who dont even give the rides 40%s).

I just watched the video - the rider knew the ride was going to be seen by thousands and she was going to be critiqued whether it was a good or bad ride.
Why didn't she just disqualify herself? Did she think she was performing a good test? If her trainer was on the sidelines could she have helped the situation by giving her a sign to stop the test? If she would have quit she could have had an excuse for what was going on, the horse or I am having a bad day., and that would have been the end of it.

I just watched it too and heard the commentary. Of course she knew it was going to be seen. I agree Hayburner.

galopp wrote:Who is pledged to protect the horse/the rules? The judges/TDs and the teachers/trainers. When they don't, then it is incumbent upon all horsemen to do so. And that, on most social media, has been the point. It is not the rider per se, it is the score given (esp the rider score) as well. This has to be stopped, and it is happening more and more (have seen it at two shows, and it is the TDs which have eliminated not the judges who dont even give the rides 40%s).

In this age of political correctness to a fault, I think judges may be worried about being accused of bullying if they give a score that low.
Can you imagine the outrage?

Oh poor Sweetums was having a bad day and couldn't do a 10 m circle. did the judge HAVE to give her such a low score?

I didn't hear the commentary - guess, I need to go back and turn up the volume.

Really? Judges have to worry about being accused of bullying? Umpires/referees call it like they see it, I assume that's what dressage judges do too. It's their trained eye, it's their opinion, it's what's in the rule books. IF you don't want to be at the mercy of the judges; don't show, if you don't want low scores, practice, practice. Don't go to a rated show if you are over fenced/unprepared/unable to accept the judges decisions. As happily as you take the good comments, learn to accept criticism and use them to improve.

Are their judges that maybe aren't 100% fair with the scores, or like a particular horse better than yours; probably, but you put yourself out their to be "judged", accept the scores/comments.

I can say this lightly because I don't show. I may never show, because I don't like being "judged". I'm not a competitive person.

Hayburner wrote:I didn't hear the commentary - guess, I need to go back and turn up the volume.

Really? Judges have to worry about being accused of bullying? Umpires/referees call it like they see it, I assume that's what dressage judges do too. It's their trained eye, it's their opinion, it's what's in the rule books. IF you don't want to be at the mercy of the judges; don't show, if you don't want low scores, practice, practice. Don't go to a rated show if you are over fenced/unprepared/unable to accept the judges decisions. As happily as you take the good comments, learn to accept criticism and use them to improve.

Are their judges that maybe aren't 100% fair with the scores, or like a particular horse better than yours; probably, but you put yourself out their to be "judged", accept the scores/comments.

I can say this lightly because I don't show. I may never show, because I don't like being "judged". I'm not a competitive person.

My post was sort of tongue in cheek.

Chancellor - LOL....

I will say I have heard some riders that show heavily mention the dislike for certain judges and their negative comments. Yet, when their is a nice comments you would think that judge "hung the moon" ! LOL

Many, many years ago, I did an in house show - it was judged by the kids in the FFOA group, one girl put down that my horses head was too big for his body! OMG, I was appalled ! I have never forgotten that comment and my feeling that I have the most beautiful and perfect horse in the world, how could she say that!!

Maybe that's why I don't show...LOL

Hayburner wrote:Chancellor - LOL....

I will say I have heard some riders that show heavily mention the dislike for certain judges and their negative comments. Yet, when their is a nice comments you would think that judge "hung the moon" ! LOL

Many, many years ago, I did an in house show - it was judged by the kids in the FFOA group, one girl put down that my horses head was too big for his body! OMG, I was appalled ! I have never forgotten that comment and my feeling that I have the most beautiful and perfect horse in the world, how could she say that!!

Maybe that's why I don't show...LOL

There, there - in some circles a large cranium is considered an asset.

redsoxluvr wrote:

Chisamba wrote:so she has been "outed" and "harassed" and there are people who still claim its not bullying? really?

Exactly. Of course it's bullying.

I still think the person who wrote the initial article decrying abuse, etc. is still in for a lawsuit.
I know it's been said that the show organizer allowed the transmission of the ride feeds. I am positive
that taking the video and rebroadcasting it to make a personal attack on the rider is outside of the
generally accepted use of the livestream.

If the show has livestreaming, doesn't the entry form identify that and the rider sign off on that?
I know when there's a photographer at an event it is generally on the entry form that they will be there.

I think the rider was 'outed' primarily because of that livestream, the info is/was flashed at the bottom of the screen.

The whole PC/Bullying thing is a head scratcher to me.
IT seems to me those who were the most upset that the world was getting 'too PC' are the first ones to get upset when someone they know is 'attacked' or 'bullied'. It makes me very confused. Is the world 'too PC' and we all need to stop being snowflakes and simply tell it like it is.... or not?

Angfreda wrote:
The whole PC/Bullying thing is a head scratcher to me.
IT seems to me those who were the most upset that the world was getting 'too PC' are the first ones to get upset when someone they know is 'attacked' or 'bullied'. It makes me very confused. Is the world 'too PC' and we all need to stop being snowflakes and simply tell it like it is.... or not?

I am much happier when people tell it like it is....

Me, too (telling it like it is), but even that can be done in a diplomatic vs. cruel way.

I think back to my own example. Back when UDBB was struggling near its final end, I stumbled upon a thread about UDBB on COTH. In that thread, a few people were choosing to kick me around the curb as blame for the demise of UDBB. While it wasn't nice to see that, what really upset me was when some of them made it personal by saying things like "she couldn't even ride, her poor horses for putting up with her" or something to that effect. I'm no dressage queen, that's for sure, but I think I'm half decent in the saddle and have had success at shows & clinics to gauge my progress.

To me, that sort of personal attack is never helpful, and I saw that happening with Shelley Browning. it's uncalled for. Shelley's ride was not at all appropriate and she broke rules during her Friday ride that I think ought to have been rung out (one-handed whip, for example). But to take it a step further and attack her personally (not in this thread, I mean in some of the stuff I read elsewhere online) is unnecessary and dilutes the valid riding concerns in a sea of ad hominem attacks.

Chancellor wrote:

Angfreda wrote:
The whole PC/Bullying thing is a head scratcher to me.
IT seems to me those who were the most upset that the world was getting 'too PC' are the first ones to get upset when someone they know is 'attacked' or 'bullied'. It makes me very confused. Is the world 'too PC' and we all need to stop being snowflakes and simply tell it like it is.... or not?

I am much happier when people tell it like it is....

Alas sometimes 'is' is in the eye of the beholder.

I've copied and pasted from another thread with some edits:

I haven't read all the threads that pertain to this issue; so, I can't speak to the alleged behavior on COTH. What I do want to address is:

Abuse isn't hard to define and every jurisdiction has a legal definition of it. Because I'm certified in animal abuse and neglect investigation and teach others how to investigate crimes of this nature, I am often in a position to describe the type of suffering an animal goes through by relating it to what would be an equivalent experience to a human. When I start to describe the physiologic process that goes on based on forensics and/or medical knowledge it's amazing to see the response and reaction of those listening. I have not seen the video but have read some of the threads that have spun off in reaction to what occurred. My questions during a potential abuse situation/case where I'm called in to investigate or help the prosecution usually start out with - (1) Did the animal suffer unnecessary pain? (2) Did the animal suffer unnecessary fear? (3) Was the animal unable to remove itself from an adverse situation without risking more injury to itself? Now as for welts and blood, yes, people want 'concrete' physical evidence so that there is no question as to the crime and damage; but, in my opinion that is the problem with the system - everyone waits until it's too late. I'll also point out that most of 'my' cases will include in the description of what occurred, the length of time of the suffering/infliction of pain. I then ask the court if they feel that it's reasonable to make an animal or a human go through that pain when all agree the pain was not necessary and was preventable. In this case I would add with the research to back it up that a repeated trauma delivered sequentially does increase the physiological response/reaction to fear and pain that is elicited - it is compounded until a threshold is reached. That threshold does vary with the individual animal to a degree; but, just because one can tolerate more than another or for longer time than another.......does that make it right or tolerable? My point is that just because the horse didn't bleed and as far as anyone knew at the time, welts were not apparent (there can be some delay in these developing) that the animal DID SUFFER pain and it wasn't necessary! That is ABUSE. I'm well aware of more severe examples that occur and are tolerated; but, that still doesn't make this person's behavior or choice in how she displayed her frustration okay and I will again submit that it's still ABUSE.

These situations often occur when rules and regulations are not enforced. Making more rules and regulations seldom will evoke the desired response or make an offending individual suddenly conform. There is no doubt in my mind reading the consensus that this rider should have been eliminated right from the beginning. What is horribly twisted and ironic is that I've seen very nice championship rides that were eliminated because the rider forgot to drop the whip going from warm-up to the show ring (clear cut break in rules) but a person whipping a horse one-handed (clear-cut break in the rules) didn't get eliminated because they failed to draw blood? Even on the race track improper use of the whip (yes, usually viewed via video replay) will and does lead to disqualification. If the dressage officials cannot police this type of thing effectively, other groups will. I'm willing to bet if there was some appetite in the animal control circles where that show occurred, a video and a description of the type of pain and suffering an animal suffers with that type of force applied is all that would be needed to bring charges, even if they are just misdemeanors. I'm not proposing such but it's these type of situations that repeatedly ignored fuel the arguments of those who think all riding is cruel, all showing is cruel, etc............ The dressage officials need to get their heads out of their asses and figure out that if they don't have the balls to stop it when it's happening someone else will eventually step in and change things, and won't necessarily 'be better' for the sport.

Ignorance nor pointing out that others get away with it or worse are appropriate or valid defenses in court, nor should they be accepted as reasons/excuses elsewhere. Disqualification/elimination demonstrates a lack of tolerance for this kind of behavior which is addressed in the rules and also demonstrates that those who hail at the helm of dressage showing do walk the talk. This type of 'punishment' still sends a message and is better than getting a misdemeanor slapped against you.

thank you exvet --well said!

Well said exvet.
Did some of the discussion on COTH go too far? Sure. Threatening SB directly was uncalled for.
We need to have discussions about what to do in cases like this.
As exvet said, this abuse was not definably clear cut as blood visible.

How many of us saw the World Cup where Stefan Peters was disqualified because his spur caught his horse during a spook and drew blood? Was that abuse? No. Should he have been eliminated? Yes. It's not always clear cut.
But discussions about this need to happen.

DJR wrote:I think back to my own example. Back when UDBB was struggling near its final end, I stumbled upon a thread about UDBB on COTH. In that thread, a few people were choosing to kick me around the curb as blame for the demise of UDBB. While it wasn't nice to see that, what really upset me was when some of them made it personal by saying things like "she couldn't even ride, her poor horses for putting up with her" or something to that effect. I'm no dressage queen, that's for sure, but I think I'm half decent in the saddle and have had success at shows & clinics to gauge my progress.

That is hurtful, and I'm sorry you had to read something like that. I don't know how anyone could think that about your riding which is very good. This coming from a tell-it-like-it-is person . This all comes down to how there is much difference in how dressage people view things.

No diverse group will always agree on what constitutes abuse, but it's clear that there need to be clear-cut regulations laid out in the rulebook. It's our duty to protect the horse, and, as a side benefit, the industry's reputation.

DJR, people can be jerks online. You're an elegant rider with some adorably fuzzy giant beasts I enjoy reading your updates.

Chisamba wrote:By the way, I believe if the rider taps three times in a row with the whip and then stops, it's not a technical. If there is no blood on spur or mouth, it is not a technical.


Those are specific guidelines. Now, let's say a rider is jumping and taps the horse three times at every jump, it's not a technical because each time us a restart.

I did not watch the ride with a view to counting, but it seemed to me there was not an excess of more than three taps with the whip, and I recall the horse moving forward out of the false piaffe each time.

I also too the effort to watch the better ride, which even the crucifier admitted was not abuse, if not the best riding.

Are you seriously saying that taking your reins in one hand, your whip in the other, and blasting the horse with the whip is giving it a "tap?" Do you "tap" your horses like that, Chisamba? Do you blame your horse when you ride badly? Do you jam your horses in the mouth when you are frustrated?

IMO, this woman got just what she deserved.

heddylamar wrote:No diverse group will always agree on what constitutes abuse, but it's clear that we need to be clear-cut regulations laid out in the rulebook. It's our duty to protect the horse, and, as a side benefit, the industry's reputation.

DJR, people can be jerks online. You're an elegant rider with some adorably fuzzy giant beasts I enjoy reading your updates.

I think this is a very good point, what I bolded.

I hear many uneducated folk express how cruel Dressage is.... to dispel that, we must be the first to call out those who are cruel within the sport.
And IMO this ride was, because it was unfair to the horse, and the actions the rider took, the one handed whipping, the cowboy kicking with spurs and then the yanks on the reins for no reason [ie loss of rider balance] were deliberate, and intended to punish not as aids/cues.

I will only comment that if that had been a local schooling show she probably would have been excused not very far into the test. That the judges gave her a score leaves me shaking my head. When a horse balks that badly there's something really, really wrong. A green horse might balk at being in the ring away from home, but an FEI horse has been to the show once or twice. When they shut down it sets off alarm bells...at least to me. I would have excused myself shortly after entering.