IF humans could look at the world through the eyes of a horse they would be very disappointed. The human eye is an incredible instrument. For example the lens can alter shape almost instantly to change between long and short sight, we can see things in glorious Technicolor, and many of us have 20/20 vision. But the horse has none of these powers.

If good human vision is 20/20, a horse rates as 20/60. This means that details a person with 20/20 vision can see at 60m are only visible to a horse at 20m. They also probably only see things in fairly drab hues with no strong reds or greens, more shades of grey, yellow and brown.

But worst of all, their lens is immobile, so primarily they rely on changing the position of their head to see short and long distance.

In addition, they basically look down their noses, so when the head is vertical and they are trying to look forward they see just the ground directly in front of them but almost nothing further forward and higher up.

To look further ahead and higher they need to change the angle of the head more towards the horizontal. So a rider stopping a horse from changing the angle of his head in front of the fence is limiting a horse’s sight.

To have a contrast in colours is important, and its absence was probably a factor in William Fox Pitt’s fall at Lion d’Angers. This was probably also a major cause of the difficulties at the second water complex at the WEG in Normandy. The majority of horses struggled up the bank and bounce in the middle.

When I walked the course after the competition, it was obvious that the colour of the water and the bank was almost identical, making it hugely difficult for the horse.

The cross-country guidelines say not to use white fences in water but Will Faudree’s very serious fall, with Hans Dampf at Five Points in 2015, was over a white table in water.

Horses must be able to see clearly what they are jumping. An example of a horse not being able to see what it was jumping was when Liz Halliday-Sharp lost her four-star partner, HHS Cooley, jumping a fairly small but maximum width open oxer off a turn. The horse came down in the middle of the fence, just in front of the back rail.

Logic and an understanding of a horse’s eyesight would suggest this fence should have been narrower and better defined. The same applies to the increasing use of wide flat tables with a sloping back section that the horse cannot see on take off. Course designers and technical delegates must work together and follow the FEI guidelines for cross-country fences to make the sport safer.

BLIND TO LOGIC

My suggestion in ‘Safety and Reality’ that we need to create more room for error has confused some readers.

The logic is obvious if we look at it like this. There is little room for error, and therefore a higher risk of an accident, if a horse is going close to their maximum scope, or close to their maximum speed, or close to their limit of energy. However if a horse is jumping fences that are well within their ability level, are going well within their maximum speed, and are full of energy there is more room for error, and therefore a lower risk of an accident.

One reader wrote to disagree, saying that it was an important skill to learn how to ride a tired horse. If it was racing I would say yes, but we are talking about eventing. If the horse is fit and in good condition, as it should be, I see no reason why an event horse should finish the cross-country feeling tired.

In terms of both safety and success, for the short and long term, it is logical and sensible to have your horse fit enough so that they can do more than what is required in the competition, rather than being only ‘just fit enough’, as is often the case, or the dangerous ‘not quite fit enough.’ Tired horses are an accident waiting to happen.

It also has to be remembered that a horse going close to their maximum speed will become tired much more quickly than a horse going at ¾ speed.

At some recent championship events, horses have finished tired or not been able to finish at all. It has to be asked if the right type of horses with sufficient gallop and stamina are being used at the higher levels. Fortunately, there is now a swing back towards more thoroughbred blood in four-star horses and I believe this will make for a safer sport.

In addition, it is still important that competitors recognise their responsibility to ride according to the ability and fitness of their horse and be prepared to pull-up when things are not right. The future of the sport depends both on our success in ensuring the humane treatment of horses, and the public’s perception of the sport that this is true.

DRESSAGE COEFFICIENT

The issue of dressage coefficient is one that we have tried and failed to draw attention to for several years. From 1977, when they introduced marks out of 10 for each movement instead of six, a coefficient or multiplying factor of 0.6 was used on the dressage scores to bring the scores closer together. This had the desired effect of reducing the influence of the dressage mark.

Then in 1998 the coefficient was very quietly changed to 1.5, thus increasing the influence of the dressage and thereby decreasing the influence of the jumping. Apart from having the opposite effect on the relative influences of the three phases than most think is right, it makes following the scores very difficult for the wider audience.

It also means that in the subjective world of dressage judging, the bad scores of a judge having an off day have a greater chance of ruining the competition.

There is often talk about how the influence of the cross-country can be increased, but they come to a dead end because of safety considerations.

No one wants an increase in fence size or required speed. But by removing the dressage coefficient and reducing the influence of the dressage, it automatically means that the influence of the cross-country is increased. It also means that the audience can immediately understand the scores, based on a simple percentage, and the subjective side of the sport can be decreased.

But the worst thing about this coefficient is that it impacts negatively on safety. To win at one and two-star level, the dressage has to be very good, even more so than at national competitions where there are no coefficients.

Therefore the top riders look for horses of a dressage type to win at this level. Unfortunately many of these horses are not the best cross-country horses, both because of a lack of gallop and lack of efficiency in their jump, as well as stamina problems.

The obvious result of winning at the two-star level is to take them on to the three and four-star level. Then life becomes more of a struggle on the cross-country, there is little or no room for error and the risk of a fall and a serious accident is increased.

EQUIRATINGS

There has been one outstanding addition to rider safety in the last year that recently the FEI, the United States Eventing Association and British Eventing have all started using.

It is the EquiRatings Quality Index (ERQI), founded by Ireland’s Sam Watson and Diarmuid Byrne. It operates a simple method to help show at what level a horse and rider should be competing.

Without a doubt the evidence is there that its use would have saved lives in the past and therefore the strong probability is that it will save lives in the future. In their first year working with Eventing Ireland falls at two-star level in national competitions fell by 66%.

Speaking about the innovation, Irish team member Sam Watson said: “The ERQI is one more tool in the safety toolbox. It is based on factual results and uses data science to assess both the risk and likelihood of success in the cross-country phase. It works because those with poor form and low likelihood of success are far more susceptible to falls, particularly horse falls at the higher levels. Therefore the system can step in before the fall does.

“The reaction has been overwhelming positive. The talk of increased awareness, better decision making and more targeted training, all as a result of using the ERQIs, is making our sport safer.”

A good idea has to give way to a better idea and the EquiRatings Index is a great example of this. There are other good ideas that need to take root in relation to course design, training and progression.

We can develop the EquiRatings model and have data, not just on clear rounds, but on the quality and level of risk of a cross-country round. We can also improve the cross-country guidelines and the training culture so that horses are always allowed to see clearly what they are jumping.

NEXT WEEK:

SAFETY AND FORWARDS –

including the worst fence ever jumped in a cross country and an unforgiveable drowning