I think just about anyone who's spent any significant time around horses knows at least one person who's been seriously injured or killed. Broken backs, broken necks, fractured skulls--I knew one woman whose skittish horse reared up while they were on a very steep hill and fell over backwards on top of her, fracturing both legs in several places, one arm, rupturing her spleen, doing severe damage to her liver, and knocking her unconscious for an extended period of time--which was good, because it took a long time to medevac her. If you've ever seen a movie where a horse struggles up after a roll, you have a pretty good idea of what it might be like to be trapped under that back while a half a ton of writhing quarterhorse ground the saddle horn into your belly. I was there a year later when she climbed back atop that same horse, and it may be the bravest thing I've ever witnessed.
Periodically, this leads to complaints about the safety of the various sports. This seems to happen when rising incomes bring a lot of new people into the sport, and they (or their parents) belatedly discover that yes, large animals are extremely dangerous, especially if you perch atop them while they leap a six-foot hurdle.
Apparently, three day eventing--sort of the Iron Man triathlon of the equestrian world--is now in one of its periodic self-examinations. The article isn't very detailed--though it does have a lovely, stomach-churning graphic of what happens when your horse takes a fence badly wrong--but it seems that as usual, the fight pits beginners and casual hobbyists against the elite competitors.
It's hard to know who to side with. Elite riders are usually better heeled than the amateurs, and like other star athletes are often unbelievably arrogant . . . well, I won't use that word on a family blog. This makes their "let them eat cake" attitude towards the folks who end up in wheelchairs or coffins a tad grating. And it's frankly ludicrous to hear people say that in a sport where the basic equipment starts in the tens of thousands of dollars and marches rapidly north into the millions, they can't afford some $100 pins to make the fences a bit safer.
On the other hand, my impression is that most of the elite riders, like other star athletes, really are willing to take a substantial risk of death or paralysis in order to achieve excellence. Part of their seeming arrogance is, I think, a failure to emotionally comprehend why everyone else doesn't feel the same way. And I understand why they resent having their performance held back to the standards of weekend hobbyists.
Them horses are quite dangerous.
Why, isn't it possible to pick up BSE from eating them?
As far as I know, it's not mandatory anywhere that one even ride a horse, much less compete. I say have at it, we're all going to die someday anyway.
And those who find equestrian sports too dangerous can always engage in a milder alternative: motorcycle racing
:-D
A horse it was that taught me to backsomersault. It used the hooves-to-mouth method.
I don't think much of all this new-fangled horse riding. Who ever came up with the idea of getting on top of this huge animal and riding it around? Probably some dot-com millionaire with too much money and not enough common sense.
Automobiles, bicycles, and motorcycles were good enough for my pappy and grandpappy, and they are good enough for me.
I'm a longtime, and ridiculously wimpy, rider. I take every precaution and if I feel at all uncomfortable on any given day, I won't ride/jump/whatever. It drives my sister, a slightly less experienced, much braver rider, bonkers. She, after all, is the one that was badly hurt. She's the one that almost lost a leg, that was life-flighted to a better hospital. Why am I a wimp if she's not? I don't know, but I am. And I have a right to be.
Just as she, at age 22, has a right to be a brave (or as foolhardy) as she wants.
We aren't eventers, so our opinions don't even matter, but these people can choose not to compete if they find the course too tough. The lower level riders can not compete if THEIR course is to tough. I CERTAINLY wouldn't compete in the lowest level cross country classes. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there...they're just not for me.
Horseback riding is dangerous. Every decade or so, there's a major accident that serves to remind people (think Christopher Reeve), but, a reminder isn't a bad thing. Changing the rules of the game because of that...that's a bad thing.
(Not to say the pins wouldn't be nice, but that's up to the people who ride. The riders can always decide they aren't going to compete at courses that don't have pins...I'm sure the designers would spend an extra $70 per jump then:)
But until that happens, let these adults choose to do as they will.
What I can never quite understand is people who support the continued prohibition on drugs, because they're dangerous, but don't suggest criminalizing sky diving or BASE jumping or similar.
This is a particularly salient point for me, as a significant ex girlfriend of mine was on the Olympic obstacle team until she fell and spent a year in a hospital bed with spinal injuries, ending her chances as a professional athlete and distrupting her college education.
I still think the sport should be lightly regulated. As you point out, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon (or a brain scientist) to realize that riding tall beasts is easily perilous, like many other sports and daily human activities (uh, driving, anyone?).
On the other hand, my impression is that most of the elite riders, like other star athletes, really are willing to take a substantial risk of death or paralysis in order to achieve excellence. Part of their seeming arrogance is, I think, a failure to emotionally comprehend why everyone else doesn't feel the same way.
Danger is part of the fun for some people. Also, "the seeming arrogance" is a necessary mental and moral component of being a champion. This comes from a guy with two conference championship rings.