la FEI
- Vous devez vous connecter pour poster des commentaires
Olivier, les éperons électriques ont été utilisés en course, ils sont interdits maintenant. Un exemple de procédé anti-naturel qui heureusement ne se pratique pas en «dressage». Je crois que ce sont simplement des éperons reliés à des piles. Rien à voir avec la «jambe électrique» évidemment!
Amitiés,
Jean M
Bonsoir Jean,
Je suis un peu surpris.
L'usage des éperons en courses ? auriez-vous des références de leur emploi ?
A ma connaissance, seule la cravache est autorisée en courses (galop). Les jockeys ne font aucun usage de leurs jambes, même pour aller plus vite. Comme quoi les jambes, .....
Effectivement, certains avaient pensé qu'une cravache "électrique" serait plus efficace. (???) Cet attribut du mauvais jockey est interdit en courses au galop. Et, la cravache "manuelle" est limitée. A moins de 100 mètres du poteau, pas plus de 10 (ou 5) coups. (je suis sûr du principe mais pas des quantités).
Et, un cheval "marqué" vaut la mise à pied du jockey + pénalités d'usage.
Ah! s'il y avait autant de discipline sur les rectangles.
amicalement.Bruno
Il me semble que c'était en Amérique, et il y a bien longtemps... mais il est possible que cela n'existe que dans mon imagination, et alors mon cas est grave!
La cravache électrique est aussi un bon exemple de moyen anti-naturel.
Amitiés,
Jean M
Steward => commissaire ? plus approprié non ?
Hélas, Antoinette, la plupart des chevaux présentés à Biarritz dans les grosses épreuves, et dont Sabine a pris une centaine de photos, étaient ainsi "enroulés", dont celui de notre cavalier français classé aux JO.
Ces photos rajoutées à celles d'Hubert Perring présentées dans l'Eperon d'avril 2008 m'amènent au triste constat suivant: le Rollkur/hyperflexion/basetrond" se pratique aussi en Bleu Blanc Rouge.
"Il faut cesser de se taire" Gerd Heusschman
.
Message édité par: PODER, à: 2010/02/13 00:54
De ma part apres avoir travaille sans relache pour aider a atteindre 41,000 signatures je suis decue des resultats de ce meeting, ou peut etre masquarade est une meilleur description.
Je partage completement l'opinion de Mr.Cook:
'Low, Deep and Round' or a blow, deep and unkind?
Dr Robert Cook FRCVS, PhD (drcook [at] bitlessbridle [dot] com)
Once again, the FEI has rejected the evidence and another opportunity for reform has been lost. Over bending may be acceptable to the FEI but it is not acceptable to the horse. The FEI is just dodging the issue by changing the name of the shame. 'Low, Deep and Round' is simply a synonym for 'Rollkur,' hyperflexion and over bending. 'Rollkur' by any other name smells just as rotten. A semantic sleight of hand will not stop this regrettable practice.
Yet there is a way to establish a humane requirement for the degree of poll flexion to be permitted. Such a guideline already exists in the FEI rule book and it is one easily monitored by stewards in the warm-up ring. The rule book requires a horse to be 'on the bit.' Part of the FEI's own definition of this phrase reads: " ... the head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical ... " So I agree that, in this respect at least, there is no need to change the rule book. All that the FEI has to do is to abide by it. 'Low, deep and round' transgresses the rule book. It also transgresses the injunction that a horse be "calm, supple, loose, and flexible ..." and "must not be subjected to any training methods which are abusive or cause fear."
The FEI's assertion that the practice of 'low deep and round' achieves flexion without undue force' is refutable. Apart from the FEI's unfortunate endorsement of the concept that force of any sort is an acceptable part of training, how would they define 'undue' or 'aggressive'? Such words merely provide loopholes through which any lawyer could drive a double-decker bus. Furthermore, it is noted that in commending 'low, deep and round' (LDR) they are quietly substituting the word 'flexion' for 'hyperflexion.' Yet LDR involves hyperflexion and this is not a physiological position for a horse's head to be in during forward motion. Even at the walk, no horse at liberty would choose to place its head in such a position.
The statement, " ... the main responsibility for the welfare of the horse rests with the rider" is an abrogation of the FEI's responsibility. Are they washing their hands of any requirement on their part to promote equine welfare? If so, they renounce the primary justification for their very existence.
The question should have been determined on the basis of the scientific evidence, not by consensus. By all means let's have a debate, preferably an open debate. And after the debate, let the decision be based on the evidence of equine anatomy and physiology. Scientific truths are not determined by majority vote.
If we do not protest the FEI's current non-compliance with nine of the ten items in their own code of conduct, we must all bow our heads in shame that human beings have once again failed to show humanity.
Robert Cook, FRCVS, PhD
Professor of Surgery Emeritus, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
February 10th, 2010
Reference
Cook, W.R. (2007): "Why is Rollkur Wrong?" Available online at www.bitlessbridle.com
Robert Cook FRCVS, PhD
Professor of Surgery Emeritus
Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
Chairman and CEO, BitlessBridle Inc.
www.bitlessbridle.com
Present address: 206,Birch Run Road
Chestertown, MD 21620 USA
Telephone & Fax: (443) 282 0472
Email: drcook [at] bitlessbridle [dot] com
Bonjour,
La FEI a réagi à l'éditorial d'Eurodressage:
http://www.eurodressage.com/news/dressage/fei/2010/rollkurmeeting-extra....
Désolée je n'ai pas le courage de traduire..
Il y a quand même une forte pression, il semble que les choses vont quand même dans la bonne direction. Enfin, c'est mon sentiment.
Cordialement
Perrine
Je viens de lire le billet mis en avant sur ce site. Le lien renvoyant au site de la FEI est déprimant. La conclusion est toujours la même : "non à l'hyperflexion si elle est demandée avec force, oui si elle est obtenue sans forcement" et "il faut régulièrement modifier l'attitude du cheval (tête-encolure) au travail" => que signifie "régulièrement" et comment comptent-ils mesurer le forcement d'un cheval ? Si le cavalier est médaillé on laisse faire, sinon on sanctionne ?
horse for life vient de publier ceci sur Facebook:
"The round table was convened to discuss overbending not something called 'aggressive riding.' ..... Regrettably, whoever came up with this suggestion, its adoption introduced a fatal flaw in the entire proceedings and rendered the conference's conclusions unworkable ..."
DR. ROBERT COOK’S RESPONSE ON 20TH FEBRUARY TO THE JOINT LETTER HE RECEIVED ON 18TH FEBRUARY FROM THE FIVE VETERINARIANS AT THE FEI ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE ON 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 Abridged Version
Key: RTV = Round Table Veterinarians
[RTV: "The intention of the FEI round-table conference on hyperflexion/Rollkur was specifically to address an issue which is of concern to equestrian sport. Participants at the meeting were selected to include veterinary and welfare authorities as well as sporting experts so that all sides of the debate could be heard and addressed.
Dr Heuschmann presented an anti-Rollkur petition with 41,000 signatures to FEI President HRH Princess Haya before addressing the meeting at length. His request to ban aggressive riding was unanimously supported by the participants."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: The round table was convened to discuss overbending not something called 'aggressive riding.' ..... Regrettably, whoever came up with this suggestion, its adoption introduced a fatal flaw in the entire proceedings and rendered the conference's conclusions unworkable ...
[RTV: "It was concluded that correctly performed flexion of the neck did not have an adverse effect on movement of the back, whereas extension of the neck did influence both back mobility and hindlimb action and could predispose to injury."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: The round table was convened to discuss over flexion of the head and neck, not over extension. If LDR (over flexion 'correctly performed') is defined as a method achieved without force, where is the evidence for this statement? [Addendum: Over flexion of the neck jeopardizes the health and welfare of the whole horse, not just its back]
Proponents of LDR who claim that this method does not involve force, fear, pain and stress have produced no evidence to support this claim or to explain how LDR can be differentiated from over bending produced by force. Why was such a claim accepted by the conference in the absence of evidence? In order to satisfy the FEI's own rules, the evidence in support of the 'no force' claim would have had to have embraced all phases of training and not just that seen in the warm-up arena. The conference's acceptance of this claim, in the absence of substantiating evidence, pulled the rug out from under the conference's objective, as it provided no foundation for effective action.
[RTV: "Whereas there is evidence that any head position other than the natural one may influence airway resistance, there is no evidence at all that oxygenation of the blood is reduced by any of these positions or that blood circulation to the head could be compromised. The veterinary delegates were unanimous in these conclusions."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: Any head position that makes it harder for an exercising horse to breathe (by increasing airway resistance) is unacceptable. As it was agreed that such evidence was available, this evidence was quite enough by itself to form the basis for a ban on overbending. The absence of additional experimental evidence of hyoxaemia is not an excuse for condoning over bending. As it is most unlikely that any Laboratory Animal Review Committee in a research institute would ever permit such an experiment to be carried out, the absence of such evidence is not surprising. Clearly, its absence cannot be used as an argument to show that over bending is not harmful or inhumane. Similarly, the absence of experimental evidence of venous congestion of the head, engorgement of subcutaneous veins and excessive sweating can also be dismissed as an argument to exonerate over bending. That the veterinary delegates were unanimous in their opinion there was no such experimental evidence is neither surprising nor significant
[RTV: "It is clear that any training method used incorrectly is never acceptable and that aggressive riding must also be prevented. All training methods and aids must be used appropriately and never in a manner which constitutes a welfare issue."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: The reiteration of principles on which all veterinarians [surely] agree is meaningless when unaccompanied by an acknowledgment that, however it is achieved, the overbending method of training is unacceptable. However it is produced and by whatever name it is described, over bending is an unacceptable and aggressive training method that constitutes a welfare issue. As it has already been accepted that overbending makes it difficult for a horse to breathe, even if there was such a thing as over bending "in a harmonious way and without undue force" (something I do not accept) such over bending should still be outlawed on the grounds that it obstructs breathing (Fig 1)
Image at the Bottome of the Page
Caption for Fig 1. The upper airway is distorted into a 'U' bend by over bending and this obstructs the airway on inspiration at all the points marked with an X. From front to back this means a narrowing of the airway at the level of the junction between nasal cavity and throat; at the point where elevation of the soft palate coincides with a collapse of the roof of the throat; at the entrance to the voice box where the epiglottal cartilage is elevated and where one or more of the flapper cartilages may well be collapsed; at extended points along the windpipe in the neck; and especially at the point where the windpipe enters the chest. Apart from making it difficult for a horse to get oxygen, which in turn triggers premature fatigue, such obstructions significantly increase the suction forces generated in the lungs during inspiration and cause negative pressure pulmonary edema - or what is commonly called exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage ('bleeding')
[RTV: "At no stage has the FEI ever endorsed the use of force in training and neither did any of the participants at the meeting. It was agreed by all participants that hyperflexion/Rollkur, defined as flexion of the horse’s neck achieved through aggressive force, is totally unacceptable. The practice has been outlawed specifically because it is achieved through the use of aggressive force. It was agreed that the technique known as Low, Deep and Round (LDR), which achieves flexion in a harmonious way and without undue force, is acceptable."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: The definitions of Rollkur and LDR as proposed are incorrect, ambiguous and incapable of serving as practical guidelines for judges and stewards.
[RTV: "It was also agreed by the participants that asking a horse to maintain any head/neck position for too long a period is not advisable."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: Agreed. Even a position slightly ahead of the vertical is not a position to be maintained over long periods. Horses should be allowed to relax and stretch ... but only in other natural positions
[RTV: "During the warm-up it is both necessary and beneficial to change the head/neck position periodically and not to ride the horse all the time in the position required by the competition rules."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: The over bent position is neither a natural position, nor one that allows for relaxation, nor one allowed by the competition rules ...
[RTV: "The FEI has a duty to establish appropriate rules and guidelines to ensure the welfare of the horse. These rules must be based on scientific evidence and be periodically reviewed as new information becomes available. Dr Cook asserts that scientific evidence should have been used to decide whether Rollkur is acceptable or not, but there has been no solid scientific data produced since the 2006 workshop when it was agreed that there was little evidence to show that such techniques cause damage to the horse."
DR. ROBERT COOK: ....The basic principles of equine anatomy and physiology may, for example, be invoked - as they were in my 2007 monograph, ["Why is Rollkur Wrong?'] the summary of which is copied below. I have underlined the last sentence, as - regardless of additional evidence - this is quite sufficient on its own to ban over bending, aka hyperflexion, Rollkur and LDR.
" Over-bending inflicts acute pain, chronic pain and nerve pain (neuralgia). Its victims exhibit fear and mental stress. In addition, by locking-up the neck, a horse is partially asphyxiated, unable to see properly and unbalanced. Over-bending increases the likelihood of accidents for both horse and rider. In the long-term, the practice probably causes permanent structural damage to many parts of the body, including the trachea, lungs and spine. Without question, it injures the bars of the mouth, teeth and skull. But if the practice of over-bending did no more than frighten a horse and cause it pain, it should be prohibited."
[RTV: "While prior investigations have not shown that the use of hyperflexion/Rollkur causes any clear detriment to horse welfare, the FEI has decided to act and to ban Rollkur anyway. Irrespective of the scientific evidence, or lack of it, the use of hyperflexion/Rollkur is of undoubted concern and the FEI felt it was correct to address those concerns."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: On behalf of all the contributing researchers, I protest at this disdainful dismissal of our contributions and the way that the FEI have claimed for themselves the distinction of having had the superior intelligence to act, albeit that their decision is doomed to fail for lack of definition. The FEI's failure to act in the past gives little hope for success in the future, as - even now - their statements are woolly, ambiguous and self-contradictory. For example, in the above paragraph, in one sentence they say that there is no evidence that "hyperflexion/Rollkur causes any clear detriment to horse welfare" and in the very next sentence they state that "the use of hyperflexion/Rollkur is of undoubted concern." Such Janus-like statements fail to give the horse riding public any confidence that the FEI are serious about eliminating a disgrace to horsemanship .....
[RTV: "The FEI has now established a working group, chaired by Dressage Committee Chair Frank Kemperman, to expand the current guidelines for Stewards to facilitate the clear implementation of this policy. ...."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: By accepting a distinction between over bending achieved with and without force, the round table conference has given Frank Kemperman and his working group a task in which they are bound to fail ....
[RTV: "Stewards will also be readvised to watch out for signs of distress in the horse, which may include but are not limited to obvious fatigue, profound or inappropriate sweating, persistent rough use of aids (i.e. bits, spurs or whip) and over-repetition of exercises."]
DR. ROBERT COOK: Sadly, none of the signs of distress listed above lend themselves to unequivocal determination. The result will be endless debate between riders, stewards, and judges. it would be so much more effective for the FEI to abide by their own existing guideline that, as a rule, head position should be slightly in advance of the vertical. A head position persistently behind the vertical is readily identified by stewards in the warm-up arena. Why was this existing option not adopted? ... The task for the FEI is simple enough. A clear rule based on head geometry is required such that, after April Fool's Day, 2010, if a horse is overbent in the warm-up arena, the rider will not be able to plead the LDR amendment. Frank Kemperman's working group needs to be given different instructions before they start. As they have already been given a March 31st deadline, the matter is urgent]
Dr.Cook's AFTERWORD
The above response from the five veterinarians addressed some of the points that I made in my press release dated February 10, 2010 but I am disappointed that my professional colleagues:
• In failing to explain why a solution based on the FEI's existing rule could not have been enforced ('head slightly in advance of the vertical') actually recommended that this rule be transgressed
• Failed to explain how, in the warm-up arena, 'low, deep and round' could be differentiated from over bending
• Became, by what I hope was unwilling association, accessories to a decision that permits riders to inflict avoidable pain and cause avoidable distress (the definition of cruelty)
• In failing to dissociate themselves from the consensus of the Round Table by registering a dissenting opinion, failed to uphold the veterinarian's Hippocratic Oath and to guide the FEI to a decision that complied with the FEI's own Code of Conduct
The letter from the Round table veterinarians did not answer any of the questions and other points raised in my letter to the veterinarians dated February 12, 2010.
Robert Cook FRCVS, PhD
Professor of Surgery Emeritus
Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
Chairman and CEO, BitlessBridle Inc.
www.bitlessbridle.com
- « premier
- ‹ précédent
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Allège Ideal
Jean M. B. écrit:
Des éperons électriques ? Qu'est-ce ? je ne savais même pas que ces choses existaient.