RollKur or Hyperflexion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Helyn Marie Cornille on November 2, 2009 at 1:08pm

A Canadian friend was telling about the horrible spectacle of a western trainer who slammed his horse onto the ground and then placing a foot on the horse head was lighting up a cigarette proud of his domination. Blinded by his pathetic ego the man was not even capable to realize that his demonstration was showing the magnitude of his intellectual deficiency rather than his skill. The same pity arises from interviews of riders overstressing the upper half of their horse neck, which does not have enough muscle mass or ligament to support the stress and try to explain that their horse loves it.



The spectacle of the "blue tong video" is horrific. The horse's tongue is dead, the horse's brain is dead and from the view from behind at the canter, the hocks are dead too. All problems result from the hyper-flexion of the upper neck. The horse upper neck is very weak. The horse does not have the capacity to oppose great resistance nor support much stress in this area of the neck. Once trapped in hyper-flexion the horse has no way out. The sole defense mechanism left is shutting off the brain and survives the abuse.



The lowering and hyper-flexion of the neck do not favor the roundness of the horse's back as naïve theories want us to believe. At the contrary, the practice stiffens the horse thoracolumbar spine and consequently halters proper kinematics of the hind legs. Unfortunately, the practice is not limited to dressage. Jumper trainers are over-flexing their horses' upper neck with the use of draw reins. There is no physical advantage of doing so.
In fact, the technique alters the horses' capacity to transmit forward through their body the thrust generated by the hind legs. The difficulties of many hunter horses to make the strides between the jumps result directly from this training misconception.
If one has the curiosity to ask to the trainer why over-flexing the horses upper neck, from the perspective of the horse's physiology, the explanation will be ludicrous. The only reason one does it is that every body else do it too, each one being worry that doing so the other might have some advantage in the show ring.
Horses perform out of their athletic abilities and mental strength which all are directed by the horse's physiology. The western trainer placing his dirty boot on the head of his horse lying on the ground has a theory. It is simply that the theory is only true within the restricted limits or the trainer' skull. We approach in the following study the practice of neck hyper-flexion from the perspective of the nuchal ligament that is a structure of the neck particularly stressed in the situation of upper neck hyper-flexion.

on http://www.scienceofmotion.com a pdf file with illustrations and text on rollkur and in up-coming newsletter Jean Luc Cornille has written a special article on Rollkur affects on the horse and what can be done.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Helyn Marie Cornille on November 2, 2009 at 9:48pm

Hyper Flexion of the Upper Neck,
A Failure of Olympic Dimension
Written by Jean Luc Cornille is up at http://scienceofmotion.com/documents/hyper-flexion.html
This is the science of it, explained in terms and images for all to understand.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Teddy Rekai-Nuttall on November 3, 2009 at 8:25am

Helyn, thank you for joining this discussion. Firstly I do not think it is prudent to refer to the scientific research and findings of some of the foremost academics in the field of equine locomotion as "Naive" please refer to:
Gomez Alvarez, C.,B. Rhodin, M., Bobber, M., F., Meyer, H., Weishaupt, M., A., Johnston, C., Van Weeren, P., R. (2006). The effect of head and neck position on the thoracolumbar kinematics in the unridden horse. Equine Veterinary Journal, Supplement, 36, 445-451.


In terms of your PDF, did you in fact review the FEI veterinary symposium wherein it was presented that no observable damage to the nuchal ligament or the cervical spine has been attributed to hyperflexion:

Welling, E., (2006). Radiological Aspects of the Cervical Region in Relation to Over-Bending ("Rollkur"). Report of the FEI Veterinary and Dressage Committees' Workshop “The use of over bending (‘Rollkur’) in FEI Competition”. Federation Equestre Internationale Lausanne, 31st Jan. p.7.

The illustrations are lovely, but I feel that medical imaging is more relevant.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Helyn Marie Cornille on November 3, 2009 at 1:26pm

Dear Teddy

Thank you for your response. You are referring to pathological changes, (damages) on the nuchal ligament and cervical vertebrae which is not the subject of our discussion. Not a word in our presentation is referring to pathological changes in the nuchal ligament and cervical vertebrae. We are pointing out the fact that the upper part of the nuchal ligament does not have enough tissue volume to sustain intense strain. Exactly like if someone twist the tip of your finger, you will turn your arm and even contortion your body to avoid damage on your finger's ligaments. Likewise, horses submit to hyper flexion of the upper neck to avoid damage on the nuchal ligament. Using physical pain to gain submission is very close of using physical pain to obtain confession. Such practice is defined as torture. You might then argue that scientific investigation have not determine the existence of pain related to hyper-flexion of the neck. Pain cannot be scientifically prove or disprove. Even if signs such as increase in the rhythm of the heart beat can be related to pain. It would be impossible to attribute such pain to a neck posture. The estimation of pain is subjective, facial expression, body language, etc. The eye of the horse presented on the Epona's "blue tongue" video is expression less. Rollkur proponents will interpret such lack of expression as "peaceful" submission. Rollkur opponents will view this absence of expression as the classic characteristic of horses having shutting off their brain. Obviously on this matter we can only agree that we disagree. About the infectiveness of the lowering of the neck, we will in other publications further this perspective. The studies you mention as well as many others are showing phenomenon that would enhance equine locomotion if they were applied to further riding and training principles rather than accrediting old beliefs. Jean Marie Denoix for instance demonstrates the influence of a longer and lower neck on the center of rotation of the vertebrae. In the circumstance the reference is made to the Instant Center of Rotation. This is a great discovery but that can be interpreted many different ways. Obviously there will be further publications that will allow us to disagree even further. I looking forward for our next encounter.

Jean Luc and Helyn

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Teddy Rekai-Nuttall on November 3, 2009 at 1:48pm

Thanks very much for approaching this discussion so well, it is the reason I take part in only this one. The only disagreement I have with you is that you can study pain, as it will elicit a higher cortisol response that can easily be measured through salivary cortisol testing. You can then use set scientific protocol to study significant differences in salivary cortisol concentration between HNPs (head and neck positions).

Also I worry that in referring to it as an avoidance of pain we are getting onto a track that would suggest that all riding is torture as it is based on negative reinforcement, but that is a whole other bag of fish.

I am so glad to hear an agreement from your side that more testing is needed before we can concisely say one way or the other is better.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Helyn Marie Cornille on November 3, 2009 at 2:21pm

Hi Teddy

Cutting the skin with spurs is torture. applying on the horse tongue a force greater that the tongue structure can absorb is painful. There are however many riding techniques which do not generate pain. The concept of negative reinforcement is antiquated. It is where resorting to submissive techniques instead of engaging the horse intelligence to create a body coordination optimally adapted to the performance is a failure of Olympic dimension. Through the practical application of advanced scientific research and through the principle of guiding the horse's brain toward a body coordination that the horse's brain alone could not figure, we have the possibility to train horses better that anyone ever did before us. This is where trainers looking for the future of their horses and consequently their customers need to look at. The difficulty is to be prepare to recognize error and look again more deeply and more intelligently. Progress are based on hypothesis and hypothesis became reality when they generate success on more than one horse. You might argue that the results of the Dutch team should be the proof of the Rollkur value. In fact, the practice of upperneck hyperflexion is destroying the dressage. There is a difference between an athlete that efficiently uses the thrust generated by the hind legs through the biomechanical properties of the vertebral column and a gifted but dysfunctional athlete that move in a spectacular way. The value of a training technique is to create a functional athlete. This should be the aim of any training technique.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bernd on November 4, 2009 at 11:23am

Hm,
the debate about physiological effects is interesting, but I think its missing the point.

Also the aim of any training technique is not to create a funtional athlete, at least not primarily. It is to win the competition!

If rollkur leads to win, than that is what the athletes will do. Afterwards people will find some "scientific evidence" that it doesn't hurt the horse or even makes it better, or easier or.....never mind. Its all done only to reach the ultimate goal: To win!

So I claim that as long as we don't change the system of dressage performance evaluation, we will not be able to prevent people to ride this way. Or, any other way that they feel is giving better scores.

Let's face it. The top riders are in it for winning (and money) not for the well being of horses. This is serious business.

I'm not saying they wouldn't love their horses. Riding is not a sport that you could do very well without an emotional attachement to horses, but at the top level the horse is a sport item, similar like the racing car for a formula 1 driver.

So, it doesn't matter how much scientific evidence we have one way or the other, they just want to win!

C'est la vie!
Bernd

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Helyn Marie Cornille on November 4, 2009 at 8:47pm

Hi Bernd

The point is precisely that functional athletes are doing better and remain sound. I agree with you that the main issue is the judging standards. If judges were properly educated they would not reward dysfunctional athletes whatever the exuberance of their gaits. No Gymnastic judge would reward a lame athlete even if he executes a quintuple summersault..
Equestrian sport have evolved very slowly and far behind human athletes. The reason is that instead of upgrading training techniques in proportion to the quality of the horses, riders and trainers rather downgrade their horses' talent to fit conventional practice. There is no physical advantage to over-flex the horses upper neck. It is solely a way to control horses which have too much talent and too much spirit to be controlled by conventional techniques. This is a draw back to progress. It is why equestrian sports are decades behind every other sports. Winning is only great if one wins again and in order to win again the horse needs to remain sound. Any athlete is more likely to remain sound if the training approach prepares efficiently the athlete's physique for the performance.
A bientot
Jean Luc & Helyn

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 5, 2009 at 6:32am

Rollkur, or as often called, hyperflexion, is indeed both controversial and widespread. In fact, it has been used in warmups for over 20 years now, and can be seen at many of the larger dressage competitions.

I find it very puzzling. I've ridden 'rollkured' horses in Europe. Some of them feel very incorrect, with no contact with the bit and poor working of the back and hindquarter. But horses can be taught to go 'behind the bit' with or without rollkur. Several I've ridden felt very supple and correct, even joyful in their work. Despite that, it's not something I'd ever allow any of my horses to be trained with.

MOST dressage trainers feel that riding a horse in a very slight position, with the neck topline rounded, is useful. I've done that and I find it is in fact useful. It is important to maintain a connection and a contact with the reins, and to not exaggerate the position. I feel it's important to vary the position of the horse during the ride. I don't agree that riding with the neck long and low all the time is right, nor with riding most of the time in an 'up' position. I think varying the position is good.

Where many dressage trainers part ways is in how extreme of a hyperflexion position is allowed, and how much of the ride the horse should be in that position. When the controversy starts to get heated is when that chin is within a few inches of that chest, and the position goes on and on. Then many people no longer regard it as a 'training method' but as a violation of the principles of dressage, and for quite a few people, as painful abuse.

There is a huge gulf between those who favor it and those who do not. The debate has raged on in many venues for all that time, about whether it should be allowed or not. Neither side ever seems to budge - people who use it insist it doesn't hurt the horses and no force is used. While those against it insist it does horrible things to horses, crippling them and destroying them. But since so many top riders practice it, it has become a common sight in the warmup ring.

Recently, a rider at a big competition was filmed riding his horse with the chin almost on the chest for quite some time. Not only that but at one point the horse's tongue lolled out. While debate raged on the internet the organization that governs these competitions, the FEI, promised an investigation. In the past, they've stated that in expert hands, the technique does not harm horses. Many have been outraged at this response, though the people in favor of the technique agree.

A German vet has published a book and video with what he says is 'proof' that this technique harms horses. The anti's have rallied and called his proof incontrovertible. Those in favor of the technique say the book proves nothing and is just opinion. I've read the book and seen the video, and unfortunately, while the fellow's heart seems to be in the right place and he makes a good argument, I don't think the actual data bears any real scientific weight.

Nor do I feel more scientific research is going to quickly resolve this. Stress measurements go up based on the intensity of the exercise, and the familiarity of it. A horse trained this way for months or years isn't going to have high levels of stress on the stress tests we currently use. The same for the intensity - after months and years of being ridden in this position I don't think the intensity of the work is going to make a stress test result go higher. One can't simply compare all horses to a single measure because each horse has its own unique 'baseline' reading.

In some part, this is a debate between Dutch and German. The Dutch have been accused of using this technique more than the Germans. In fact, some Germans in dressage have said they are completely against this method and have started an organization called 'Xenophon', a reference to the ancient authority on horsemanship. Supporters argue that the Germans are just angry at being challenged and beaten by the Dutch in the big competitions.

I don't like to see this problem be made into a nationalistic problem or one of individuals. The Dutch-German angle has taken this problem absolutely nowhere. It's just put people on the defensive and shut down dialogue.

Patrick Kittel actually received death threats to him, his family and his horses recently when that video went on the internet. I don't think individuals should be singled out and threatened with harm or death. This is not the way to handle the problem. It shows cowardice and a lack of self control. But it also shows a complete ignorance of how to get things done. Such action can only make the 'anti's' look like fanatical extremists, and it shuts down dialogue and progress.

I see this more as an organizational problem, and not one of individuals. The problem has endured quite a few changes of leadership in the FEI, so I don't see it as a problem that a handful of individuals have created or allowed. I think the FEI doesn't recognize that extremists, dangerous extremists, are very close to harming horses and riders, judges and officials, and getting restrictions put on the sport that could change it forever.

I think that there is a possibility that some sort of data COULD leverage the FEI to act and to ban hyperflexion. I think it would have to be defined in the rules in terms of angle and time allowed, so I'm not sure EVERYONE would be satisfied. But I do think the more extreme positions could be banned from the warmup arena.

What sort of data would get leverage? I think scientific data is a possibility, but it would have to be different from our current stress tests. And I think having a very high number of official complaints at each show could help a great deal. It's costly to register these complaints, but I think that those who are so against it, need to donate money for substantial action that actually leverages the organization in an intelligent way.

Wearing a white hat to the shows, turning our backs when certain riders enter the ring...I think these methods are ineffective. I also think internet debates and 'I ride better' websites are not going to put a dent in the warmup methods at the big competitions. I think action has to be clever, carefully designed to have a leverage effect on a large international organization that governs one of the most expensive sports in the world, and I think that requires understanding the organization, and a lot of very, very cool, calm thinking.

By 'leverage' I don't mean that the organization is called childish names or that we threaten to start our own organization.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 26, 2009 at 7:00pm

The only mental abuse associated with Rollkur is the mental abuse the riders of that method have to endure and suffer from the people who choose not to ride in Rollkur method and have negative things to say about it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 26, 2009 at 8:35pm

Of course. Except for people who don't agree...LOL.

Myself, I think threatening and insulting riders is childish. This is not an individual problem. This type of problem needs to be addressed by the FEI. The dislike of how the FEI handles this seems to be the only thing both sides agree on.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 12:34am

What the FEI needs to address is sportsmanship. When I tell people who know nothing about dressage the degree of controversy over Rollkur they ask 'Why on earth would anybody want to be involved in that sport? It sounds awful.' and they are certainly not referring to the Rollkur riding method being awful. What other sport do you know of where the amateurs in the sport condemn the top performers? And they do so loudly with the utmost disrespect and they won't stop until somebody pays attention to them. What other sport do you know of where the complaining voice of the amateurs is entertained by and taken seriously by the governing bodies of the sport over the professionals?

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page