RollKur or Hyperflexion

Replies to This Discussion

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 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 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

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 12:35am

It is no better than a witch hunt.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 12:52am

If the FEI made a rule that every dressage rider in the world had to train their horses using Rollkur than I could understand the need for people to voice opposition to the system. However the fact of the matter is that there is not a problem with Rollkur there are good riders who use the system and other riders who are not good at it. The same case holds true for the classical method of dressage, there are riders who use the system well and others who do not ride well using the classical method. The point of the sport is for a rider to learn and grow with their horse and all the horses they are blessed to know in their lifetime. Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than you.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 10:32am

Correction; I meant to end my last post by saying "Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than them." Rather than what I did write "Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than you."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 11:01pm

Threatening somebody's life is a crime. There are many many crimes committed in this world. It is a twisted idea to imply if somebody receives a death threat that the receiver is guilty of wrong doing. The person, or the group of people who issue death threats are clearly without a shadow of a doubt the ones in the wrong. IF you are saying because somebody threatens another’s life that the person who's life was threatened is guilty, you have that backwards.

There are a lot of things people don't like that other people do; it does not make what the other person is doing wrong. There is not a problem with Rollkur, there is a problem with the people who despise it. It is a training method for a horse. No more and no less. If people don't like it than they should by no means ride that way.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page