FEI Statement on Rollkur a TYPO!!

It seems the FEI's published statements that Rollkur or Hyperflexion is mental abuse was a typo and should have read that "excessive" use of the technique was condemned.

Read the new statement here: http://www.fei.org/Media/News_Centre...10April08.aspx

This leaves everyone to question what exactly is excessive? Is two minutes excessive? How about 10? Or is 30 seconds?

Certainly anyone who has ridden for very long has realized that at times an intentional placement of the neck in an extremely flexed position either laterally or longitudinally can position a rider for greater control. This fact is the "success point" for most of the modern Natural Horsemanship trainers out there who rely on hyperflexing the neck to the rider's knee to gain control or subdue the horse. In an extreme emergency for an less that skilled rider it can be more effective than other things although never as effective as simply having a horse on the aids.

The fact remains that hyperflexion as a training method is still very much in question as to its real intended uses/purposes, and subsequently any real benefits or detriments it may entail. There is no shortage of condemnation of such techniques in classical literature as the phenomenon is not a new one glorified by the super stars of competitive international dressage. The uprise is only in its relative prevalence in the warm-up arena and home training rings of the most successful competitive riders. It would seem that the use of this method is the reason behind their success and thus inspires a host of riders to try it with sometimes very deleterious effects. Some would argue that these bad effects are as noticeable among the top riders as they are among the non-top riders. Do these horses truly move better or worse? Are they more precise? Are they more supple? Are the standards of the training scale met more to the ideal by a horse trained with this method or not?

The judges preside over the courts in international competition which decide the validity of the methods to meeting the standards and ideals set forth by the FEI. However, the FEI must use its position to decide its ETHICS. They have done their very best to acknowledge that this is what they need to do without actually doing it. Dr. Gerd Heuschmann has scientifically studied its effects, as have others. Some claim to see detrimental physical effects and some do not. This area seems to be inconclusive regarding actual physical harm.

Mental factors have also been addressed. At the Global Dressage Forum, a segment was presented on the concept of "Learned Helplessness" and thus its relation to training methods. It was shown that almost any training method like what is used in hyperflexion can walk a very fine line. It is only logical that excessive use of it would be mentally harmful.

Excessive has yet to be defined. So as of this point, there is only an acknowledgment by the FEI that there must be an ethical consideration to the use of hyperflexion, but no definition of what that actually is. Its important as riders and trainer then that everyone continue to push for these definitions. If we truly love our horses, respect them and the ideals of our sport as it relates to the promotion of the horse as a happy athlete, we owe it then to the horse to concisely define what is considered ethical treatment and training of the horse.