Safety for Horses and Riders in

Eventing
- The SHARE database -

by Denzil O’Brien and Dr Raymond Cripps

March 2008

RIRDC Publication No 08/027

RIRDC Project No UF-11A
© 2008 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
All rights reserved.

Safety for Horses and Riders in Eventing: The SHARE database

ISBN 1 74151 616 1

ISSN 1440-6845

Publication No. 08/027

Project No UF-11A

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion
and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this
publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the
Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors
or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any
person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission,
made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the
Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are
reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights
should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details

Dr Raymond Cripps Ms Denzil O’Brien
Research Centre for Injury Studies Research Centre for Injury Studies
Flinders University Flinders University
GPO Box 2100 PO Box 2100
Adelaide SA 5001 Adelaide SA 5001

Phone: +61 (8) 8201 7627 Phone: +61 (8) 8201 7602
Fax: +61 (8) 8374 0702 Fax: +61 (8) 8374 0702
Email: Raymond.cripps@flinders.edu.au Email: denzil.obrien@flinders.edu.au

Cover Photo: Evalyn Bemis ©

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Level 2, 15 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100

Fax: 02 6271 4199
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au
Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in March 2008 by Union Offset

ii
Foreword
Each year in Australia, about 20 people die from horse-related injuries and about 3,000 people are
admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Although these serious injuries represent a small proportion of
horse-related injuries that occur in Australia each year, their health and social consequences can be severe
and lead to lasting disabilities.
The sport of eventing has long been viewed as one in which risk of injury to riders is high, but little work
has been done on measuring the extent of the risk, nor on establishing rates of injury to riders or horses.
During the late 1990s, a number of eventing riders were killed in falls both here and overseas, and RIRDC
supported a trial to investigate the possibility of establishing a national surveillance program in Australia
to monitor falls and injuries to riders and horses. The success of the trial led to the establishment of a
national program, and results were published in 2004. The program was supported by the Equestrian
Federation of Australia (EFA), the peak national body for the sport, and their National Eventing
Committee, the organisation with policy and rule-making authority.
Data collected from 2002 to 2005 demonstrated that this data collection and analysis system offered the
possibility for extension of use to other National Federations (NFs), and RIRDC provided additional
support to trial this system in two other countries, India and New Zealand. While eventually neither was
able to participate fully in the trial, use of data from New Zealand and comparison with overall
international data has demonstrated that it would be possible for other NFs to use this system, thus
establishing a uniform and consistent data collection and analysis system which would provide valuable
comparative data in risk assessment and reduction.
This report firstly uses data obtained from a full 5-year national surveillance program, based on 1,732
rider falls at 444 events conducted around Australia during between 2002 and 2006, to exemplify the
capacity, flexibility and usefulness of the data collection and analysis system, known as SHARE (Safety
for Riders And Horses in Eventing). Secondly, the report compares data obtained from New Zealand and
from the Fédération Equestre International (FEI), the international governing body for equestrian sport, to
demonstrate the system’s capacity. At a time when the FEI is concerned to ensure the highest safety levels
at national as well as at international level, SHARE offers an opportunity for NFs to collect, analyse and
report on their falls and injury data in a way which will inform future safety policy development in a sport
in which the rate of injury has proved to be surprisingly low, but in which there is a risk of catastrophic
and even fatal outcomes from falls.
This project was funded from industry revenue which is matched by funds provided by the Australian
Government.
This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1700 research publications, forms part of our
Horse R&D program, which aims to assist in developing the Australian horse industry and enhancing its
export potential.
Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our
website:
• downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html
• purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Peter O’Brien
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without funding from RIRDC, and additional funding and
support from the Equestrian Federation of Australia. We gratefully acknowledge this financial and in-kind
support.
The assistance provided by the group known collectively as ‘State Coordinators’ was invaluable
throughout the life of the project, as they ensured that the information was forwarded to us promptly and
consistently. In addition, a number of key eventing officials added particular value to the quality of the
information, by sending us additional event information, including course maps and programs, and their
detailed reports on incidents at events. We thank you all for your help and for your participation in this
project, with particular thanks to Jo Edwards and Vicki Burgess whose support was unstinting, and to
Monique Schaefer from the EFA National Office, who responded so cheerfully and promptly to our
weekly requests for member contact information. We thank the Board of the EFA, and CEO Franz
Venhaus, for their financial and in-kind support over the life of the project, and the EFA’s National
Eventing Committee for facilitating our work.
Hilairie Pagano coordinated the data collection and data entry in the first part of the project, and we thank
her for her valuable work.
A special thanks to all the riders who took the time to complete and return questionnaires, in many cases
more than once! We thank you for your perceptive and interesting comments on the sport, for your
readiness to proffer information about yourselves and your horses, and for your support for and active
participation in this project.

iv
Contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Contents......................................................................................................................................................... v
List of tables............................................................................................................................................ vii
List of figures.......................................................................................................................................... vii
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Method .......................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Results........................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Falls and injuries ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Venues and events .......................................................................................................... 5
4.1.2 Starters and jumping efforts............................................................................................ 5
4.1.3 Rider falls........................................................................................................................ 7
4.1.4 Horse falls ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.5 Rider injuries................................................................................................................. 12
4.1.6 Horse injuries ................................................................................................................ 14
4.1.7 Jump types .................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 International comparisons ........................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 FEI data......................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 New Zealand data ......................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Other information........................................................................................................................ 22
4.3.1 Body protectors............................................................................................................. 23
4.3.2 Helmets ......................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.3 Tack failure ................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.4 Coaching ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.5 Responsibility for falls.................................................................................................. 26
4.3.6 Rider support for the project ......................................................................................... 27
5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Difficulties and problems............................................................................................................ 28
5.2 Suggestions for change ............................................................................................................... 29
5.3 The future for SHARE ................................................................................................................. 31
6. Implications................................................................................................................................. 33
7. Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 34

v
8. Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix 8.1: Fall Report Form ...................................................................................................... 35
Appendix 8.2: Questionnaire........................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 8.3: The sport of eventing................................................................................................ 43
Appendix 8.4: List of venues and events.......................................................................................... 45
Appendix 8.5: All one-day events and three-day events by State, 2002 – 2006 ............................. 46
Appendix 8.6: Rider fatalities 1997 – 2007...................................................................................... 47
Appendix 8.7: Falls and injury data, New Zealand, 2005 – 2006 .................................................... 48
Appendix 8.8: Australian jump types and equivalent FEI jump types ............................................. 53
Appendix 8.9: Photographs of jump types ....................................................................................... 54
Appendix 8.10: Proposal to change the cross-country scoring system ............................................ 56
9. Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 57
10. References................................................................................................................................... 59

vi
List of tables
Table 1: All starters by State, Australia 2002 – 2006 ..............................................................................6
Table 2: Numbers of jumping efforts by State, Australia, 2002 – 2006 ..................................................6
Table 3: All rider falls by competition level, Australia, 2002 – 2006 .....................................................8
Table 4: Rate of all rider falls by State, Australia, 2002 – 2006 .............................................................8
Table 5: Risk of all rider falls per 1,000 jumping efforts, by competition level,
Australia, 2002 – 2006 ..............................................................................................................9
Table 6: Risk of rotational horse falls per 10,000 jumping efforts, by competition
level, Australia, 2002 – 2006 ..................................................................................................11
Table 7: Number of rider injuries by competition level, Australia, 2002 – 2006 .................................12
Table 8: Risk of injury per 1,000 jumping efforts, Australia, 2002 – 2006...........................................13
Table 9: Falls and jump types, Australia, 2002 – 2006 .........................................................................15
Table 10: Rate of rotational horse falls at FEI classified jumps, Australia, 2002 – 2006........................19
Table 11: Rider and horse falls, New Zealand, 2005 – 2006 ..................................................................20

List of figures
Figure 1: Rider falling in shallow water, Kentucky CCI****, 2006.........................................................7
Figure 2: Non-rotational horse and rider fall, World Equestrian Games 2006
.................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 3 Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005...............................................................................14
Figure 4: Jump in water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005..................................................................................16
Figure 5: Square spread, Adelaide CCI**** 2005..................................................................................16
Figure 6: Ascending spread, Adelaide CCI**** 2005............................................................................16
Figure 7: Square spread, Adelaide CCI**** 2005..................................................................................16
Figure 8: Number of rider falls, horse falls and rotational horse falls, international events, FEI data,
2002 – 2006 ............................................................................................................................18
Figure 9: Number of rider falls, horse falls and rotational horse falls, all events, Australia,
2002 – 2006 ............................................................................................................................18
Figure 10: Square spread with ditch, Badminton CCI**** 2007 .............................................................22
Figure 11: Ascending brush spread with ditch, Burghley CCI**** 2005 ................................................23
Figure 12: Drop into water, Burghley CCI**** 2005...............................................................................24
Figure 13: Horse and rider fall at World Equestrian Games 2006 ............................................................29
Figure 14: Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005...............................................................................41
Figure 15: Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005...............................................................................42

vii
Executive summary
Background
During 1999 and 2000, a marked increase in the number of rider deaths associated with the sport of
eventing both in Australia and overseas focused attention on rider safety. There had not previously been
any collection of data on the health, social or financial costs of horse-related injuries. If the equestrian
community is to develop policies for prevention and management of these injuries and their associated
costs, accurate data is needed on which to base such policy development, and any strategic directions for
equestrian associations and interested medical/health bodies.
In 2002, a national surveillance monitoring program was established, in collaboration with the Equestrian
Federation of Australia (EFA), based on the success of a trial conducted in 2001 in New South Wales and
South Australia (Cripps & Pagano 2002). Funded by the Rural Industries Research & Development
Corporation and the EFA, this monitoring program was conducted until the end of the eventing season of
2006, providing a full five years of data.
Who is the report targeted at
The report is directed at the policy-makers in equestrian sport. Until this project began, the EFA collected
no information on the sport of eventing. There was no central database of competitions, starters, results,
falls or injuries. Our findings should provide a useful source of information when policy-makers look at
future rule changes, as they will provide comprehensive data about risks of horse and rider falls, as well as
correlations between jump types and the risk of falls.
In addition, the report is targeted at other National Federations in the hope that SHARE might prove
useful to them in setting up or refining their own data collection systems, in order to fulfil their reporting
requirements to the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI).
Aims/Objectives
1. To continue national data collection and analysis, to provide a full five year surveillance of falls
and injuries to riders and horses.
2. To develop reporting tools for the EFA and other National Federations (NFs), to allow them to
fulfil their international reporting obligations to the FEI.
3. To collect data from New Zealand to allow comparison with Australian and FEI data.

Methods used
This report analyses data collected over this five year period on falls of riders and horses in the cross-
country phase of the sport of eventing, and injuries incurred as a result of these falls. Data was collected
from all EFA and FEI affiliated events throughout Australia utilising a Fall Report Form (FRF). Officials’
reports from events were sent to us and, together with official results from the internet, were used to cross-
check falls data, to confirm rider and horse identification, and to identify the number of starters at each
level of competition at each event. Event and fall information were processed, and entered into a secure
database (SHARE). To complete the data collection process, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to each
rider who fell. Data contained in the data collection and analysis system, SHARE, was analysed
quantitatively to produce tabulations and figures used in this report.
It demonstrates that it is possible to estimate the rate of rider and horse falls within the context of a sport
which attracts nearly 12,000 individual starters each year, and it outlines a method for estimating risk of
falls and injuries. It is the first time for this sport that such data has been collected in Australia, and it is
the first study to estimate risk against a more complex set of parameters than simply the number of starters

viii
in an event. These parameters include the level of the competition, the type of jump involved, whether the
horse also fell, and whether this was a rotational fall, whether the fall occurred at a jump or between
jumps, whether the rider or the horse was injured, and the effect of the riders’ injuries on their daily lives.
Key findings
The report demonstrates that the system is capable of translation to other National Federations (NFs) for
use in collecting and analysing falls and injury data, offering the possibility of a consistent body of data
for international comparisons, as well as a sturdy platform for national analysis.
The research which led to the development of this specific data collection and analysis system, SHARE, is
important for a number of reasons; not least being that it provides a method for analysing the rates and risk
of injury to riders and horses in the sport of eventing alone. The range of horse-related activities which can
result in injury is legion, and analysis of injuries resulting from such a range of activities, through hospital
or mortality data for example, cannot provide an accurate assessment of the risks associated with eventing
alone.
Implications for relevant stakeholders for:
While there have been many studies on the
nature and incidence of horse-related injury, While the risks of catastrophic
many of them focussing on injuries in and even fatal outcomes … in
children (Barone & Rodgers 1989; Bixby-
Hammett 1992; Giebel et al 1993), few eventing cannot be denied, we
previous studies have concentrated on have been able to demonstrate that
eventing alone (Paix 1999; Whitlock 1999; in general the injury rate to riders
Murray et al 2006). While the risks of
catastrophic and even fatal outcomes for
and horses is substantially lower
riders and horses in eventing cannot be than previously claimed …, and
denied, we have been able to demonstrate this is important for those who
that in general the injury rate to riders and make policy decisions for the
horses is substantially lower than previously
claimed (Paix 1999), and this is important
sport.
for those who make policy decisions for the
sport.
In 2006, RIRDC provided further funding for a one-year trial of the data collection and analysis system,
known as SHARE (Safety for Horses And Riders in Eventing) in two other NFs, New Zealand and India.
The former is a well-credentialled country in the sport, with success at World Championships and
Olympic Games. The latter on the other hand has barely begun to conduct the sport, and has no current
capacity to collect information on falls and injuries. Unfortunately neither NF was able to participate in
the trial-New Zealand because the NF lacked the resources to implement and manage the system, and
India because they had too few events to justify their participation. Nonetheless this report demonstrates
that SHARE is capable of generating comparisons of Australian data with data sourced from other NFs
and from the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), the peak international body for equestrian sport.

ix
Recommendations
We do not believe that we are in a position to make formal recommendations to the governing bodies for
equestrian sport, but nonetheless we urge the EFA to consider doing the following:
• Ensure full compliance in reporting on all safety aspects of the sport. This will bring the EFA into
line with the FEI’s current practices, and enhance the Federation’s risk assessment and risk
minimisation capacities.
• Adopt a data collection and analysis system such as SHARE. Used in conjunction with the EFA’s
existing results database, this will provide the Federation with the capacity to identify, measure
and control the risks associated with the sport.
• Adopt a revised scoring system and require its use by all event organisers. This will provide the
EFA with complete information about all falls of riders and horses, particularly rotational horse
falls, which have been the cause of 18 rider deaths in the sport in 10 years.
• Use the data collected as the basis of regular reports on rates of falls and injuries, and provide
these to members, organisers, officials, sponsors and funding agencies, in line with FEI reporting
standards.
• In light of general agreement that reducing the number of horses falling is the single factor most
likely to reduce the number of injuries to riders and horses, the EFA should review the current
rules which permit a horse continuing in competition after falling if its fall is not related to a jump.
British Eventing has recently introduced a rule requiring elimination for all horse falls, including
those ‘on the flat’.

x
1. Introduction
This project is the culmination of five years’ data collection from a national surveillance program to
monitor injuries to riders and horses in the cross-country phase of the sport of eventing (see Appendix
8.3). Eventing is conducted around Australia (except in the NT) at all levels, from very young riders
competing at their local Pony Club, to the highest level, equivalent to competition at the Olympic Games
or the World Championships (known as 4-star level). The competitions themselves are known variously as
horse trials, one-day events or three-day events (see Appendix 8.3 and the Glossary). The Equestrian
Federation of Australia (EFA) is the peak body for the sport at national level, and the Fédération Equestre
Internationale (FEI) the peak international body. The sport has been dominated internationally by
Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Germany and the USA in recent times.
In Australia, more than 1,700 horses carry an eventing performance card entitling them to compete at
official national level events, and more than 600 of these horses have an equivalent licence for
international level competition. In our study covering 5 complete years of local competition, we have
records of over 58,000 individual starts. Every weekend around Australia (with the exception of the
hottest and the wettest months), hundreds of riders and horses compete in one-day events.
However, the sport has been generally viewed as a very risky one and by 2000 this perception had been
validated by more than a dozen rider deaths in competitions in Australia, the United Kingdom and Ireland
in the preceding three years. In 1999 five riders died in the UK within four months of each other, with four
of these deaths being the result of the horse somersaulting over the jump and landing on the rider (known
as a rotational fall). The FEI responded rapidly by establishing an International Eventing Safety
Committee, formed jointly by the FEI and the British Horse Trials Association, now known as British
Eventing, to urgently review horse and rider safety issues in the sport. In April 2000 this Committee made
numerous recommendations, among which was to establish a world-wide statistical database covering
information regarding injuries to riders and horses at the international level of competition (International
Eventing Safety Committee 2000). No such data collection had previously been undertaken at either
national or international level. All member National Federations (NFs) which conduct the sport of
eventing were asked to contribute their own data towards this international database, and the FEI is now
able to report on trends in rider falls and injuries at all events at international competition level in all NFs
which conduct the sport (Federation Equestre International 2007a). While the FEI signalled its intention in
2005 to require NFs to compile and report similarly on their national level competitions, this did not
eventuate during the period of study.
The role of injury surveillance and monitoring, the current state of surveillance of horse-related injuries,
and the difficulties in obtaining accurate information have been detailed in a previous RIRDC report
(Cripps & O'Brien 2004). Various studies have estimated the risks associated with horse-related activities,
using mainly coronial data, hospital admissions, emergency department data collections, or information
collected during equestrian events (Cripps 2000; Bixby-Hammett 1987; Pounder 1984; Paix 1999;
Williams & Ashby 1995). National information on the epidemiology of horse-related injury in Australia
is, however, minimal and fragmented. A report using national mortality and hospital separations data sets
was able to provide quite detailed epidemiological information on horse-related deaths and
hospitalisations in Australia (Cripps 2000). This report, however, was not able to identify the type of
equestrian activity or the place of occurrence associated with the death or injury due to limitations in data
coding.
These limitations are further compounded by the many and varied activities which together comprise
‘horse-related activity’: they may include leading, grooming, feeding or just being with a horse; riding for
fun, on a road or in a paddock; going to Pony Club on the weekend; mustering cattle; loading and
unloading a horse from a float or truck; shoeing a horse or trimming its hooves; training a horse for a
specific type of competition, including dressage, showjumping, eventing, endurance riding, polocrosse,

1
driving, vaulting or camp drafting; competing in one of these sports; horse-racing, including jumping
racing; training and competing in Western riding; showing horses ‘in hand’; working in stables as a
groom; breeding horses; breaking in a horse: all these are horse-related activities, and many may overlap
in any one person’s life. With recent introduction of expanded sports codes in ICD-10-AM version 3 (U-
codes), more specific sports-related details on horse-related hospitalisations are available (Flood &
Harrison 2006).
Partly as a result of the spate of rider deaths in the late 1990s and 2000, this surveillance project was
proposed in 2001 initially with the design of a pilot study, jointly funded by RIRDC and the EFA, to
determine whether it was possible to establish a national injury surveillance program specifically in the
sport of eventing. No such program existed in Australia at that time, or apparently anywhere else in the
equestrian world. This pilot program was conducted during the 2001 eventing season in New South Wales
and South Australia, using a uniform reporting mechanism and a follow-up questionnaire for those riders
who had fallen (Appendices 1 and 2). Information was obtained on 121 verifiable rider falls during this
period, using information from Fall Report Forms (FRFs), stewards’ reports and returned rider
questionnaires, from 29 national level EFA and international level FEI affiliated events. From the
information collected, it was possible to estimate an incident rate of rider falls per 1,000 jumping efforts,
and to identify the location and severity of injuries resulting from these falls (Cripps & Pagano 2002). The
pilot project demonstrated that with cooperation and assistance from the EFA and the riders themselves, it
would be possible to establish a national surveillance program which could collect sufficient data to allow
meaningful and useful interpretation. We were successful in obtaining further funding from RIRDC and
the EFA to establish such a national surveillance program in all Australian States which conduct EFA- and
FEI-affiliated eventing competitions (NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA and TAS), and to conduct the program
for the two years 2002 and 2003 (Cripps & O'Brien 2004). In 2004 the EFA agreed to provide further
funding for the project for that year, and again in 2005.
During these four years (2002 to 2005) we continually adapted the data collection and analysis system into
a model which we believed could be useful to other NFs in collecting comparable data on falls and
injuries in eventing. This model became known as SHARE (Safety for Horses And Riders in Eventing).
In early 2006 RIRDC again provided funding for the financial year 2006/2007 for a specific project in
which SHARE would be trialled in two additional NFs, in order to compare data and also to provide these
two NFs with a ready-made system for fulfilling their obligations to the FEI to collect national level data
comparable to that required for international level events, should that be required. We selected New
Zealand because the sport is well-developed there, with success at World Championship and Olympic
level, and India, where it is a developing sport with few events and almost no existing infrastructure.
Unfortunately despite our best efforts neither NF was able to follow through on its initial commitment to
participate in this project, New Zealand because the National Office was unable to provide resources for
managing the data collection in-house, and India because the number of events in 2006/2007 was so small
(3) that the NF did not believe their time commitment would be justified. The New Zealand Equestrian
Federation, however, was able to provide our project with some information on falls and injuries in that
country for 2005 and 2006 (see Section 4.2.2, p.20, for details and comparisons).
We reported to RIRDC that we were unable to fulfil the terms of the funding agreement, and gained
approval to amend the project to continue collection of national data, to develop reporting tools which
would allow the EFA to report directly to the FEI on both national and international level trends, and to
make comparisons of the Australian data with both FEI and New Zealand data.
This report uses examples from our national data and comparisons with New Zealand and FEI data to
demonstrate the scope of the reporting and data analysis powers provided by SHARE, in line with the
revised objectives of the study. It uses these examples to demonstrate the power and capacity of the
system, and outlines the potential of the model for future use by national and international equestrian
organisations.

2
2. Objectives
The initial objectives of this project were not achieved in full. These objectives were:
1. To devise a national strategy with the Equestrian Federation of Australia for safety policy
development and implementation.
2. To trial the expansion of the use of the collaborative data collection and analysis system
(SHARE) into other National Federations which conduct the sport of eventing, identified
as the Indian Equestrian Federation and the New Zealand Equestrian Federation.
As outlined in Chapter 1, new objectives were established with RIRDC’s agreement, and achieved:
1. To continue national data collection and analysis, to provide a full five year surveillance
of falls and injuries to riders and horses.
2. To develop reporting tools for the EFA and other NFs, to allow them to fulfil their
international reporting obligations to the FEI.
3. To collect data from New Zealand which would allow comparison with Australian and
FEI data.

3
3. Method
The methodology for the data collection and analysis has been detailed in full in our previous reports to
RIRDC (02/082, project UF-7A, and 04/171, project UF-10A). In brief, we routinely collected data from
all EFA and FEI affiliated events throughout Australia for a five year period (a total of 444 events). A Fall
Report Form (FRF), developed by Dr Rod Hoare with input from National Eventing Committee members,
was to be completed for each rider who fell (Appendix 8.1). We obtained officials’ reports from the event,
which included course and jump information, as well as additional information on falls; and we used
official results for cross-checking falls data and to confirm rider and horse identification. We also used
results to identify the number of starters at each level of competition at each event. Once event and fall
information had been processed, and entered into a secure database, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to
each rider who fell. This questionnaire was modified occasionally during the course of the project, and the
most recent version is included in Appendix 8.2. Resources for coordinating the collection and
transmission of this information were provided by the EFA at the start of the project, with one individual
in each State being nominated as the State Coordinator for the project. FRFs and other data were sent to us
by these Coordinators, as well as directly by event officials, and as the project progressed we also began
accessing information about starters and results via the Internet, with occasional confirmation of falls
coming from relevant magazine articles.
Coincidentally with the beginning of our project, the FEI also began collecting data on falls at all
international level events, and required all NFs to provide comprehensive information on rider falls, horse
falls (including whether the horse had a rotational fall), rider and horse injuries and fatalities, and jump
type, including detailed information about jump structure, the approach and landing conditions, the
weather, the footing and the speed of the approach.
While we did not collect information on ground conditions, weather, jump structure or the approach, we
did develop specific reports through SHARE which mirror many of the FEI’s reporting requirements,
allowing the EFA and other NFs to generate data which are directly comparable with each other and with
the FEI. One SHARE report has the capacity to calculate for any period (by day, week, month, year or
total) the total number of rider falls, total horse falls, total rider and horse injuries and total rotational
horse falls at each level of competition and at each jump type, at any venue. A second SHARE report
calculates the risk of falls per 1,000 jumping efforts, by State, by venue, and by any period. Other reports
can be developed as required.
We encountered a number of difficulties throughout the life of this project which have resulted in less-
than-perfect data quality, and these are outlined in Chapter 5, Discussion.
In summary, however, at the end of a five year surveillance project, we have developed a data collection
and analysis tool, SHARE, which is a stand-alone application capable of being used by NFs for
monitoring falls and injuries in the sport of eventing, and for providing detailed analysis of those aspects
of the sport which impact on risk.

4
4. Results
In this chapter we illustrate the scope of the information and the analytical capacity of SHARE, by
exploring areas of the data which allow us to measure rates of falls and injuries, and to further estimate the
risks associated with falling, including types and severity of injuries incurred. We start with an overall
picture of the sport and its participants, and progress to more detailed analysis of particular areas of risk.
We also explore some specific topics which have emerged from the questionnaires as potential areas of
interest to policy-makers, officials, coaches and the riders themselves. A number of photographs
throughout the text show examples of riders and horses falling at cross-country jumps.

4.1 Falls and injuries

4.1.1 Venues and events
We collected information from venues around Australia, metropolitan and country, in all States. Eventing
is not conducted in the Northern Territory, and for the purposes of this study, venues in the ACT were
classified as being in NSW.
The full list of venues from which we obtained information on rider and horse falls can be found in
Appendix 8.4. However, at each of these venues, several individual events may have been held during the
study period. These are often held on an annual basis, and some venues hold multiple events in any one
year (for example, Macarthur). Most venues host only national level one-day events (CNCs) and these are
identified by default with the venue name alone (for example, Yeringberg). Others also host national level
three-day events (CCNs). Some venues also host international one-day and/or three-day events (CICs and
CCIs). These are identified by the appropriate prefix before the venue name (for example, CIC Wandin,
CCN Naracoorte, CCI Sydney). These abbreviations are expanded in the Glossary (p.55). SHARE can
provide information on the mix of types of events over time, for example. A list of all events by State for
the period 2002 to 2006 can be found in Appendix 8.5.
Three points need to be made here: first, in calculating the actual number of events held, we have always
differentiated three-day events and one-day events regardless of whether they were held at the same venue
on the same day, because the rules and the structure of the particular competitions are different. For
example, the Adelaide event held in November each year combines a 4* star FEI level three-day event
(CCI Adelaide) with a 2* FEI level one-day event (CIC Adelaide), and they are counted as two
competitions. Second, New South Wales shows a drop in the number of events conducted in 2003, which
can be explained by the severe drought in that year, in combination with a crisis in cost and availability of
insurance for sporting events. Subsequent increases in the number of events in that State reflect the take-
up of the relatively inexpensive option of running FEI level one-day events (CICs), providing riders with
qualifying opportunities. Third, the figures for Tasmania probably do not accurately reflect the actual
number of events held in that State, but perhaps the rather sporadic supply of information given to us from
that State, augmented by what could be accessed from the Internet.

4.1.2 Starters and jumping efforts

SHARE can provide information on the number of starters in any one year, at any level of competition,
for any period. Table 1 shows the number of starters in each State during this time.

5
Table 1: All starters by State, Australia, 2002 – 2006

Number of starters

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas All States

Year of
event Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts

2002 5,073 2,111 1,083 1,581 918 103 10,869

2003 4,230 1,507 1,510 1,136 839 67 9,289

2004 5,419 1,982 1,410 1,116 815 184 10,926

2005 6,290 3,862 1,415 1,463 856 253 14,139

2006 5,595 3,494 1,402 1,721 760 362 13,334

Group total 26,607 12,956 6,820 7,017 4,188 969 58,557

We also collected information about the actual number of jumping efforts at each level of competition at
each venue throughout the study period. Each level of competition from Introductory to 4* (see Glossary)
has a maximum number of jumping efforts permitted under the rules, although in practice most courses
are designed with fewer than the maximum number. From events for which we received course maps, we
were able to calculate these numbers accurately, but these were the minority. In most cases we used the
maximum allowable, and so the values in Table 2 somewhat overestimate the actual number of jumping
efforts, perhaps by up to one-quarter.
Table 2: Numbers of jumping efforts by State, Australia, 2002 - 2006
Total number of jumping efforts
Group
NSW Qld SA Tas Vic WA Total
Year of
event Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts

2002 118,970 27,138 24,575 2,447 58,554 40,011 271,695

2003 103,333 35,975 22,184 1,373 42,748 29,240 234,853

2004 133,676 32,827 21,100 4,290 54,382 29,075 275,350

2005 164,836 34,684 21,945 6,317 97,340 38,035 363,157

2006 147,004 34,127 20,998 9,297 93,161 44,796 349,383

Group total 667,819 164,751 110,802 23,724 346,185 181,157 1,494,438

6
SHARE uses the number of starters at each level of competition at each event and the number of jumping
efforts involved, to establish the total number of jumping efforts made in that class and then to calculate
the rates of rider falls, and then the risk of a rider falling (see Tables 4 and 5 below). This is not a
completely accurate calculation for two reasons: first, in most cases the calculation is based on the
maximum allowable number of jumping efforts, and it is unusual for course designers to build to this
maximum number; and second, it is also unusual for all starters to complete the course. Up to half of the
field might not finish in any one class. It is likely therefore that our calculations underestimate the risk to a
degree, since the total number of jumping efforts throughout the period of study is likely to be smaller.
However, by using the same bases for the calculation across five years of events, we believe we have
established a reasonable benchmark for the calculation of risk, as measured by the number of rider falls
per 1,000 jumping efforts. We have not made any formal statistical analyses of the data, as the purpose of
the study was to demonstrate the capabilities of this data system, and to identify areas in which policy
implications might become apparent.

4.1.3 Rider falls

Although riders can be injured in eventing without actually falling off their horses (by brushing an
overhead branch, say, or by being caught between the horse and the jump when the horse refuses to jump),
it is usually accepted that most injuries occur as the result of a fall from the horse. Falls in eventing occur
most frequently in association with the horse refusing to jump or attempting to jump. The horse may
refuse to jump, and stop suddenly in front of a jump, with the rider usually being propelled forward and
over the front of the horse. The horse may attempt to jump but for a number of reasons may cause the
rider to fall off, perhaps by taking off too far away and not getting completely over the jump, or by taking
off too close to the jump and collecting it with a front leg, or by stumbling on landing, or maybe by
misjudging the width of the jump and leaving a leg in the jump. The horse itself may fall, which inevitably
results in a fall of the rider as well. For that reason this study has focussed on the rate and risk of riders
falling off their horses, and the rate and risk of injuries associated with riders falling off their horses, either
at a jump or on the flat. It is worth noting here that the scoring system for eventing does not penalise a fall
of horse or rider ‘on the flat’ – that is, between jumps – and these falls are often not even noted unless an
injury results to either rider or horse.

Figure 1: Rider falling in shallow water, Kentucky CCI****, 2006

(photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

7
SHARE can identify the number of rider falls at each level of competition, and can differentiate this into
rider-only falls and rider/horse falls (Table 3). Although there is currently only one competition held at
CCI**** in Australia, we have maintained it as a distinct category because the level is equivalent to
Olympic Games and World Championships, and unlike the other 3 FEI levels (Advanced, Intermediate
and Novice) it cannot be conducted at an equivalent national level.

Table 3: All rider falls by competition level, Australia, 2002 – 2006

Total rider-only and horse/rider falls by competition level, 2002 - 2006

Rider-only falls Horse and rider falls Total rider falls

Competition level Count Count Count

CCI**** 14 3 17

Advanced 72 20 92

Intermediate 186 46 232

Novice 222 62 284

Prenovice 339 78 417

Preliminary 297 36 333

Introductory 331 26 357

Total 1,461 271 1,732

8
However, the number of rider falls at one competition level does not provide any information about the
rate of falls among all riders at that level. A more useful calculation for this purpose is the rate of rider
falls for every 100 starters. SHARE can provide this information by competition level, or as exemplified
in Table 4, by State. It is also capable of presenting this information for individual venues over time.
Table 4: Rate of all rider falls by State, Australia, 2002 – 2006

Rate of rider falls per 100 starters by year by State, 2002 - 2006

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas All States

Year of event Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts

2002 3.0 2.6 6.0 3.9 2.4 2.4 3.0

2003 3.5 2.2 4.4 6.0 4.4 3.1 3.5

2004 3.4 2.6 4.5 4.9 2.8 2.6 3.2

2005 2.7 2.6 7.1 1.6 1.8 4.2 2.9

2006 2.5 3.6 3.4 0.8 1.9 2.8 2.5

All years 3.0 2.7 5.2 2.5 2.4 3.0 3.0

Overall the rate of rider falls is 3 for every 100 starters, with some variations between States and across
years. The rates shown for both Victoria and Tasmania are not necessarily reliable, because of difficulties
in obtaining accurate and consistent data from these two States, as outlined in Chapter 5, Discussion.

9
It is probable that risk is mainly related to the number of jumping efforts made, rather than to starting in a
competition. SHARE can estimate these jumping efforts performed, and use this as a basis for calculating
the risk of rider and horse falls per 1,000 of these jumping efforts (Table 5).
Table 5: Risk of all rider falls per 1,000 jumping efforts, by competition level,
Australia, 2002 -2006

Falls per 1,000 jumping efforts, by competition level, 2002 - 2006

Rider only falls Horse and rider falls Total rider falls

Competition level Rate Rate) Rate

CCI**** 2.6 0.5 3.1

Advanced 1.1 0.3 1.4

Intermediate 1.2 0.3 1.5

Novice 1.0 0.3 1.2

Prenovice 1.0 0.2 1.3

Preliminary 0.9 0.1 1.0

Introductory 0.9 0.1 1.0

Total 1.0 0.2 1.2

4.1.4 Horse falls

In estimating risk, it is important to differentiate between rider-only falls and falls involving the horse as
well.
In eventing, a horse fall which involves a jump results in elimination. A horse is considered to have fallen
if its shoulders and hindquarters simultaneously touch the ground, or the jump and the ground; or if the
horse is trapped in a jump in such a way that it cannot get out without assistance, or is liable to injure
itself. A fall between jumps, as explained previously, incurs no penalties other than perhaps time penalties
if the fall causes the rider to take up more time than is allowed for the course. In theory a horse may fall
any number of times between jumps without incurring a penalty, but in practice riders would invariably
retire if their horse had a second such fall.
Sometimes a horse will stumble after a jump, perhaps going down onto its knees and usually dislodging
the rider. This will not be penalised as a horse fall, so will not be recognisable from results sheets or
indeed described on the FRF as a horse fall. However, riders often characterised such an event as a horse
fall in their questionnaire, and we have recorded these as such in our data.
We have identified a national total of 276 horse falls from 2002 to 2006 inclusive. In estimating incident
rate of horse falls we have used a figure of 10,000 jumping efforts, rather than 1,000, as the number of
horse falls is so small. Thus the incident rate of horse falls across all States is 1.8 per 10,000 jumping
efforts. However, this total of 276 horse falls is certainly an under-representation, for reasons outlined
previously. It is probable that there were many more, given the large number of unexplained
‘eliminations’ which showed in results. We know of 14 horses which fell twice during the period of study,
but we have no records of any horse falling more than twice over the five years.

10
A horse fall which involves the horse somersaulting or ‘flipping’ over a jump is known as a rotational fall.
It is usually the result of the horse stopping or being stopped in such a way that the jump acts as a pivot
point on the horse’s front legs or chest for the remainder of the horse’s body to continue over the jump in a
somersault. A rotational fall usually propels the rider out of the saddle and forward over the jump before
the body of the horse follows, with the possibility that the horse will then land on top of the fallen rider.

Figure 2: Non-rotational horse and rider fall, World Equestrian Games 2006
(photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

Both our data and the FEI’s data over the period 2002 to 2006 indicate that the greatest risk of injury to a
rider occurs when there is a rotational horse fall. At the time of writing (September 2007), we have
information on 25 rider deaths around the world in the sport of eventing between May 1997 and
September 2007, and 18 of these rider deaths were the result of a rotational horse fall. As far as it is
possible to see from press reports of the incidents and of inquests, 17 of these 18 riders died as a result of
being crushed by the horse as it fell (see Appendix 8.6). While the FEI has declared the reduction of
rotational horse falls as its prime safety goal, and will use reduction of rotational falls as a Key
Performance Indicator (KPI) by which to measure the performance of individual events (FEI, 2007),
unfortunately in the 13 months from August 2006 to September 2007, 11 riders have died in falls cross-
country, 7 of them as a result of a rotational horse fall.
From the Australian data, we have collected information on rotational horse falls mainly from the returned
questionnaires, principally because the original Fall Report Form did not ask the jump judges to identify a
rotational horse fall and any such information tended to be proffered inconsistently. Secondly the
introduction of this specific question into the FRF coincided with the drop-off in returns of the Fall Report
Forms. In the questionnaire riders had the opportunity to provide a narrative of the fall event, describing
how and why it happened, and precisely how they fell. Fortunately there were relatively few rotational
falls reported (57), but again this is probably an under-representation of the true numbers.
There are several difficulties in estimating accurate rates of injuries as a result of rotational horse falls
compared with non-rotational horse falls. First, in many falls we do not actually know whether the horse
fell or not, rotationally or not. Secondly, we may not know whether the rider was injured, and even if we
do have this information, we may not know the nature or severity of the injuries. If no FRF was returned
and the rider did not return the questionnaire, all we may know is that the rider fell and continued the
competition. For example, we know that 74 riders were injured as a result of a non-rotational horse fall
and 35 as a result of a rotational horse fall, but we only have information about 47 and 32 respectively. If

11
we compare the number of riders for whom we have a report of an injury as a result of a non-rotational
horse fall (47) with the number of riders for whom we have a report as a result of a rotational horse fall
(32), we find that the rates of attendance at the Emergency Department of a hospital are similar (45% and
44% respectively). Similarly the rates of admission to hospital for these two groups are also similar, 19%
and 16% respectively. However, if we compare the reported effects of these injuries on these riders’ daily
lives, we find a marked difference: 36% of the riders who were injured in a rotational horse fall reported
that their capacity to carry out their daily activities had been affected for more than 21 days, with one
indicating permanent impairment. Of those who were injured in non-rotational horse falls, only 13%
reported similar effects on their daily lives.
Because rotational horse falls do appear to carry a higher level of risk of injury for riders, and particularly
because recent overseas experience indicates potentially catastrophic consequences from such falls, it may
be useful to calculate the rate and risk of such falls occurring. Using the number of starters and the total
number of jumping efforts, SHARE can calculate both rate and risk in relation to level of competition, for
example. Because the actual numbers of rotational horse falls are so small, Table 6 shows the risk of
rotational falls per 10,000 jumping efforts rather than by 1,000 jumping efforts, by competition level.

Table 6: Risk of rotational horse falls per 10,000 jumping efforts,

by competition level, Australia, 2002 – 2006
Rotational horse falls per 10,000 jumping efforts, by competition level

Competition level Counts

CCI**** 0.0

Advanced 1.2

Intermediate 0.9

Novice 0.7

Pre-novice 0.5

Preliminary 0.1

Introductory 0.0

Total 0.4

4.1.5 Rider injuries

SHARE also allows collection of information on rider injuries incurred from a fall cross-country. Some
information on injuries to riders was collected from FRFs, although the jump judges who complete these
forms usually provided little more than a ‘yes’/’no’ response to the question asking whether the rider was
injured. Sometimes there would be additional information in the overall officials’ report, which might
indicate whether an injured rider was treated by St Johns, or taken to hospital. Often the FRF would
indicate that the rider was not injured, most likely because they remounted and continued. However, many
such riders reported in their questionnaires that they had indeed been injured in their fall, information
which would disappear without the follow-up questionnaire. In practice, almost all of the information on
rider injuries was sourced from the questionnaires.
Fortunately during the period of study there were no rider deaths in Australia, and the information
available to us reveals only a relatively small number of riders who incurred very serious injuries. Table 7
shows the number and percentages of riders injured by competition level, 2002 to 2006.

12
Table 7: Number of rider injuries by competition level, Australia, 2002 – 2006

Rider injured

Yes No No response Total

Competition level Count % Count % Count % Count %

CCI**** 2 1 12 1 2 1 16 1

Advanced 22 6 55 6 18 5 95 5

Intermediate 41 11 125 13 63 18 229 13

Novice 72 19 159 16 51 14 282 16

Prenovice 102 27 228 23 86 24 416 24

Preliminary 76 20 202 20 52 14 330 19

Introductory 58 16 212 21 84 23 354 20

No response 1 0 5 1 4 1 10 1

Total 374 100% 998 100% 360 100% 1,732 100%

We have information on 1,732 individual falls, in 374 of which riders reported at least one injury resulting
from this fall, ranging from abrasions and bruises through dislocations to concussion and fractures. By far
the majority of injuries reported were minor, with 90 reports of abrasions, 154 of bruising and 88 of
inflammation. Because multiple responses were available, it is not possible to quantify the exact number
of individual injuries involved. However, SHARE can report the number of times a particular body part
was reported as injured, the type of this injury, the treatment received for the injury, the effect on the
rider’s daily life, and the duration of pain resulting from the injury.
For example, there were 61 reports of fracture or suspected fracture, 14 of these as a result of a rotational
horse fall, and 58 reports of concussion or loss of consciousness, 7 as a result of a rotational horse fall. We
have categorised these as serious injuries. There were 12 cases in which the rider reported both a fracture
and concussion, 2 of these as a result of a rotational horse fall. Interestingly 6 riders who reported
concussion and/or loss of consciousness actually continued riding, with none of these 6 attending the
Emergency Department for diagnosis or treatment. Twenty-three riders reported being admitted to
hospital, and 39 indicated that their injuries had a limiting effect on their daily activities for more than 21
days, with 3 indicating permanent limitations.
Several more riders reported concussion but also reported not requiring treatment. Similarly, 6 riders
reported that their fracture/suspected fracture required no treatment or was treated by themselves. It is
probable that these were self-diagnoses, made without medical consultation. In all, 33 injured riders
reported that they continued riding in the competition.
It is important to note that this information is gathered mostly from returned questionnaires, representing
about half of the total number of riders who fell. It is likely that a similar proportion of riders who did not
return their questionnaires were also injured.

13
SHARE can calculate the risk of injury to riders, based on the number of injuries compared to the number
of jumping efforts performed (Table 8).

Table 8: Risk of injury per 1,000 jumping efforts, Australia, 2002 - 2006

Riders injured per 1,000 jumping efforts, by competition level

Competition level Rate

CCI**** 0.4

Advanced 0.3

Intermediate 0.3

Novice 0.3

Prenovice 0.3

Preliminary 0.2

Introductory 0.2

Total 0.2

SHARE provides the capacity to identify different consequences from specific fall and injury events. For
example, if we characterise fractures, concussion and internal injuries as ‘serious’, and look at riders
injured in rotational horse falls, it becomes clear that these horse falls resulted in significant and serious
injuries to many of these riders. For example, of the 35 riders who sustained serious injuries in a rotational
horse fall, 7 reported concussion or loss of consciousness, 14 reported a fracture or suspected fracture, and
one reported internal injuries. Between them, 15 went to the Emergency Department of a hospital, and 7
were admitted to hospital. Two riders between them spent more than 100 days in hospital.
From returned questionnaires, it is possible to calculate the total number of days riders spent in hospital
after a fall, the average number of days on which riders suffered pain after their fall, as well as the total
and the average number of days during which they were unable to perform their usual activities. In this
way, it is a useful tool for calculating the financial and social costs of injuries in the sport of eventing.

4.1.6 Horse injuries

Horses are also injured in the sport of eventing, sometimes fatally. During the period of study we learned
of the death of 4 horses during competition, a very small number given that there were over 58,000
individual starts during the five years of the project. All 4 of these horses fell, and all 4 were euthanased, 3
as a result of fractures or suspected fractures, and one for unknown reasons. One of these fatal horse falls
was ‘on the flat’ between jumps and 3 were rotational falls at jumps, emphasising again that rotational
falls can have catastrophic results for both participants in the sport.
SHARE can identify many of the aspects of the incident which resulted in injury to a horse: whether the
injuries were the result of a horse fall or not, and whether this fall was a rotational fall; what type of jump
was involved in the incident; whether the rider was injured and what was the nature of the injury; and
whether there is a record of this horse being injured before. In combination with a returned questionnaire,
there is considerable information about the horse’s previous experience, and the precise circumstances
surrounding the horse’s injury. However, because the primary focus of this study was on rider injuries, the
questionnaire did not ask for information about what happened to the horse after competition. It is likely

14
that some horses which were injured in competition were euthanased afterwards, and even more likely that
some horses sustained career-ending injuries in competition and were retired.

4.1.7 Jump types

SHARE records information about the type of jump at which a rider or a horse falls, from a variety of
sources including Fall Report Forms (FRFs) and returned questionnaires. It has been somewhat difficult to
standardise the descriptions of jump types for a number of reasons, including the lack of a uniform
national FRF, and the tendency for both officials and riders to describe jumps in inconsistent terms which
use a mixture of composition and shape (for example, ‘log’ rather than ‘round’; ‘upright’ rather than
perhaps more specifically a wall, or post and rails). During the course of the study the FEI established a
set of descriptors for jumps which more accurately portray the ‘question’ asked of both horse and rider by
the jump. Over the period of the study we classified jumps by the descriptions with which we were
provided, resulting in a list of over 50 different jump types. However, with the FEI descriptors we have
reduced this to 22. We have information on 453 falls in which the jump type is known, 420 in which it is
not known, and 90 in which the fall was not jump-related.

Figure 3: Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005 (photo: Denzil O’Brien)

Our descriptors differ from the FEI’s in one important aspect: while the FEI has characterised jumps into
and out of water together with other step jumps simply as ‘step down’ or ‘step up’, we have retained the
differentiation between the two types, as it is clear from our data that those ‘step’-type jumps involving
water account for a substantial number of rider falls and an increased risk of injury to both rider and horse.
This finding is confirmed by other researchers (Singer et al 2005; Murray, Singer 2006; Singer et al 2004).
In practice, almost all jumps into water involve more than just a step down, often comprising a substantial
jump with a drop into water on the other side (see Figure 3 above, and Figure 12, p.24). In fact until the
end of 2006 the FEI was unable to report on jumps into and out of water because of this mixed
classification. From the beginning of 2007 they have changed the notification form to ensure that this
information is collected from now on. We have also retained several descriptors which we were unable to
align with any of the FEI options (for example, ‘arrowhead’, at which 45 riders fell). Appendix 8.8
outlines the translation of Australian jump types, as reported to us through FRFs and course maps, into the

15
current FEI jump descriptions. There are a number of categories which we have not been able to assign
with confidence to an FEI jump description, and these have been described as ‘Other/unspecified’.

SHARE can readily identify the jump types at which falls are more frequent. However, it cannot estimate
the frequency of these jump types in any one course or across all courses, unless full details on courses
and jump types are provided. Table 9 shows the frequency of falls at particular jump types.
Table 9: Falls and jump types, Australia, 2002 – 2006
All falls by jump type, 2002 - 2006
Horse falls Rider falls
Rotational Non-rotational Total horse Rider-only Total number of
horse falls horse falls falls falls rider falls
Jump type Count Count Count Count Count
Arrowhead 4 4 8 37 45
Bank 1 9 10 17 27
Brush 2 10 12 69 81
Corner 5 13 18 50 68
Ditch 2 4 6 60 66
Keyhole 1 0 1 5 6
Palisade 2 10 12 28 40
Post and rails 9 12 21 133 154
Slide 0 0 0 2 2
Tree squeeze 1 0 1 2 3
Trakehner 2 3 5 25 30
Sunken road 2 6 8 31 39
Round 5 16 21 159 180
Square spread 8 20 28 95 123
Ascending spread 3 9 12 65 77
Step down 1 2 3 32 35
Step up 0 2 2 6 8
Step (unspecified) 0 0 0 8 8
Step into water 3 19 22 119 141
Step out of water 2 13 15 17 32
Jump in water 1 3 4 8 12
Water (unspecified) 0 2 2 43 45
Not jump related 1 33 34 56 90
Not known 2 29 31 389 420
TOTAL 57 219 276 1,456 1,732

From the table, it is clear that the greatest total number of falls (180) for which the jump type is known
occurred at round-topped jumps, which is not surprising as this classification includes logs, which
comprise a major proportion of jumps on all Australian courses. Post and rail jumps account for the next
highest number (154), also not surprising as this jump type is similarly a mainstay of eventing courses.
These two types are followed by steps into water (141) and square spreads (123).

16
There is a similar pattern for horse falls, with the greatest number occurring at square spreads (28),
followed by step into water (22), post and rails (21) and round (21).
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 show examples of some jump types and the possible complexity of their construction.

Figure 4: Jump in water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005 Figure 5: Square spread, Adelaide CCI **** 2005

Figure 6: Ascending spread, Adelaide CCI **** 2005 Figure 7: Square spread, Adelaide CCI**** 2005
Photos: Denzil O’Brien

Further examples of jump types can be seen in Appendix 8.9.

There does not appear to be any particular jump type which is more associated with rotational horse falls,
with post and rail jumps and square spreads showing 9 and 8 respectively. Since these types of jumps are
common in all cross-country courses, this is probably not significant.
Because most event courses will have several jumps in any one class which could be characterised as
round, post and rails, spreads, brush, corner and ditch, the total number of rider falls at these jump types is
not surprising. However, it is less common for an event to have more than one water jump at any level of
competition, except perhaps at the highest levels. Therefore, the number of horse falls (22) and the number
of rider-only falls (119) reported at a step into water may be noteworthy.
While such an analysis can provide useful information for officials and event organisers in reviewing
course design and safety, it is worth noting here that our analysis by jump type is limited by our lack of
information on the overall number of jumping efforts by jump type, and as a result we are unable to
calculate risk by jump type.

17
4.2 International comparisons
The original brief of this project for 2005/2006 was to trial SHARE in two other NFs, New Zealand and
India, in order to make comparisons with Australian data, as well as to continue our own data collection to
complete a full five year period of study. As outlined in the Introduction to this report, neither the Indian
nor the New Zealand Federations was able to participate in this trial, and our objectives for this project
were changed, with RIRDC’s approval.
These revised objectives, as stated in the Introduction, were to continue collection of national data, to
develop reporting tools which would allow the EFA to report directly to the FEI on both national and
international level trends, and to make comparisons of the Australian data with both FEI and New Zealand
data.
In this section we will discuss those comparisons which have been possible from the available data from
New Zealand and from the FEI.

4.2.1 FEI data

The initial FEI response to the rider deaths in 1999/2000 was the establishment of an inquiry whose report
is known as the Hartington Report (International Eventing Safety Committee 2000). The principal finding
of this report was that reducing the chances of horses falling should have a significant impact on
improving the safety of the sport.
Acting on recommendations from the
A fundamental conclusion which pervades every
Hartington Report that a worldwide
detailed recommendation is that everything should be
database be established, the FEI has
done to prevent horses falling: this single objective
required information about rider and horse
should greatly reduce the chances of riders being
falls and rider injuries from all
seriously injured, as well as significantly improving
international level events held around the
the safety of competing horses.
world since 2002, and has detailed these
(Authors’ emphasis, p.2)
findings in two major reports published on
their website (Federation Equestre
International 2006, 2007a). Although there
are some obvious differences in the way in which the FEI data is reported, it is possible to make
comparisons between their findings from 2002 to 2006 with some of the data which we have collected
over the same period.

The FEI data covers only international level events, including those held in Australia, and their data
capture has improved steadily since the establishment of the initiative. For example in 2002 many of the
events (115, or 44%) did not provide this information to the FEI, and are described as ‘unprocessed’. This
figure had fallen to a mere 2% by the end of 2006.
We can compare our annual figures with FEI figures for number of rider falls, number of horse falls and
number of rotational horse falls, and these are shown below in Figures 8 and 9.

18
 900

800

700

600

500 FEI total rider falls

FEI total horse falls
400
FEI total rotational falls
300

200

100

0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 8: Number of rider falls, horse falls and rotational horse falls, international events, FEI data, 2002 - 2006

These FEI figures show a fluctuating number of total rider falls recorded in the period, with a peak in
2005, as well as a steady rise in the number of horse falls reported until a slight decline in 2006. There was
an increase in the number of rotational horse falls in 2004, possibly a result of improved reporting.
Figure 9 shows Australian data for the same period

450

400

350

300

250 AUS total rider falls

AUS total horse falls
200 AUS total rotational falls

150

100

50

0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 9: Number of rider falls, horse falls and rotational horse falls, all events, Australia, 2002 – 2006

There is a similar rise in reported overall rider falls in 2005 for SHARE data, up from 349 in 2004 to 404
in 2005. Figure 9 also reveals a similar rise in the number of rotational horse falls reported in 2004 (up
from 10 in 2003 to 17 in 2004). It is worth repeating here that our overall figures on horse falls are
certainly under-reported throughout the period of study, and in 2006 almost all information was sourced

19
from results only (which hide almost all horse falls), and this probably accounts for the apparently sharp
fall in the number of reported rotational horse falls (from 16 in 2005 to 5 in 2006).
Because we measure rates of falls and injuries using different methods from those used by the FEI, we
cannot compare estimates of risk in a meaningful way. In addition, the FEI only records the numbers of
those riders seriously or fatally injured, unlike our data which records all injuries reported, however
minor, although usually only those reported in returned questionnaires (about half the sample). It is
probably not useful to compare reported injury rates therefore.
The FEI has also been concerned from the outset that certain jump types may be associated with a greater
risk of falls, particularly rotational horse falls which have been so strongly associated with rider deaths
(see Appendix 8.6). As discussed previously in this report (section 4.1.7, Jump types), we have not been
able to determine with the FEI a common ground on jump types. The FEI has now begun reporting
rotational horse falls recorded at 12 jump types, differentiated by level of competition and calculated as a
percentage of the number of times such a jump type has been jumped. Unfortunately these are not
expressed as a proportion of the total number of horse falls at each jump type. Our data does not include
information on the number of times such a jump type was jumped, only the jump type in each individual
fall if it was provided, the total number of jumping efforts completed, and the number of starters. To
further complicate comparisons, the FEI has been unable to report on any falls at water jumps, and shows
there being no falls at all recorded at such obstacles. Our data shows that jumps involving water, in
particular jumps into water, are strongly associated with large numbers of falls. If we look at the number
of falls involving a jump whose type is known (1222 falls – see Table 9), jumps into water account for the
third highest number of rider falls (141), with the second highest number of horse falls (22). It will be
interesting to see the 2007 FEI data in which falls occurring at jumps involving water should be
distinguishable.
In relation to any association between horse falls and jump types, comparisons have also been complicated
by the differences in jump classification. As explained previously, we have retained a number of jump
types over and above those used by the FEI, as numbers of falls were reported at these jumps, and we
were unable to select an appropriate FEI jump classification for them. If we exclude those falls which
occurred at non-FEI type jumps, and calculate the number of horse falls at only these particular jumps, our
data is not dissimilar to the FEI’s, in that we show a proportion of rotational horse falls of 24%. The FEI
shows a total of 240 horse falls in 2006 with 56 rotational falls, a rate of 23%.

20
Table 10: Rate of rotational horse falls at FEI classified jumps, Australia, 2002 - 2006

Rotational horse falls at FEI jump types, Australia, 2002 - 2006

Rotational horse falls as

Number of horse Number of rotational horse % of horse falls per jump
Jump type falls per jump type falls per jump type type
Corner 18 5 28%
Round 21 5 24%
Trakehner 5 2 40%
Palisade 12 2 17%
Post & Rail 21 9 43%
Other 31 2 6%
Square spread 28 8 29%
Steps (unspecified) 0 0 -
Ditch 6 2 33%
Brush 12 2 17%
Ascending spread 12 3 25%
Water (unspecified)) 2 0 -
TOTAL 168 40 24%

Although the percentage of rotational falls at post and rails jumps is probably not surprising given that a
large proportion of jumps can be classified as this type, the high percentage of rotational falls at trakehner
jumps may be worth follow-up.
Despite these limitations on direct comparison of our data with that of the FEI, we believe that it is
possible for SHARE to provide some comparisons which could prove useful to the EFA in assessing the
success of its risk management programs. It is certainly possible for SHARE to be modified to match FEI
reporting methods.

4.2.2 New Zealand data

Late in 2006 we received some falls and injury data from the New Zealand Equestrian Federation,
covering their eventing season Autumn 2005/Spring 2005 and the first half of the next season, Autumn
2006 (i.e., from January 2005 through to June 2006). Their information comprised several Excel
spreadsheets, covering such areas as TD’s reports (short version), TD’s reports (long version), accident
reports, medical reports and veterinary reports, as well as some information on numbers of starters, but
only for a very few events. Unfortunately there are many areas in which useful comparable information is
not accessible. For example, while event reports do mostly identify the type of jump at which a fall
occurred, there is no information on whether this was a rider or a horse fall, so it is not possible to make
comparisons with SHARE and FEI data on the incidence of types of falls at particular jumps. Similarly
there is no overall information on the number of starters in any class, so it is not possible to make
comparisons of rates and risk of falls. We can estimate the average number of falls per event, but without
starter numbers this is not meaningful.
The NZEF was unable to provide spreadsheets for the second half of the 2006 year (Spring 2006 season),
as at the time of writing the information had not been collated from all the reports sent in by the events. It
appears that there is no uniform data collection within the NZEF system, and that staff in the National
Office collate and synthesise the information from many event reports. Ironically SHARE would probably
have reduced the Federation’s workload considerably had it been implemented in the NZEF at the
beginning of 2006 as planned.

21
Despite this limited data, we were able to access some information on events in the Spring 2006 season
from the NZEF website, thus providing data covering a full year’s events. However, many of the event
results posted are in the format which hides the scores for riders who retire or are eliminated, and all horse
falls, thus making it practically useless in determining the number and nature of falls. The information we
obtained has been synthesised into one spreadsheet (see Appendix 8.7), which has been summarised in
Table 11 (Note that there is no information in the New Zealand data about rotational horse falls).

Table 11: Rider and horse falls, New Zealand, 2005 - 2006

NZ rider-only falls NZ horse falls NZ total rider falls

Count Count Count
2005 139 17 156
2006 109 7 116
TOTAL 248 24 272

Given the limited applicability of the New Zealand data, it is not possible to fulfil one of this project’s
goals, which was to make comparisons between our data, New Zealand’s data, and that of the FEI.

4.3 Other information

With the collaboration of the EFA and the assistance of coordinators and officials, and the ready
participation of the riders themselves, we were able to access a substantial amount of information about
individual falls and about the riders and horses involved, as well as riders’ opinions on the sport’s safety
and their perceptions of the risks associated with overall equestrian activities, not only eventing. Because
of this depth of information, we have been able to make observations on various aspects of the study
which may not necessarily have been priorities in the original project design. Some of these observations
may be of interest to the riders and organisers, and some to the policy- and decision-makers who are
responsible for the sport.
The return rate for the questionnaires was consistently high throughout the period of study and they were a
rich source of information. While we recorded 1,732 individual falls during that period, for a number of
reasons questionnaires were not sent to all riders, including not obtaining contact details from State
Branches, and sometimes sensitivity to riders who may have been seriously injured and/or incapacitated
by their fall, or whose horse may have died as a result of the fall. In addition, if there was a long delay
between the event at which the fall occurred and our obtaining information about the fall, we did not send
a questionnaire, as we consistently received feedback from the riders that they wanted to receive their
questionnaires as close as possible to the date of the fall. We sent out 1,519 questionnaires to riders who
fell, and received 891 responses (59%). We sent reminders if a questionnaire was not returned within 3
months, but had only moderate success in obtaining a response to these reminders. We sent out 722
reminders, and received a response from 176 (24%).
The questionnaire provided the riders with the opportunity to comment on the degree of difficulty
involved in answering the questions and on the clarity of the questions, as well to respond to a very open
question inviting any comments. We received 480 responses about unclear questions, and 490 responses
to the question about ease of completion. More than 90% of riders who responded said that there were no
unclear questions, and again 90% found the questionnaire easy or very easy to complete. Only 7 riders
found the questionnaire difficult to complete, and only one found it very difficult.
In this section we explore some of these topics generated from the questionnaire responses, and we have
included a number of photographs which show combinations successfully jumping demanding jumps at
the highest level of competition.

22
4.3.1 Body protectors
During the period of this project, there was much discussion in the equestrian world about the value of
body protectors, and whether their use should be compulsory during the cross-country phase of eventing.
Concern had been expressed that no relevant Australian Standard had yet been developed for this
equipment, and that making their use compulsory would be meaningless, since riders could choose
anything and call it a body protector. One senior EFA and FEI official expressed a view that body
protectors were of little use, were too uncomfortable and in fact could themselves be dangerous to the
rider, causing heat stress and reducing mobility. The National Eventing Committee had the matter on their
agenda several times during the project, and in fact had been discussing the regulation of body protectors
since 2000. Only by the end of 2006 did the NEC decide that body protectors would be compulsory from
the beginning of the next season. This means that throughout the period of study, their use was entirely
optional and at the riders’ discretion.
It is interesting that of the 904 riders who responded to the question ‘Were you wearing a back protector?’
over 90% (827) indicated that they were wearing one, despite there being no regulation requiring this. Of
further interest is the riders’ perception that their back protector was effective at reducing injury. Three
hundred and forty-four riders who were not injured stated that their body protector was effective at
reducing injury, and a further 213 riders who were injured also indicated that their injuries had been
reduced because of their back protector. Overall, we received 838 responses to the question about
effectiveness, with 67% indicating that the body protector was indeed effective at reducing injury, and
only 6% stating that it was not effective. Many riders (27%) selected ‘not applicable’ in response to this
question, presumably because their fall did not involve significant contact with the ground, or did not
result in an injury.
Only one rider out of the 904 who responded to this question made an unfavourable comment about body
protectors, stating that they were ‘confining and restricting if trying to roll away’. Of the riders who
indicated that they were not wearing a back protector (77), it is noteworthy that nearly half of these were
riding at the lower training/unofficial level, classes in which one might assume that competitors would
elect to wear all possible safety equipment.
It appears that regardless of the EFA’s concern about effective regulation of body protectors, the riders
overwhelmingly voted in support of their use.

23
 Figure 10: Square spread with ditch, Badminton CCI**** 2007 (photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

4.3.2 Helmets
The rules of competition require all riders to wear an accredited safety helmet during cross-country
competition, so we are unable to assess the contribution which helmets make to reducing injury for riders
in eventing compared to riders in other situations. However, we did ask riders to assess whether their
helmet was effective in reducing injury in their fall, and received 892 responses to this question. Nearly
60% of those who responded (515) indicated that they believed their helmet had been effective in reducing
injury, while nearly 40% (328) thought the question was not applicable. Sixty-four riders who reported
head injuries as a result of their fall also indicated that their helmet was effective at reducing injuries.
It is probably not surprising that a large number of respondents thought the question irrelevant, because
out of the 1,347 individual fall event descriptions we gathered from FRFs, stewards’ and jump judges’
reports, and from the riders’ returned questionnaires, only 160 (12%) of these fall event descriptions
characterise the fall as ‘head first’. A surprising number of riders actually landed on their feet (141
reported).

4.3.3 Tack failure

Obviously a rider’s capacity to control their horse is affected by their tack (bridle, saddle, stirrups, girth,
etc.), all of which can influence a horse’s behaviour, speed and direction and the rider’s capacity to stay
on. We have information on the cause of the fall in 1,425 cases, and in only 15 falls was gear failure
mentioned as a cause or a contributing factor. Six of these riders were injured in their falls. In one case
both stirrup leathers broke, the rider lucky to escape serious injury as the horse hit her in the head after she
fell. If we also classify the 4 falls in which the rider’s helmet fell off as ‘gear failure’, then there was a
total of 19 falls in which gear failure was a cause or a contributing factor, with a total of 8 riders being
injured. Luckily only one of these 19 gear-related falls involved the horse falling as well, with the rider
losing her helmet and incurring only minor bruising.

24
This very low incidence of gear failure may well relate to riders’ awareness of the importance of all
equipment being well-cared for and maintained, as gear failure can obviously have catastrophic effects in
circumstances involving speed and jumping. Whether such a low rate of gear failure is reflected in the
general horse-riding population or in other sections of equestrian sport may well be of interest for future
study.

Figure 11: Ascending brush spread with ditch, Burghley CCI**** 2005 (photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

4.3.4 Coaching
The questionnaire asked riders to identify their usual horse-related activities, covering a range of
recreational and competition options, including whether they usually received coaching. We received 868
questionnaires in which this question was answered, including multiple questionnaires from riders who
fell more than once and returned more than one questionnaire.
The questionnaire asked riders to identify their usual horse-related activities from the options of
pleasure/recreation, being coached, coaching others, training/schooling, hacking/saddlehorse, dressage,
jumping, eventing, endurance, Pony Club and ‘other’. From the 868 returned questionnaires, riders
identified a total of 3,977 usual activities, with eventing (839), dressage (619), jumping (672) and
training/schooling (579) not surprisingly being the most commonly identified.
It is interesting that ‘being coached’ was identified only 560 times. Given that the sport of eventing has
been frequently reported as having a high risk of falls and injury for its participants, this figure does
appear to be low. However, there are at least two possible explanations for this: riders may experience
coaching as so much part of the sport that they felt no need to respond; and perhaps the category
‘training/schooling’ was misinterpreted as relating to the rider not the horse.

25
4.3.5 Responsibility for falls
The questionnaire asked riders whether their fall
had been preventable, and if so, how it could have
been prevented. We received 873 responses to this
question, with 611 riders indicating that the fall
could have been prevented. It is worth commenting
here that only 60 of these 611 riders assigned
responsibility for the fall to anything other than their
own riding. Forty-two assigned the cause of the fall
to outside factors such as poor course and/or jump
design, inappropriate jumps at a particular level,
interference and distraction by spectators, illness, the
weather, and equipment failure. Only 18 said the
horse was the cause, because it did not jump, or was
going too fast, or was not suitable for the task, or in
one case was too fat. Overall, however, 551 riders
identified their own riding as the cause of the fall,
and were clear about what aspects of their riding
caused the fall. For example, 40 simply said ‘Better
riding’ as the way in which the fall could have been
prevented, with many variations on this theme, some
of them very specific.
26
Anchor my leg forward, should have
gone with him.
Should have been sitting up more.
I was going too fast.
More thorough schooling, more positive
riding.
Whilst I am a competent experienced
rider and a qualified instructor, I
could’ve ridden better.
Heels down, leg in front – safer
position.
I should have come a little slower and
given him more time to spot it.
Flat battery - rider error.
Riders are aware of the dangers and
train their horses, so that falls are
minimal.
 Figure 12: Drop into water, Burghley CCI**** 2005 (photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)
4.3.6 Rider support for the project
I’m very happy to see that someone is
collecting info on accidents occurring in
eventing. Anything that makes the sport
safer to both horses and riders is very
important.
I think this is a very worthwhile study,
and I was happy to participate in it.
I thank you for conducting research on
this topic.
I have found the survey useful … as
revisiting the incident I can see where
things have gone wrong and areas for
improvement.
Thank you, surveys like these will be very
valuable for horse and rider safety … I
hope I have helped your research.
Very valuable study to prevent injury.
Good job! Thank you.
27
From early 2005 we added a question asking if
riders would like to receive periodic updates
on the project, and whether they would
provide an email address for direct contact.
During 2005 and 2006 more than 100 riders
who returned their questionnaires provided
their email addresses for these updates, which
were sent several times a year.
In addition, we provided space for riders to
make any additional comments at the end of
their questionnaire, and many took this
opportunity, some to provide additional
information about their fall, their riding
experience, their injury history, or their views
about the sport and its safety. Many also made
comments about the value of the project, and
some of these are highlighted alongside.
5. Discussion
Surveillance of horse-related injuries and/or deaths, as outlined previously, has been minimal and
fragmented, and can misrepresent the risks associated with each particular sub-group of horse-related
activities by grouping all such activities together for analysis. While it seems obvious that there should be
a greater level of risk associated with being on a horse which is jumping a 1.10m fixed obstacle at a speed
of 550 metres per second than, say, riding a pony at the walk in an enclosed arena on a lead-rein under
tuition, or that steeplechasing would seem likely to attach greater risk of injury than dressage, few
previous studies of which we are aware have been able to quantify the precise risks associated with any
one specific horse-related activity, other than jumps and flat racing. This data collection and analysis
system, SHARE, can elicit data which are specific to one aspect of one equestrian sport – incidents which
occur during the cross-country phase of eventing - and can therefore be of more value for investigators.
The model is adaptable within its current application, in that all sources of information such as the Fall
Report Form and the questionnaire can be redesigned at any stage to reflect current or specific interests,
and the database aligned appropriately. It is also adaptable to the full range of other equestrian sports, and
possibly to other sports in which injury is an issue.
Its success, however, is primarily dependent on access to consistent complete and accurate information
about the specific sport, and in particular on the engagement and goodwill of the sport’s participants in
completing and returning their questionnaires. In this case, the former requirement was not always met,
but the second was, with over 50% return rate in each year of the project.

5.1 Difficulties and problems

As alluded to in Chapter 3 of this report, Method, we encountered a number of difficulties throughout the
life of the project which resulted in less-than-perfect data quality.
Because conduct of the sport is not actually controlled at a national level but rather delegated to State
Branches, each State Branch of the EFA undertakes their management role in a slightly different way.
There was no national membership database until 2005, and until then we had to obtain members’
addresses from each Branch for the follow-up questionnaire. For some time the WA Branch Constitution
prohibited the provision of members’ details to any outside body, so we were obliged to send blank
questionnaires to the Branch for forwarding to the members, with consequent long delays between the fall
and the rider receiving the questionnaire. Many riders commented that the questionnaire came so long
after the fall that they could not remember any details. Several States developed their own Fall Report
Form despite a directive by the National Eventing Committee that all States would adopt a uniform FRF.
The EFA allows non-members to compete at the lower training levels by providing them with day
membership and appropriate insurance cover. However, there is apparently no central record kept of these
riders’ details so it was not possible to provide them with follow-up questionnaires, even if basic
information about their fall was available, because their addresses were unobtainable. If FRFs and other
information was coordinated by the State Branch, there were often long delays between the event and our
receipt of the falls information, until Internet-based results became more common and we could identify
these falls ourselves.
Throughout the project there was a low level of practical support from the National Eventing Committee
(NEC), despite minuted agreement that the project would receive support in all States. It seemed that the
NEC either did not have or was reluctant to use any powers to ensure that all States complied with their
directions to set up a system which would allow a prompt return of FRFs and other event data to the
project office. The Board of the EFA seemed to lose enthusiasm for the project, presumably because the
NEC did not actively support it. A further problem arose at the end of 2005 when a misunderstanding
resulted in the Chairman of the NEC telling all State Coordinators that the project had finished, and so
completion and return of FRFs from late 2005 until the end of the project in 2006 effectively ceased.

28
During the period of the study, return rates for these various sources of data varied. The State
Coordinators for NSW and SA both ensured an almost 100% return until 2006, with those in WA and
Queensland also consistently forwarding full information. Information from Tasmania was inconsistent,
but the numbers involved in the sport in that State are quite small. Access to Internet-based results
increased, providing another source of information from which falls could be identified.
Obtaining information from the Victorian EFA Branch was problematic throughout the life of the project.
In 2004 we hoped to improve the flow of information from Victorian events by sending a complete
package of information (including blank Fall Report Forms and reply-paid envelopes) directly to all
Victorian event organisers, and inviting them to return the material directly to us. However, from 18
events in that year we still received only 10 completed FRFs, and 8 of these were not forwarded until June
2005, 6 months after the end of the season. In 2006, we received no completed FRFs from the Victorian
Branch at all, with information being accessed almost entirely from web-based results and occasionally
from magazine articles. In some cases no Internet results could be found, and so we have no information
whatsoever for these few events. We were able to identify the number of starters at most Victorian events,
but falls of riders who retired or were eliminated, as well as all horse falls resulting in elimination, are
hidden in this process. During 2006 we were able to identify only 4 horse falls from all events in Victoria
in that year, whereas Queensland and Western Australia, which together had approximately the same
number of starters as Victoria in 2006, reported 7 and 8 horse falls respectively in that year. It is unlikely
that the sport is conducted so differently in Victoria that the chance of a horse falling at an event there is
so much less than that in other States. As a result of these inconsistencies in particular States’ returns, we
have generally not used examples in this report of State-by-State analysis, instead mostly using national
data.
This in turn highlighted a particular problem in the sport, in that the scoring system discards the scores of
a combination which retires or is eliminated. Horse falls in particular have been hidden in this way, as are
falls by riders who then decide to retire, or riders who have one fall and then are eliminated for a second.
Once our access to completed FRFs diminished and our reliance on Internet results increased, accurate
information on horse falls and rider retirements decreased.
A further complication to full identification of rider and horse falls is that there is no uniform scoring
system across the States, nor indeed within the States, as different event organisers are apparently free to
choose any scoring system. Consequently some results show only accumulated penalty marks, hiding falls
by riders which continue in the competition, as well as hiding all horse falls and any falls by riders who
retire or are eliminated. In 2005 the authors proposed to the EFA that all scoring systems could simply add
another column showing the reason for the elimination or retirement, thus retaining information about a
fall. Eventing NSW adopted this in their scoring for most events in 2006. In combination with cross-
country jump analysis sheets, which detail all riders’ passage past each jump, noting penalties, falls,
eliminations, etc., this method provides almost full identification of rider and horse falls at most events in
NSW. The use of this method in NSW confirms its value and demonstrates that it is practicable. On this
basis we have again urged the EFA to adopt this scoring change (see Appendix 8.10).

5.2 Suggestions for change

Any data collection and analysis system is only as good as the information it collects, and the power of the
analysis of which it is capable. SHARE was designed in the context of an agreement with the EFA that the
organisers of all Australian one-day events and three-day events, national and international, would provide
information on all falls of riders and horses, all officials’ reports on all incidents cross-country, course
maps for each level of competition with exact numbers of jumping efforts and descriptions of jump types,
and full results. Further there was agreement that riders’ addresses would be readily and easily available
for follow-up questionnaires.

29
The key to SHARE’s success is the Fall Report Form, used in conjunction with results which identify all
falls of riders and horses anywhere on course. The jump judges who filled out the FRFs are volunteers,
often parents, relatives or friends of competitors, who commit themselves to a long day outdoors in all
types of weather. At small events, one jump judge might be on duty all day, with the responsibility to
accurately record the details of the passage of every competitor past their particular jump. We are not
familiar with the way in which jump judges and other volunteers are briefed before events, but we can
comment that in many cases the FRFs returned to us demonstrated that the jump judges were not aware of
what was required for completing these forms. In a few cases (14) there was no record at all of the identity
of the rider or the horse. If the EFA decides to begin collecting falls and injury data again, and uses this
system to manage the process, it is vital that the information is accurate and consistent. It is possible that
such accuracy and consistency can be encouraged, and the following are offered as suggestions:
o Event organisers could pre-prepare the FRFs by filling out the jump’s number, name and type, as
well as the competition level, beforehand. At the briefing, jump judges could be given sufficient
numbers of pre-prepared FRFs, reducing their responsibilities to identifying the rider and horse,
describing the type of fall, and the documenting any injuries and the circumstances surrounding
the fall.
o Officials’ and volunteers’ briefing could include a short section on the reasons for completing and
collecting these FRFs, as well as instructions on how to complete them. Current technology would
easily allow a short video/DVD from the Chairman of the National Eventing Committee or the
National Coach, for example, explaining why it is important for information about falls and
injuries to be collected, and what it will be used for.
o Almost everyone now has a mobile phone with a camera. Jump judges could be encouraged to
take a photo of the jump involved in a fall, recording its number and showing its composition and
type. The phone’s date and time stamp adds validity to such a record. While we are not suggesting
that jump judges or other officials routinely take photos of riders or horses who have fallen, one
can imagine circumstances in which such records could provide valuable information.
o It might be possible to link volunteer activities such as being a jump judge to formal officiating
qualifications in the sport. For example, accurate completion of FRFs might be designated as part
of the requirements for people interested in becoming an EFA or FEI steward.
In relation to the broader issues of scoring and the format of results, both areas which contribute
significantly to the collection of accurate information about falls and injuries, it is also possible to describe
an ideal world in which technology can assist in obtaining full capture:
o Score sheets from all Australian national and international events identify all falls of riders and
horses, including rotational horse falls and falls of riders or horses between jumps, even if these
combinations are eliminated or retire (see Appendix 8.10).
o All events use a real-time uniform electronic scoring system, with officials using PDAs to register
each combination’s penalties at the time they are incurred.
o All results are posted on one central Internet site immediately after each phase of the competition
is completed, and final results are posted immediately once they are finalised.
o Accurate course maps are also posted onto this site, with jumps described according to the FEI
jump classifications as well as by sponsors’ names (for example, McWilliams Seat) or generic
descriptions (Murphy’s Log).
o Riders complete a questionnaire on-line on-site at the event or later at home about their fall and
other details, through a secure website which protects their identity.
o The questionnaire for those who do not respond on-line is generated directly from the database
and tailored to each particular situation, to avoid asking for information which has already been

30
 requested or collected. For example, a rider who has two falls in the same class off the same horse
does not need to provide their own or their horse’s details twice. Currently the questionnaire is
altered by hand for each such occasion.

5.3 The future for SHARE

SHARE’s capacity to calculate the rate and risk of falls and injuries to both riders and horses could make
it useful in a comparison with other equestrian disciplines such as showjumping or vaulting in which falls
do occur but which are not generally seen as being high-risk sports. As far as we are aware, no data has
been collected on injuries in either of these sports, and thus any risk assessment is based on supposition
only.
In relation to jump types, we already know from our data that particular jump types are more commonly
associated with rider and horse falls, and with rotational horse falls (see Table 9). With uniform
classification of jump types, SHARE would be capable of drilling down to the level of a particular jump in
a particular class at a particular event, to determine whether there was a higher than usual number of falls
and/or refusals associated with this jump.

Figure 13: Horse and rider fall at World Equestrian Games 2006 (photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

There is potential capacity for this system to be adapted for analysis in any sport in which there is
perception and consciousness of risk but no data with which to quantify these risks.
SHARE can provide the equestrian governing body with the opportunity to collect systematic uniform
data on falls in eventing, with detailed information on injuries to both horses and riders, in a format which
is directly comparable with data from others using the same model. It requires an organisation to have a
central results compilation system, with uniform scoring and uniform recording of the circumstances
surrounding each fall, as well as agreement for individual follow-up by questionnaire with riders who
have fallen.
SHARE can also generate specific information which can assist organisers and governing bodies in their
on-going evaluation of the sport and the risks associated with it. For example, once a baseline of data has
been collected, it would be possible to identify particular venues at which there have been higher than
usual numbers of rotational horse falls over time, or lower than usual numbers of rider falls over time, or
higher than usual numbers of rider falls at particular individual jumps, or higher than usual numbers of

31
horses falling between jumps, for example. Any one of these may in turn raise a number of questions for
organisers and authorities: Was this jump properly designed and constructed? How did the ground
conditions and/or weather conditions contribute to this fall? Did the course designer ask appropriate
‘questions’ for this level of competition? Were riders and/or horses consistently misjudging this particular
jump, and if so, why? While it is always possible that any aberrations are just that, and not necessarily
cause for alarm, simply being able to calculate rates of falls in a consistent manner can prove useful to
organisers in determining whether there were in fact specific design or management problems at these
particular events. It is also possible that apparent aberrations may point to a new or unexplained cause of a
cluster of previously unassociated occurrences (Tunstall Pedoe 2000).
SHARE elicited a range of demographic data from riders who responded to the questionnaire. We asked
questions about a rider’s age, when they began riding, their overall experience with horses, at what level
they saw themselves operating in the horse world, their injury history, and their attitudes towards the risks
involved in the sport, among others. The questions can be adapted to extend this data, or to change focus
for a period of time.
We also asked for some information on the horses involved in the fall, but because the study focussed
primarily on rider injuries, these questions were quite limited. There is an opportunity for SHARE to
extend this section in the questionnaire, to elicit more detailed information on horses’ breeding,
temperament, competition and injury history, for example.
In summary, we consider that we have developed
a data collection and analysis system which is
suitable for use by the EFA for examination of its However, it is understood that there
own national data, as well as for reporting to the are large sections of the sport outside
FEI on trends at national level, as now required
the control of the FEI (mostly
(Federation Equestre International 2007b). The
National One Day Events and a few
system is capable of generating reports on detailed
aspects of the sport, which can assist the EFA in National Three Day Events) which
risk assessment and policy development, as well as urgently need an overall monitoring
in training its officials. system. This has to be addressed and
could be part of an audit/report
In light of the FEI’s concern that national level
system as part of the affiliation to the
events be conducted with the same attention to
safety as international level events, such a FEI. The Committee hopes that
reporting capacity would seem useful to the National Federations pay careful and
sport’s peak body. The extract from page 1 of the urgent attention to these
Hartington Report (International Eventing Safety recommendations.
Committee 2000), highlighted alongside, is
appropriate.

32
6. Implications
This research project, and the data collection and analysis system developed out of it, both have
implications for equestrian sport, particularly for eventing. It demonstrates that it is possible for a National
Federation to manage the collection and analysis of a substantial range of information about the sport and
its participants, and then to make informed decisions about the risks associated with the sport and what
will be done to minimise these risks.
In the past policy and rules in eventing have generally been developed by people who themselves were
involved in the sport as riders and coaches. They know the sport very well and are aware of those factors
in the sport which affect risk for horse and rider. In fact several EFA officials have commented during the
life of this project that we have not told them anything that they did not already know: that jumping into
water is risky; that a horse flipping over on top of a rider is likely to injure the rider, and possibly kill
them; that falls are more likely at the lowest and highest levels of competition; that overall not many riders
are injured when they fall off; that most falls are of so little consequence that many riders do not even
refer to them as falls, but more likely as ‘stepping off’; that very, very few horses die during a cross-
country course; and so on.
Our research supports these assertions in almost every respect. However, the difference lies in the detail:
we have been able to provide data which means that these assertions can now be made based on facts, not
just on experience and observation. Fact-based policy must be preferable to assumption-based policy.
In the context of the FEI’s stated intention to ensure the strictest safety requirements at national level as
well as at international level, it is important for the EFA that it can collect accurate data, analyse it in a
consistent and useful way, and report to the FEI on its achievements in reducing risk in the sport in
Australia. It is surely not possible to do this if there is no system in place for any of these steps.
From a broader perspective, it is possible that SHARE can be adapted for use in other equestrian sports
and horse-related activities, as it is capable of great flexibility and can be adapted to gather information on
any aspect of an organised activity which is of interest to organisers and policy-makers. This is
particularly true in the context of its adaptability for use in other equestrian NFs. It provides the
opportunity for NFs to gather and report on their falls and injury data to the FEI in a consistent and
comparable manner, surely of great value to each NF, and to the FEI. While this trial project involved the
provision of the system at no charge to the two NFs originally involved in the trial, obviously other
arrangements would need to be made if the system were to be adopted officially by either the EFA or
other NFs. There is obvious potential for licensing revenue, but it is not possible for an estimate at this
stage. With appropriate financial arrangements, it would be possible for an NF’s data management to be
contracted externally, as has been the case in effect during this five year project.
However, for any data recording and analysis system to be as useful as possible, there must be full
compliance from all event organisers, officials and jump judges, so that all falls, jump-related and on the
flat, are accurately recorded, and that as much detail as possible about the fall is also included. In the case
of the EFA, for SHARE to be useful, the current Fall Report Form would need to be amended to include
additional information about jump type, approach, ground conditions, etc., in line with the FEI report
form, and its use and return would need to be mandatory at all events around Australia. Similarly the EFA
would need to adopt a uniform scoring system which retains all falls information, as outlined in Appendix
8.10.
The FEI has accepted that reducing the number of horses falling should have the greatest impact on
reducing the number of injuries to both horses and riders, and British Eventing has now changed their
rules so that any fall of horse, whether associated with a jump or not, results in elimination of the
combination. On this basis it may be that the EFA should also consider adopting this rule change.

33
7. Recommendations
Based on our five year analysis of the sport of eventing in Australia and our work with the EFA over that
time, as well as our observations of the FEI’s fact-based responses to various safety crises over that time,
we have formed some views on ways in which the EFA could now take a leadership role in governing the
risk aspects of the sport in Australia. We do not believe that we are in a position to make formal
recommendations to the governing body for equestrian sport, but nonetheless we urge the EFA to consider
doing the following:
• Ensure full compliance in reporting on all safety aspects of the sport. This will bring the EFA into
line with the FEI’s current practices, and enhance the Federation’s risk assessment and risk
minimisation capacities.
• Adopt a data collection and analysis system such as SHARE. Used in conjunction with the EFA’s
existing results database, this will provide the Federation with the capacity to identify, measure
and control the risks associated with the sport.
• Adopt a revised scoring system and require its use by all event organisers. This will provide the
EFA with complete information about all falls of riders and horses, particularly rotational horse
falls, which have been the cause of 18 rider deaths in the sport in 10 years.
• Use the data collected as the basis of regular reports on rates of falls and injuries, and provide
these to members, organisers, officials, sponsors and funding agencies, in line with FEI reporting
standards.
• In light of general agreement that reducing the number of horses falling is the single factor most
likely to reduce the number of injuries to riders and horses, the EFA should review the current
rules which permit a horse continuing in competition after falling if its fall is not related to a jump.
British Eventing has recently introduced a rule requiring elimination for all horse falls, including
those ‘on the flat’.

Both our data and the FEI’s data over the period
2002 to 2006 indicate that the greatest risk of injury
to a rider occurs when there is a rotational horse fall.
…[W]e have information on 25 rider deaths around
the world … between May 1997 and September 2007,
and 18 of these rider deaths were the result of a
rotational horse fall.

34
8. Appendices
Appendix 8.1: Fall Report Form

This version of the Fall Report Form was forwarded to the EFA in 2005, with the suggestion that it be
used in place of the national Fall Report Form devised by Dr Rod Hoare and previously in use in most
States. The revised version reflects the then new emphasis on determining how many horse falls were
rotational falls, and on collecting more information about the circumstances surrounding falls. It uses local
jump descriptors, however, not the FEI set of jump descriptors. The EFA did not adopt this revised form.

It is reproduced here over two pages, but in the original was a single sheet.

EVENTING FALL REPORT FORM

To be completed by all XC jump judges who witness any fall of horse and/or rider at or near their jump

EVENT:……………………………………DATE:…………………CLASS/LEVEL:………………
JUMP # /NAME:…………………………….JUMP JUDGE’S NAME:……………………………
Jump judge’s phone number:………………. Signature:……………………………………………..
WHO FELL? (please circle) RIDER ONLY HORSE & RIDER

DID RIDER CONTINUE? YES NO

RIDER’S NAME:……………………………………HORSE:…………….RIDER NUMBER ……..
RIDER’S ADDRESS:……………………………………..……………………………………………...

WHAT CAUSED THE FALL: (Please circle ALL that apply) HORSE STOPPED DEAD HORSE FELL

HORSE SOMERSAULTED RAN OUT OR SWERVED HIT FRONT LEGS HIT BACK LEGS

LANDED ON OR IN JUMP HORSE SLIPPED TRIPPED ON LANDING TOOK OFF TOO CLOSE

TOOK OFF TOO EARLY RIDER LOST BALANCE OVER JUMP RIDER LOST BALANCE ON LANDING

FALL ON FLAT BEFORE OR AFTER JUMP, NO PENALTIES

ANY OTHER DETAILS (Please use back of form if necessary)…………………..……………………………..

….……………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

WHAT WAS THE SPEED NEARING THE JUMP: TOO FAST FAST MEDIUM SLOW TOO SLOW

35
JUMP TYPE: (Please circle all that apply): APEX ARROWHEAD BANK BRIDGE BRUSH

BRUSH combination DITCH DITCH combination DROP DROP combination

JUMP INTO WATER (log drop spread brush other) JUMP IN WATER (island corner jetty boat other)

JUMP OUT OF WATER (log step brush spread other) LOG LOG PILE OXER (parallel rails)

OXER (rising) PALISADE ROLLTOP (or other round topped obstacle) SIMPLE RAILS

SKI-JUMP/CALF SHELTER STEPS (up down) SUNKEN ROAD TABLE (or other flat topped obstacle)

TRAKENER WALL WATER (no other obstacles) OTHER…………………………………

COMBINATION JUMP? YES NO Number of elements? ............... Fell at which element? ...............

SLOPE OF FRONT FACE (groundline to highest part): UPRIGHT SLIGHT MODERATE MORE THAN 45º

WAS THE RIDER INJURED? NO YES Slight injuries Serious injuries

(e.g. sprains, bruises, winded) (e.g., fractures, needing hospital treatment)

COMMENTS/ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION…………………………………………………………………………………………

Did the rider’s head and/or shoulders come into

contact with the ground, the jump,
or another hard object? YES NO Was an ambulance required? YES NO

WAS THE HORSE INJURED? YES NO VET REQUIRED? YES NO

NATURE OF INJURY? ……………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

COMMENT BY EFA
STEWARD……………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………SIGNED…………………………………….

36
Appendix 8.2: Questionnaire
The text of the final questionnaire has been included below.

FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LOGO EFA LOGO

QUESTIONNAIRE
CROSS-COUNTRY FALLS

A collaborative project between the Equestrian Federation of Australia and the Research Centre for Injury Studies,
Flinders University.
Funded by the Equestrian Federation of Australia

We would like to ask you some questions about your recent cross-country fall, and about any injuries you may have
had as a result of this fall. We would also like to ask you some questions about yourself, your riding experience, and
about any other horse-related injuries you may have had in the past. These questions have been developed
cooperatively by a group of health professionals, administrators and horse people, and refined over the time of this
project. The questionnaire will only take about 10 or 15 minutes to complete. The results will be used by the EFA
and others to help develop the sport in ways which safeguard the health and safety of its members, and their horses.

Your answers will be confidential, and the information will only be used statistically.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RECENT FALL AT
…………………………………………………………………………., ON ……/…………/………

1. Were you injured in your recent fall? Yes No

2. Was the cross-country phase before or after the showjumping? Before After

3. Had you ridden OTHER horses before the ride in which you fell? No Yes How many?

4. What time of day did the fall occur? Morning Afternoon

5. What is the registered name of the horse you were riding when you fell?

6. What breed was this horse?

7. Did you own the horse involved in the fall? Yes No

8. How old was the horse?

9. What sex was the horse? Gelding Mare Stallion

10. What was the height of the horse? Under 14 hands 14 hands and under 15
hands15 hands and under 16 hands 16 hands and under 17 hands 17 hands and
above

11. What was the horse’s previous use? bred and/or trained for racing
jumping or dressage eventing (including bred for eventing) don’t know other – please
describe

12. How many cross-country courses has the horse completed? 0 fewer than 10
11 – 29 30 – 49 50 – 100 more than 100

13. What was the horse’s temperament? bomb-proof average hot

37
14. Do you ride this horse regularly? Yes no If ‘No’ please tick all that apply:
horse ridden for the first time at this competition ridden before, but not in XC competition

15A. Did the horse involved in this incident fall as well? Yes No
15B: If yes, did the horse somersault? Yes No

16. Was the horse injured? No Yes (please describe horse’s injuries):

17. What was the cause of your fall? Please tick all that apply attempting to jump an obstacle
horse refused /ran out/stopped fall unrelated to a jump (e.g., slipped on the flat)
collision with a fixed object (not the jump) equipment failure (e.g., broken girth)
If you ticked this box, please name the equipment which failed: bridle rein bit girth
stirrup leather other (please describe)
If your equipment failed, when did you last check it? just before the competition
between 1 and 10 rides before the event more than 10 rides before the event other (please
describe)

18. Regarding this fall, please tell us about the following:

a. What type of surface did you fall on to (e.g., dirt, grass, mud, rock, gravel, soft/hard ground, water, the
jump, etc.)?
b. Did your helmet stay on? Yes No
c. What brand was your helmet?
d. Do you think your helmet was effective at reducing injury? Yes No not applicable
e. Was your helmet damaged? Yes no not applicable
f. Were you wearing a body protector? Yes no
If ‘yes’,
g. What brand was your body protector?
h. Does your body protector have shoulder pads? Yes No
i. Do you think your body protector was effective at reducing injury? Yes No Not
applicable
j. Were you using a jumping saddle? Yes No If ‘no’, what type of saddle were you using?
general purpose dressage other (please describe):

19. Please describe exactly how the fall occurred (for example, I was riding an inexperienced horse which
baulked at an upright jump. I fell off and hit the jump with my shoulder and broke my collarbone.)

20. Do you think that the fall was preventable? No yes (please describe)

21. At what competition level were you riding? Introductory preliminary pre-novice
novice intermediate advanced CCI****

22. If you fell at a jump,

a. What type of jump was it?
b. What was the course number of the jump
c. How many elements were there at this jump?
c. At what element did you fall? A B C D

23. Please describe exactly how you fell (for example, ‘Fell off head-first and landed on my back’; or, ‘Fell off
backwards and landed on my side.’)

24. Do you think that rider fatigue may have been a contributing factor in this fall? No yes (please
comment)
25. Do you think that horse fatigue (for example, travelling a long distance to the event; unsettled overnight; not
fit enough; very hot conditions, etc.) may have been a contributing factor to this fall? No yes
(please comment)

38
26. Are there any other factors which you think may have contributed to this fall (for example, weather or
ground conditions, distractions, etc.)? No Yes (please comment):
27. Were you still able to remount and continue the competition? Continued Retired
Eliminated Other

If you were injured, please answer the following questions.

If you were NOT injured in your fall, please now go to Question 34.

28. What area of your body was injured (please tick all that apply): head eye/s face/mouth/teeth
neck shoulder/upper arm/elbow forearm/wrist/hand chest/abdomen upper back
lower back hip/pelvis/genitals upper leg/knee lower leg/ankle/foot

29. What was the nature of the injury (please tick all that apply): abrasion or graze
sprain/muscle pull tendon injury open wound or laceration or cut
penetration by sticks or stones bruise or contusion inflammation or swelling
fracture/broken bone (including suspected) dislocation internal injuries
concussion/loss of consciousness unspecified medical condition other (please describe):

30. Did the on-course doctor examine you and diagnose your injury? No yes If ‘yes’, what was
the diagnosis?

31. How was the injury treated? (please tick all that apply): no treatment was needed
by myself or a non-medical person on-course first aid and/or ambulance officer went to a
general practitioner went to a physiotherapist and/or chiropractor went to the Emergency
Department of a hospital kept in hospital, for days other (please describe):

32. How many days were you unable to perform your usual daily activities (including riding), because of the
injury?
I had no limitations on my usual daily activities less than one day 1 – 7 days
8 – 21 days more than 21 days I have permanent limitations on my usual daily activities
because of my injury Other (please describe):

33. How many days after the injury did you have on-going pain and/or discomfort? less than one day
1 – 7 days 8 – 21 days more than 21 days

NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR RIDING
EXPERIENCE. AGAIN, THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.

34. Are you male female

35. What is your date of birth? …../…../…..

36. How tall are you? cm, or feet and inches

37. How much do your weigh? kg, or stone and pounds

38. At what age did you begin riding?

39. In what State do you currently live?

40. Which of these activities do you usually do? (tick all that apply): pleasure/trail/recreational riding
being coached coaching others training/schooling hacking/saddlehorse
dressage jumping eventing endurance riding Pony Club
other (please describe):

39
41. At what level are you currently competing: introductory/preliminary pre-novice/novice
intermediate/advanced elite (named on State or national squads any other information

42. How many of the following have you successfully completed:

ODEs? 0 fewer than 10 11 – 49 50 – 100 more than 100
3DEs? 0 1-3 4 – 10 11 – 29 30 or more

43. On average, how many hours a week do you spend:

handling, but not riding horses? hrs /week riding horses? hrs/week transporting horses? hrs/week

44. What do you believe is the risk of you having a horse-related injury in the next 12 months?
very low risk low risk moderate risk high risk very high risk

45. How many horse-related injuries (minor or major) have you ever had? Please give a number

46. Have you ever been kept in hospital after a horse-related injury? Yes No
If ‘yes’, how many times? How long ago was the last time? years, or weeks ago.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT ANY OTHER HORSE-RELATED INJURIES YOU’VE
HAD IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY OTHER HORSE-RELATED INJURIES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS,
PLEASE GO STRAIGHT TO QUESTION 71.

IF YOU HAVE HAD ONE OR MORE HORSE-RELATED INJURIES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS (apart
from any injury which you may have received at ……………………………………., PLEASE ANSWER ALL
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

47. How many OTHER horse-related injuries have you had in the last 12 months?
If one of these horse-related injuries is one which you have already reported to us in another questionnaire,
please tell us the venue and the date: …………………………………, on ……/……./……

Please tell us about the MOST RECENT horse-related injury you have had in the last 12 months.

48. What day of the week did this injury occur?

49. What date did this injury occur? If you cannot remember the exact date, please just give the month.

50. What time of day did this injury occur? Morning Afternoon Evening

51. At what place did this injury occur? at home – in the stable, paddock, training area, etc.
out – on a road, the beach, etc. in transit – loading, transporting, unloading a horse
in or at competition other (please describe)

52. Was the horse involved in this injury the same horse you fell from at ……………………………………,
on ……/……/……? Yes No If ‘yes’, please go to question 60. If ‘no’,
what was the horse’s name?

53. What breed was the horse involved in this injury?

54. Did you own the horse involved in the injury?

55. How old was the horse?

56. What sex was the horse? Gelding mare stallion

40
57. What was the height of the horse? 14 hands and under 15 hands 15 hands and under 16 hands
16 hands and under 17 hands 17 hands and above

58. What was the horse’s previous use ? bred and/or trained for racing jumping or dressage
eventing (including bred for eventing) don’t know other – please describe

59. What was the horse’s temperament? bomb-proof average hot

60A. What was the cause of the injury? Please tick all that apply fall from a horse kicked by a horse
stepped on by a horse bitten by a horse hit by horse’s head lost control of the horse on
the ground collision with another horse or rider collision with a car or other motor
vehicle
collision with a fixed object (including road-side hazards, branches, jumps, etc.) motor vehicle
accident during transportation of horse loading or unloading struck by ball, stick or
similar moving object over-exertion (e.g., muscle tear) over-use temperature-
related (e.g., heat stress) pre-existing medical condition (e.g., epilepsy)
equipment failure: bridle bit rein stirrup leather other (please describe)
If your equipment failed how often do you check it?
Every ………….. rides Other (please describe)

60B If the injury resulted from a fall from a horse:

What type of surface did you fall on to (e.g., lawn, rock, gravel, water, a jump)
Were you wearing a helmet? Yes no
What brand was your helmet?
Was your helmet damaged? Yes no not applicable
Did your helmet stay on? Yes no
Do you think your helmet was effective at reducing injury? Yes no not applicable
Were you wearing a body protector? Yes no
What brand was your body protector?
Does your body protector have shoulder pads? Yes no
Do you think your body protector was effective at reducing injury? Yes no not applicable

61. Were you riding at the time of the injury? No yes If ‘yes’, what were you doing?
pleasure/trail/recreational riding being coached coaching others training/schooling
hacking/saddle horse dressage jumping eventing endurance riding
Pony Club other (please describe):
What type of saddle were you using? general purpose jumping dressage
other (please describe):

62. Please explain exactly how the injury occurred

(for example, ‘I was riding along the road with the sun in my eyes, and the horse went under the bough of a
tree. I fell off onto a bitumen road, and because I wasn’t wearing a helmet, I got concussion.’)

63. Do you think the injury was preventable? No yes (please describe how):

64. Were you able to continue whatever activity you were doing when the injury occurred (e.g., remount and
continue jumping; continue loading the horse into the truck; continue lungeing horse; etc.)
Yes no (please comment):

65. What area of your body was injured (please tick all that apply): head eye/s face/mouth/teeth
neck shoulder/upper arm/elbow forearm/wrist/hand chest/abdomen upper back
lower back hip/pelvis/genitals upper leg/knee lower leg/ankle/foot

66. What was the nature of the injury (please tick all that apply): abrasion or graze sprain/muscle pull
tendon injury open wound or laceration or cut penetration by sticks or stones
bruise or contusion inflammation or swelling fracture/broken bone (including suspected)

41
 dislocation internal injuries concussion/loss of consciousness unspecified medical condition
other (please describe):

67. Did a doctor examine you and diagnose your injury?

no
yes (please tell us the official diagnosis):

68. How was the injury treated? (please tick all that apply): no treatment was needed
by myself or a non-medical person on-course first aid and/or ambulance officer went to a
general practitioner went to a physiotherapist and/or chiropractor went to the Emergency
Department of a hospital kept in hospital, for days other (please describe):

69. How many days were you unable to perform your usual daily activities (including riding), because of the
injury?
I had no limitations on my usual daily activities less than one day 1 – 7 days
8 – 21 days more than 21 days I have permanent limitations on my usual daily activities
because of my injury Other (please describe):

70. How many days after the injury did you have on-going pain and/or discomfort? less than one day
1 – 7 days 8 – 21 days more than 21 days

71. Were any of these questions unclear or confusing? No yes (please comment):

72. Did you find this questionnaire easy to fill out? very easy easy neither easy nor difficult
Difficult very difficult

73. Is there anything else you would like to add, or any other comments you would like to make?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your contribution is very important to us,
so we can collect as much information as possible about the risks in the sport of eventing, and help make it as safe as
it can possibly be.

Would you be interested in receiving periodic updates/news about his project? Yes no
If ‘yes’, would you be happy to provide an email address, so we can send them electronically?

42
Appendix 8.3: The sport of eventing
Equestrian sport is the only Olympic sport in which men and women compete in the same event under
equal conditions. The sport of eventing is often described as the ultimate test of horse and rider, based on
military history which required a horse to be obedient and graceful on parade (the dressage phase), brave,
strong, fit and fast (the cross-country phase), and with a rapid recovery rate such that he could perform
normal duties immediately after battle (the showjumping phase).
The sport is conducted at national and international level, and at the highest level (Olympic Games and
World Championships) is conducted over four consecutive days, with two days required to stage the
dressage component, then one day for the cross-country phase, and another for the showjumping phase.
Confusingly, the event is called a Three Day Event (3DE). Less demanding competitions held at national
and international level are One Day Events (ODE), again confusingly held over two days, as it can take all
day to conduct the dressage component, with the cross-country and the showjumping held on the second
day. In Australia, these ODEs can attract several hundred competitors. The abbreviations for the particular
levels of competition are outlined in the Glossary .
Riders are required to complete each phase of the competition (dressage, cross-country and showjumping)
on the same horse, and veterinary inspections before and during the competition ensure that the horse is
sound and able to continue. While a horse may only compete once at any particular event, there is no such
limit on riders, and at many events riders have multiple rides, depending on the number of horses they
have in training at the time.

… it is clear from our data

that those ‘step’-type jumps
involving water account for a
substantial number of rider
falls and an increased risk of
injury to both rider and
horse.

Figure 14: Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005 (photo: Denzil O’Brien)

The sport is controlled at the international level by the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) and at the
national level by the Equestrian Federation of Australia (EFA), and is conducted at various grades, from
introductory and preliminary, which are basically training levels and can be entered by people wishing to
try out the sport and/or to introduce their young horses, through intermediate levels, to advanced, Olympic
and World Championship levels. The Pony Club Association also conducts the sport across Australia at
club level, and many thousands of young people are introduced to the sport through their local Pony Club.
These competitions are regarded as the Olympic nursery, with many elite riders having come through the
ranks of the Pony Club before major international competition. While the Pony Club competitions are
conducted under EFA rules, the two organisations are not officially connected.
The same competition format now applies at all levels, in which horses first demonstrate their obedience
and suppleness in a dressage test (similar to ice-skating or artistic gymnastics, with prescribed movements
to be performed in a set time). They are penalised for variations from the set movements, and given a

43
subjective mark out of 10 from a number of judges for each movement. They then gallop across open
country for between 2500 and 7410 metres, jumping between 15 and 45 fixed obstacles up to 1.2 metres
high and up to 3 metres wide in a set time, being penalised for a rider fall, for the horse’s refusal to jump a
jump, and for taking longer than the time allocated. Riders and horses (the combination) are eliminated if
the rider falls twice, if the horse falls while attempting to jump a jump, or if the combination misses a
jump. However, if a fall of horse or rider occurs away from an obstacle no penalties are incurred and the
combination can continue. After the XC phase, the horse is then required to perform a showjumping round
in an arena, jumping a varying number of other obstacles which do fall down if hit, and penalties are given
for refusals and any dropped rails or parts of the jump, as well as for time taken over that allocated. Any
horse fall during this phase results in elimination, as does a second fall of a rider. Until 2006 international
level 3DEs also involved three additional tests for the horses between the dressage and XC phases, to
warm up the horse before the major endurance test of the cross-country. These tests included a long gentle
walk and trot (called ‘roads and tracks’), followed by a steeplechase course, tackled fast over brush jumps,
then another roads and tracks phase. These additional tests have been progressively phased out.
The scoring system for eventing is complicated, but basically the combination with the fewest penalties
wins the competition.

‘I would like to try and keep

one leg on either side of my
horse, and my mind in the
middle.’

Young rider whose first one-day

event resulted in a fall.

Figure 15: Jump into water, Adelaide CCI**** 2005 (photo: Denzil O’Brien)

The cross-country phase

It is during the cross-country phase (XC) that falls and injuries to riders and horses are most likely to
occur. The horses generally weigh more than 500 kg, and travel at between 400 and 570 metres per
minute, jumping immovable obstacles which they have generally not seen before, in varying terrain and
in all weather conditions. The sport requires boldness and trust on the part of both rider and horse, and is
perceived as carrying a reasonably high degree of risk to both. The XC obstacles are designed and built
by an accredited official appointed by the Organising Committee, and while the basic jump may remain in
place over many years and many events, course designers can in effect redesign a course every year using
these same obstacles, by changing the approach to the jump, or the order in which it appears during the
course, or by adding or taking away various components. The jumps in the XC phase are usually made of
natural materials, such as would be encountered in a paddock, for example. They may include logs, post
and rails, ditches and walls, and every event has a water feature of some description, seen as a challenge
to horses which generally do not like entering water. At Olympic and World Championship level, the
design of the jumps approaches an art, with Course Designers selecting visually striking themes for their
courses, usually reflecting the culture of the country in which the event occurs.

44
Appendix 8.4: List of venues and events

Albury NSW Warwick QLD Charlton VIC

Armidale NSW Adelaide SA Colac VIC
Beckford NSW Clare Valley SA Geelong VIC
Berrima NSW Gawler SA Heytesbury VIC
Camden NSW Grand Cru SA Lakes & Craters VIC
Canberra NSW Jupiter Creek SA Melbourne VIC
Coffs Harbour NSW Kirkcaldy Park SA Pakenham VIC
Dungog NSW Monarto SA Tonimbuk VIC
Goulburn NSW Mt Gambier SA Tooradin VIC
Gunnedah NSW Reynella SA Wandin VIC
Harden NSW Wirrina SA Wangaratta VIC
Hidden Valley NSW Biralee TAS Werribee VIC
Macarthur NSW Churchill TAS Yarra Glen VIC
Mirrabooka NSW Cluan TAS Yeringberg VIC
Nyngan NSW Deloraine TAS Alcoa WA
Oberon NSW Derwent TAS Brigadoon WA
Ranch NSW Fairlands TAS Brooker WA
Scone NSW Glenrowan TAS Brookleigh WA
SIEC NSW Huntingfield TAS Capel WA
Silver Hills NSW Inglis TAS Fairbridge WA
Wagga Wagga NSW Launceston TAS Gidgegannup WA
Worrigee NSW Monmouth TAS Harvey WA
Doonan QLD Powranna TAS Katanning WA
Fig Tree Pocket QLD Tangara TAS King River WA
Goondiwindi QLD TEC TAS Moora WA
Kooralbyn QLD Trevallyn TAS Narrogin WA
Maryborough QLD Avenel VIC Wooroloo WA
Mt Gravatt QLD Camperdown VIC
Toowoomba QLD Candlebark VIC

45
Appendix 8.5: All one-day events and three-day events by State,
2002 – 2006
Number of events by type

Year of Competition NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas All States

event type
Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts Counts
2002 CNC 24 14 10 11 10 6 75
CIC 1 0 1 0 1 0 3
CCN 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
CCI 2 1 0 0 1 0 4
Total 28 15 11 11 13 6 84
2003 CNC 21 10 11 10 7 2 61
CIC 2 3 1 0 1 0 7
CCN 2 0 0 0 1 0 3
CCI 0 2 0 0 1 0 3
Total 25 15 12 10 10 2 74
2004 CNC 24 14 9 10 9 12 78
CIC 4 2 2 0 1 0 9
CCN 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
CCI 0 2 0 0 1 0 3
Total 29 18 11 10 12 12 92
2005 CNC 22 14 9 11 7 8 71
CIC 7 4 2 0 2 0 15
CCN 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
CCI 2 2 0 1 1 1 7
Total 33 20 11 12 10 9 95
2006 CNC 24 12 9 11 7 12 75
CIC 6 5 2 2 2 0 17
CCN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
CCI 2 2 0 1 1 0 6
Total 33 19 11 14 10 12 99
All years 148 87 56 57 55 41 444

46
Appendix 8.6: Rider fatalities 1997 – 2007

RIDER FATALITIES CROSS COUNTRY 1997 - 2007

Confirmed fatalities
Rotational
Date Gender Location Injury mechanism Injury Competition level horse fall
18/05/1997 F Aus Blunt trauma Spinal fracture National No
6/09/1997 M UK Crush Chest/lung injuries FEI Yes
28/12/1997 F USA Blunt trauma Head injuries FEI No
22/03/1998 F Aus Crush Not known National Yes
13/04/1998 M Ireland Crush Head, chest injuries National Yes
15/05/1999 F UK Blunt, crush Chest injuries National Yes
27/06/1999 M UK Crush Head injuries National Yes
22/08/1999 F UK Crush Head injuries National Yes
4/09/1999 M UK Crush Chest injuries FEI Yes
26/09/1999 M UK Blunt trauma Chest injuries National No
9/04/2000 M Aus Crush Not known National Yes
30/04/2000 F UK Crush Not known National Yes
25/08/2003 F UK Crush Chest/internal injuries National Yes
5/09/2004 F UK Crush (in water) Not known FEI Yes
21/08/2006 F UK Crush Head injuries National Yes
23/11/2006 F USA Crush (in water) Unknown FEI Yes
8/12/2006 M Qatar Crush Head injuries FEI Yes
17/02/2007 F USA Blunt trauma Head injuries National No
14/03/2007 F France Crush Chest/lung injuries National Yes
18/04/2007 F UK Blunt trauma Internal bleeding National No
8/05/2007 F France Crush Not known National Yes
21/07/2007 F Sweden Unknown Unknown FEI Yes
31/07/2007 F Germany Crush Unknown National Yes
4/08/2007 F Germany Blunt trauma Fracture (neck) FEI No
2/09/2007 F France Unknown Unknown National Unknown
Total 25 F:18, M:7 18 rotational
Internet sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk www.britisheventing.co.uk http://sport.independent.co.uk

www.nctimes.com www.irish.news.com www.useventing.com
www.irishabroad.com www.bardo.org www.cctv.com
www.equestrian.co.uk http://members.tripod.com www.mopo.de
www.horseandhound.co.uk www.theoxfordtimes.net www.ln-online.de
www.worcesternews.co.uk www.finarticles.com www.chronicleforums.com
http://sport.guardian.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
www.dailymail.co.uk www.unison.ie
A number of news reports also refer to total numbers of riders killed in the sport over various periods. One report cites British
Eventing as referring to 23 riders who have died in Britain alone in ‘the past 25 years’, with 4 dying in 1993 and 5 in 1999. Our
records identify 11 riders dying in the UK since 1997, but we cannot find any information about another 12.

47
 Appendix 8.7: Falls and injury data, New Zealand, 2005 – 2006

All rider falls, New Zealand 2005 - 2006 - jump types, rider and horse injuries
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count Count

2005
ditch (1)
Taranaki 20/02/2005 2 0 2 corner (1) 0 0
water (1)
sunken rd (1)
WEC Waikato 20/02/2005 3 0 3 post & rails (1) 0 0
into water (2) 2 assessed,
ditch (1) 1 with
Hunua 26/02/2005 4 0 4 trakehner (1) concussion 0

3 (nasal
round (1) haemorrhage;
sunken rd (1) haematomas and
into water (1) leg wound; mild
step down (1) pectoral
Mamaku 5/03/2005 4 1 5 unspecified (1) 2 bruising haematoma)

Aparima 6/03/2005 1 0 1 round (1) 0 0

unspecified (2) 1 (head,

Northland 12/03/2005 2 1 3 post & rails (1) bruising) 0
round (2)
unspecified (1) 1 (all
unspecified spread (2) checked,
McLeans corner (1) one thumb
Island 13/03/2005 7 0 7 out of water (1) pain) 0

water (1)
post & rails (1) all checked,
Amberley 20/03/2005 3 0 3 unspecified (1) no injuries 0

Central no serious
Districts 26/03/2005 5 2 7 unspecified (7) injuries' 0
trakehner (5)
sunken rd (3) 2 (1
Pukemarama unspecified (2) bruising, 1 2 (minor
YR Chps 26/03/2005 10 1 11 not jump related (1) concussion) lacerations)
Brydone 26/03/2005 1 1 2 unspecified (1) 0 1
Waitemata 26/03/2005 5 0 5 unspecified (5) unknown unknown
corner (2)
ditch (2)
Hawkes Bay 2/04/2005 4 1 5 round (1) unknown 2 (minor)
1 (head,
Central corner (1) bruised
Districts 3/04/2005 2 0 2 unspecified spread (1) nose, back) unknown
Continued

48
 All rider falls, New Zealand 2005 - 2006 - jump types, rider and horse injuries (cont.)
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count Count

unspecified spread (1)

water (1)
unspecified (2)
palisade (1)
ditch (1)
step up/down (bank)
Wellington 10/04/2005 5 2 7 (1) 1 (bruising) 1 (bruising)
unspecified (3)
into water (1)
step down (1)
step up/down (bank)
CSHB 16/04/2005 5 1 6 (1) unknown unknown

round (1)
water (1)
square spread (1)
Waitemata 26/04/2005 5 0 5 unspecified (2) unknown unknown
ODE
Champs 30/04/2005 1 0 1 palisade (1) 0 0
5 (bruising,
winded, one
Wairapa serious
Nat ODE water (1) pelvis
Chps 1/05/2005 7 1 8 unspecified (7) crushed) unknown

round (1)
ascending spread (1) 1 (hit face
Canterbury 28/08/2005 3 0 3 brush (1) on post) unknown

round (4)
square spread (1)
ascending spread (1)
unspecified spread (1)
water (1)
McLeans corner (1) 1 (palm
Island 18/09/2005 11 0 11 not jump related (1) abrasion) unknown

sunken rd (5)
palisade (1)
WEC step-up (1) 1
Waikato 2/10/2005 7 1 8 corner (1) (unknown) unknown

ditch (1) 2 (1 serious

water (1) back injury,
post & rails (2) one
Taupo unspecified spread (1) checked by
Spring Trial 8/10/2005 5 2 7 unspecified (2) St Johns) unknown

into water (3)

sunken rd (2)
post & rails (1)
round (2)
ascending spread (1) 0 (3
brush (1) checked, all 1 (laceration to
NHB 15/10/2005 8 2 10 unspecified (1) continued) hock)
Continued

49
 All rider falls, New Zealand 2005 - 2006 - jump types, rider and horse injuries (cont.)
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count Count

1
water (3) (scaphoid,
ditch(1) sent for X
Northland 15/10/2005 5 0 5 post & rails (1) ray) unknown

step down (1)

sunken rd (2)
round (2)
C&SHB 29/10/2005 7 1 8 corner (3) unknown unknown

post & rails (1)

Wairarapa 6/11/2005 3 0 3 into water (2) 0 0
Kihikihi 5/11/2005 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Canterbury 6/11/2005 1 0 visible 1 unspecified (1) unknown unknown results only
Taihape 12/11/2005 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Bay of
Plenty 19/11/2005 3 0 visible 3 unspecified (3) unknown unknown results only
Richfields 26/11/2005 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
0
Southland 27/11/2005 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown results only
Wellington 3/12/2005 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Puhinui 10/12/2005 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Southland 27/12/2005 0 0 visible 0 unspecified (0) unknown unknown results only
TOTAL
2005 139 17 156 20 10

2006
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count

post & rails (2) 0 (2

sunken rd (1) checked
Southland 5/02/2006 4 0 4 palisade (1) OK) 0
Waitemata 11/02/2006 5 0 5 unspecified (5) 1 (bruising) 0
water (1)
Waikato 19/02/2006 2 0 2 post & rails (1) unknown 0
1
(dislocated
Hunua 26/02/2006 5 0 5 unspecified (5) finger) 0
Hawke's
Bay 26/02/2006 0 0 0 N/A 0 0
total
0 penalties
Taranaki 26/02/2006 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown only
Bay of trakehner (2)
Plenty 5/03/2006 1 2 3 unspecified (1) 2 (bruising) 0
Continued

50
 All rider falls, New Zealand 2005 - 2006 - jump types, rider and horse injuries (cont.)
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count Count

square spread (2)

ascending spread (2)
apex (2)
Northland 11/03/2006 7 0 7 water (1) 0 0
0 (all
post & rails (1) checked
Canterbury 5/03/2006 6 0 6 unspecified (5) OK) 0
0 (checked
Taihape 11/03/2006 1 0 1 not jump related (1) OK) 0

palisade (1) 2 (thigh

ascending spread (1) fracture;
Auckland 18/03/2006 3 0 3 round (1) dizzy) 0
Waitemata 25/03/2006 1 0 1 unspecified (1) 0 0
Southland 26/03/2006 0 0 0 N/A 0 0
CD YR
Chps 26/03/2006 5 0 5 unspecified (5) 0 0

post & rails (3) 2 (arm,

Hawke's round (1) thigh;
Bay 2/04/2006 3 2 5 unspecified (1) chest) 0 (checked OK)

ditch (1)
Wellington 9/04/2006 2 0 2 not jump related (1) 0 0
Auckland 9/04/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Canterbury 9/04/2006 4 0 visible 4 unspecified (4) unknown unknown results only

ditch (2) 2 (bruising;

into water (2) recommend 1 (cuts & inferred from
Kihikihi WC 15/04/2006 7 1 8 post & rails (3) ed X rays) abrasions) vet reports
1 (hit face
and knee,
unspecified (1) referred to
Cannington 23/04/2006 2 0 2 palisade (1) doctor) 0
Tauherenik-
au 29/04/2006 1 0 1 unspecified (d/hill) (1) 0 0
Wairapa
ODE Chps 1/05/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Taupo 3DE 21/05/2006 6 0 visible 6 unspecified (6) unknown unknown results only
NHB 10/09/2006 1 0 visible 1 unspecified (1) unknown unknown results only
Arran
Station 16/09/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
0 (all
checked
C&SHB 16/09/2006 6 0 6 unspecified (6) OK) unknown
Canterbury 17/09/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Te Rapa 1/10/2006 3 0 visible 3 unspecified (3) unknown unknown results only
2 (crush
corner (1) injury
ascending spread (1) throat,
out of water (1) chest,
square spread (1) sternum;
Hawke's post & rails (1) ligament RT
Bay 8/10/2006 4 2 6 round (1) ankle) 0
Continued

51
 All rider falls, New Zealand 2005 - 2006 - jump types, rider and horse injuries (cont.)
Horse
Rider and
only rider All rider Riders
Event Date falls falls falls Jump type injured Horses injured Comments

Count Count Count Count Count Count

corners (1) 0 (checked
Canterbury 7/10/2006 2 0 2 round (1) OK) 0
Northland 15/10/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only

unspecified spread (1) 0 (checked

Cannington 15/10/2006 2 0 2 water (1) OK) 0
SCNO 16/10/2006 4 0 visible 4 unspecified (4) unknown unknown results only
Arran
Station 28/10/2006 3 0 visible 3 unspecified (3) unknown unknown results only
Wairapa
ODE Chps 1/11/2006 0 0 0 N/A unknown unknown results only
Canterbury 5/11/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Wairapa 0
ODE Chps 5/11/2006 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown results only
Bay of 0
Plenty 7/11/2006 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown results only
Taihape 12/11/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
0
Brydone 26/11/2006 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown results only
Wellington 3/12/2006 2 0 visible 2 unspecified (2) unknown unknown results only
Auckland 3/12/2006 3 0 visible 3 unspecified (3) unknown unknown results only
total
Richfields 0 penalties
3DE 8/12/2006 visible 0 visible 0 visible unspecified (0) unknown unknown only
TOTAL
2006 109 7 116 13 1
TOTAL
05/06 248 24 272 33 11

52
Appendix 8.8: Australian jump types and equivalent FEI jump types

Australian jump types FEI jump types

Apex Other/unspecified
Arrowhead Other/unspecified
Bank Step up or step down
Round (barrels, pipes, tyres, etc) Round
Bounce Other/unspecified
Brush Brush
Ditch Ditch
Ditch and bank Step up or step down
Ditch and brush Brush
Ditch and palisade Palisade
Ditch and rails Post and rails
Drop Step down
Drop off bank Step down
Helsinki Post and rails
Keyhole Other/unspecified
Log (single) Round
Log (suspended) Round
Log pile Round
Oxer (parallel rails Square spread
Oxer (rising) Ascending spread
Rails (simple) Post and rails
Rolltop Round
Skijump/calf shelter Ascending spread
Slide Other/unspecified
Steps (downhill) Step down
Steps (uphill) Step up
Steps (unspecified) Step up or step down
Sunken road/coffin Step down/step up
Flat top (table/bench/vehicle, etc) Square spread
Trakehner Trakehner
Tree squeeze Other/unspecified
Upright Other/unspecified
Wall Palisade
Water (unspecified) Water
Jump in water (jetty, boat, etc) Other/unspecified
Jump into water Step into water*
Jump out of water Step out of water*
Not jump related Not jump related
Other/unspecified Other/unspecified

53
Appendix 8.9: Photographs of jump types
The photographs in this Appendix show just a small selection of jump types, illustrating some of the
‘questions’ asked of the riders and horses.

Figure 8.9.1: Corner, Adelaide CCI 2005 Figure 8.9.2: Step up, then post and rails (Grand Cru HT)

Figure 8.9.3: Narrow brush jump, Adelaide CCI**** 2005 Figure 8.9.4: Palisade, Adelaide CCI**** 2005

Figure 8.9.5: Narrow ascending spread, Figure 8.9.6: Ascending spread (Grand Cru HT)
Adelaide CCI**** 2005
Photos: Denzil O’Brien

54
 Figure 8.9.7: Complex jump, Burghley
CCI****, 2005 (photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

Figure 8.9.8: Corner, Kentucky CCI**** 2006

(photo: Evalyn Bemis ©)

55
Appendix 8.10: Proposal to change the cross-country scoring system
In July 2007 we asked the EFA to consider introducing a change to the scoring system which would allow
all penalties to be retained for each competitor even they subsequently retired or were eliminated. This is
an extract from this letter:

… most events in NSW use a scoring system which retains the scores of combinations which are
eliminated or who retire, with the simple addition of one more column which contains crucial
information about the reason for the elimination or retirement. So we can readily see that the
reason for an ‘E’ in the XC-J penalties column is because of a fall of horse (FH), or two rider falls
(2F), or an error of course (EOC), or 3 refusals at one jump (3R), or a total of 4 refusals on course
(4R), and so on. Similarly, if a rider falls and then retires, the ‘R’ is explained by (FALL RET).
Riders who fall and continue are of course readily identified by a score ending in 5 (65, 105 or
125). In the case of the recent NSW event, all 15 rider falls and the one horse fall were readily
identifiable from this additional information.

If this excellent scoring system simply incorporated three more legends (FH/ROT for a rotational
horse fall, FH/U for a horse fall unrelated to a jump, and FR/U for a rider fall unrelated to a jump)
and such a system was in use at all events, it would be possible to accurately identify virtually
every rider and horse fall, and particularly rotational horse falls, simply from the results. The table
below shows examples of how these legends could be used in the results:

XC-J Legend Meaning

penalties
ELIM FH Horse and rider fell at jump
ELIM FH/ROT Rotational horse fall at jump
65 FR Rider fell at jump, continued
RET FR/RET Rider fell at jump, retired
ELIM FR/FR Rider fell twice, eliminated
ELIM FR/FH Rider fell once, then horse and rider fell, eliminated
0 FH/U Horse and rider fell, unrelated to jump, no effect on
jumping scores
20 FR/U Rider fell, unrelated to jump, no effect on jumping
scores, one refusal as well

56
9. Glossary
CCI Concours Complet International - International three-day event
CCN Concours Complet National - National three-day event
CD Course Designer, accredited official who designs the cross-country course, and supervises
building the course.
CIC Concours International Combiné- International one-day event
CNC Concours National Combiné- National one-day event
Classes The varying competition levels are usually referred to as classes. At international level,
and at the national equivalent level, they are ranked by star level, with * being the lowest
(Novice) and **** being the highest (equivalent to Olympic Games and World
Championships). Below classes with star levels are several training level classes (Pre-
novice, Preliminary and Introductory), conducted only at national level. In Australia some
State EFA Branches also conduct pre-introductory classes, called variously ‘Newcomers’,
‘Beginners’, ‘Amateurs’, etc. For counting purposes these pre-introductory classes have
all been classified as Introductory.
Cross-country (Also referred to as ‘xc’.) Horses travel over a course of several kilometres (between 2500
and 7400 metres), jumping between 25 and 45 solid fixed obstacles, with increases in
course length, jump height, jump width and general complexity as the degree of difficulty
increases.
EFA Equestrian Federation of Australia, the national governing body.
Eventing While the sport is known as eventing, the events themselves are usually called ‘horse
trials’. The competition is divided into 3 phases, dressage, cross-country and
showjumping, and is conducted over several days. One-day events (ODEs) usually take 2
days, with dressage taking up the whole of day 1, then cross-country and showjumping on
day 2. Three-day events (3DEs) usually take 4 days, with dressage taking up days 1 and 2,
cross-country on day 3 and showjumping on day 4.
FEI Fédération Equestre International, the international governing body for the sport of
eventing.
FRF Fall Report Form, providing information on rider and horse identity, competition level,
jump number and type, type of fall, nature of injury to rider or horse, outcome of fall, etc.
ICD-10 The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,
Tenth Revision.
IOC International Olympic Committee
NF National Federation, the designation used by the IOC to describe the peak national body
for individual sports.
Scoring Scoring in eventing is based on penalties, the competitor with the lowest penalties being
the winner. The scoring system can seem impenetrable to outsiders, and the FEI is
working towards updating it so that it is more accessible to non-equestrian audiences. A
typical score line for a competitor would show the following:

57
 Bill (horse)
B. Smith (rider)
72 (total dressage penalties)
52% (converted to ‘good marks’ awarded for the dressage phase)
0 (xc jumping penalties)
10 (xc time penalties)
4 (showjumping jumping penalties)
0 (showjumping time penalties)
86.0 (total penalties)

In the cross-country phase, jump analysis sheets are also used to summarise penalties of
all riders’ passage at each and every jump, showing those who jumped without penalty,
and anything which resulted in a penalty to a rider such as a refusal, a missed jump, a fall,
a retirement, or elimination. Some xc analysis sheets also record any delays on course and
the reason for the delay (for example, a horse stuck in a jump).
Steward Accredited official responsible for compliance, marshalling, safety and welfare issues at
an event.
TD Technical Delegate, accredited official responsible for all technical aspects of an event.

58
10. References
Barone G W ,Rodgers B M 1989. Pediatric equestrian injuries: a 14-year review. The Journal Of Trauma
29 (2):245-7.
Bixby-Hammett D M 1987. Accidents in equestrian sports. American Family Physician 36 (3):209-14.
Bixby-Hammett D M 1992. Pediatric equestrian injuries. Pediatrics 89 (2):1173-6.
Cripps R A 2000. Horse-related injury in Australia. Australian Injury Prevention Bulletin 24, AIHW Cat.
No. INJ26, May 2000. Adelaide: Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University.
Cripps R A , O'Brien D 2004. Monitoring falls during eventing. Establishment of a national surveillance
system to monitor injury to riders and horses from falls in the cross-country phase of eventing in
Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Publication No. 04/171.
Cripps R A , Pagano H 2002. Monitoring falls during eventing. Horse and rider injuries in the cross-
country phase. Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation Publication No. 02/082,
July 2002. Canberra.
Federation Equestre International, 2006, 2005 FEI Eventing Safety Report.
www.horsesport.org\Eventing\WorkingDocuments\Safety Date accessed: 2006.
Federation Equestre International, 2007a, 2006 FEI Eventing Safety Report
http://www.horsesport.org/c/safety/safety.htm Date accessed: 2007.
Federation Equestre International, 2007b, FEI Statement on Safety in Eventing. http://www.horsesport.org
Date accessed: 2007.
Flood L , Harrison J E 2006. Hospitalised sports injury, Australia 2002-03. Injury Research and Statistics
Series Number 27. (AIHW cat. no. INJCAT 79). Adelaide: AIHW.
Giebel G, Braun K & Mittelmeier W 1993. Equestrian accidents in children. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift Fur
Alle Gebiete Der Operativen Medizen 64 (11):938-47.
International Eventing Safety Committee, 2000, The International Eventing Safety Committee Report
(Hartington Report). Federation Equestre International.
http://www.horsesport.org/PDFS/C/05_03/2000%20Safety%20report.pdf Date accessed: 2000
Murray J K, Singer E R, Morgan K L, Proudman C J & French N P 2006. The risk of a horse-and-rider
partnership falling on the cross-country phase of eventing competitions. Equine Veterinary
Journal 38 (2):158-63.
Paix B R 1999. Rider injury rates and emergency medical services at equestrian events. British Journal Of
Sports Medicine 33 (1):46-8.
Pounder D J 1984. "The grave yawns for the horseman." Equestrian deaths in South Australia 1973-1983.
The Medical Journal Of Australia 141 (10):632-5.
Singer E R, French N P, Murray J K & Saxby F 2004. Factors influencing risk of injury to horses falling
during eventing. Veterinary Record 154:207-8.
Singer E R, Proudman E R, Morgan K L, French N P & Murray J K 2005. Risk factors for cross-country
horse falls at one-day events and at two/three-day events. Veterinary Journal 170:318-24.
Tunstall Pedoe D 2000. Sudden cardiac death in sport - spectre or preventable risk. British Journal Of
Sports Medicine 34:137-40.
Whitlock M R 1999. Injuries to riders in the cross country phase of eventing: the importance of protective
equipment. British Journal Of Sports Medicine 33 (3):212-4.
Williams F , Ashby K 1995. Horse related injuries. 23rd ed. Melbourne: Victorian Injury Surveillance
System.

59