Liz Halliday-Sharp and Cooley Be Cool contest the recently-added 4*S cross country track running concurrently with the Kentucky Three-Day Event. Photo by Abby Powell.
After a dark cross country day at the Bramham International 4*L last month, course designer Ian Stark remarked that the sport of eventing is at a kind of crossroads.
As the current qualifications stand, Ian said, not all horses and riders are ready for the level for which they are qualified. That means that testing the best horses and riders with a tough course can make it prohibitively difficult for those who are just barely qualified but still enter the event. “As a course designer, I now have to figure out if it’s my job to dumb it down to make it acceptable for that level, or if we expect them to get better,” he said.
Ian went on to explain that this problem comes, in part, from a lack of standardization across events. It is possible, for example, to qualify for a 4*L with one 4*S run, and that 4*S can be at a relatively flat venue with a course that is known to be on the softer side. A rider can do that, check the qualification boxes, and head off to a 4*L like Bramham. You can be qualified on paper, but not in practice.
In fact, I did this in 2018. I did two 4*S events that spring, got one qualifying score, and then went to Bromont 4*L and promptly fell off. It was my and my horse’s first 4*L. I was qualified on paper, but I wasn’t ready to go to Bromont, which is one of the biggest and hardest four-stars in North America. That horse and I went on to do our first 5* together successfully after four 4*Ls. We got a lot of experience at the four-star level before trying to go five-star.
What about having a 5*S?
When I was first learning about the FEI levels of eventing, it struck me as strange that there was no 5*S to correspond with the 5*L. Every other level has a short format to go along with its corresponding long format. For example, there is a 2*S level as well as a 2*L level. But there is no 5*S corresponding with the 5*L.
The Lexington 4*S has quickly earned a tongue-in-cheek reputation as a “5*S” track. Photo by Abby Powell.
Starting at the three-star level, it is required that horses and riders do a Short format before they can do a Long format in most cases. These requirements are softened for riders in the higher-level categories (based on their MERs at 3*, 4*, and 5* levels), but in general a minimum eligibility requirement (MER) in the Short format is required for qualification for the Long format at any level above 3*. However, the 5* level does not have a short-format division at all.
Would one solution to Ian’s concerns be to have a 5*S division which was a prerequisite to entry at a 5*L? Ian’s main concern seems to be about people who are qualified to compete at a certain level but probably need more experience at the level below that. This can happen at any level, but it is probably most dangerous at the 5* level because of the lack of margin for error and the sheer difficulty of the cross-country test.
If 5*S divisions existed and were required as MERs to move up to the 5*L level, then competitors would have to show their ability for that level before actually attempting it.
How would a 5*S be structured? One idea is to have the dressage and jumping phases be at the 5* level of difficulty and dimensions, while the cross country could be more technical than a 4*S, but not much longer.
Another benefit of a 5*S would be that horses that lack the endurance for the long courses but have the scope and ability for the 5* fences could contest a shorter course. The 5*S could be like their championship event of the year.
Some have remarked that the 4*S at Kentucky, which has run as a new division in the last two years, is tantamount to a 5*S. Perhaps that should be the standard for this kind of division: it could be held alongside the 5*L’s which are already running (Maryland, Badminton, Burghley, etc.), sharing the same venue and perhaps some of the same fences over a short course. Riders could test their horses over this kind of course, provided they are qualified to do so, before attempting the absolute top level of the sport.
Of course, there is no silver bullet for safety or readiness.
In my previous article, “Most Planes Don’t Crash for One Reason”, most of my discussion touched upon how individuals tend to have the mindset that everything happens for a reason.
Proper, careful practice and preparation are needed to safely contest the top levels of the sport. Photo by Shelby Allen.
However, there are usually a multitude of factors that contribute to or cause a problem or accident. On a broader, sport-wide level, we can also think about accidents in a holistic way. It is very, very sad when fatalities occur in the sport. It is also easy to jump to conclusions about how things should change based on what people think causes accidents. “The courses are too technical” or “the time is too tight” or “the jumps are too difficult” or “the qualifications are too easy to meet” are all arguments made. And while these are all rooted in valid concern and desire for a safer sport, these are often blanket statements that simplify the actual problems. What we need to realize is that there is, in all likelihood, more than one thing that needs to change in order to reduce the number of tragic accidents in our sport.
There may not be a silver bullet, however, one area to direct some focus is a creative way to ensure the standard of riding is up to par with the courses. Cross country is the essence of eventing, and it should continue to be the centerpiece — the ultimate challenge — over the three days of competition. Adding a 5*S division as a qualification for 5*L could be a multifaceted solution to the safety and perception issues our sport faces.
Not all accidents are preventable, and even the best riders in the world have crashes. That is the nature of our sport. However, even though it’s impossible to eliminate all accidents, we shouldn’t take that as reason to throw up our hands before trying harder to mitigate the risks.
