About two weeks ago in England, a prestigious writing award for young people announced their winners and published the articles they had written. Last week, the Belgian Appeal court upheld their decision that the FEI could not penalise top athletes for competing in an unsanctioned competition (the Global Champions League) and then this week, the terrible news spread that a second teenage Australian event rider had been killed. Three unconnected incidents, you may say, but perhaps all three have an underlying connection.

The Martin Wills Award winner claimed in his article that Newmarket in Suffolk, England, the head quarters of British horse racing and home to approximately 5,000 racehorses, is no place for a parent to send their teenager to learn an equestrian trade. He made the town sound as if it is a den of thieves; although with no evidence to back up the issues he mentions (drinking, drug use, lack of mentoring) which, it must be said might equally apply to any place where racing is an employer because of the odd hours kept and the unfortunate pressure that your career is over if you get too heavy. The author, who has never worked as a stable hand, does not mention that the Jockey Club in the UK has many measures in place to protect and help young people, unlike, it has to be said, international horse sport, but how much legislation can there be over lifestyle choices outside of work hours?

Which brings us to the FEI and their Belgian problem. Talking of legislation, why does it matter if Jan Tops want to run a team competition, and why should the FEI be so against it? And what implications does the court decision have in the wider world? To be fair to the FEI, most sporting ruling bodies have strict rules for what can be run and where and how. It is to protect the integrity of their sports, make qualifications for championships standard and in the case of horse sports, keep the welfare of the horses paramount. The Belgian court though has said that this power cannot be used to veto legitimate new enterprises that follow welfare and competition guidelines and that the FEI cannot then take measures against those who chose to compete in them. This court ruling is not going to just affect horse sport though; it has effectively taken a huge amount of power from any ruling body of any sport. Say three or four Canadian hockey teams wanted to form a super league with three or four from the USA, they can pretty much get on with it now, under this ruling, of fair competition, their Federation cannot really stop them. But the Belgian court has not really understood horse sports are not like other sports. More and more competitions, mean more pressure on horses/riders/officials and more difficulties in keeping them all safe and well. The demands on time are huge already, even at lower levels. As well as all the riding/competing/grooming/judging that they do, there is all the travelling involved. Perhaps it is time for limits to be set on how many competitions riders and officials can attend, and perhaps the FEI need to put strong measures in place to address the welfare of their personnel, especially the younger ones and those, where the travel is more taxing, in huge countries like the USA, China, Canada and Australia.

Talking of the latter brings us to the last of the three incidents. Eventing has allegedly been made safer by changing course design and fence construction, making more training available, improving footing for the horses as well as better protective clothing for horse and rider and yet, still more people have died. Often the younger ones. Another thing legislation cannot help is that tiny error of judgement by either horse or rider, and the recent tragedies seem to be just that. A microsecond of getting something wrong.

More people compete now so there will be more accidents and apparently, the proportion of riders to accidents is lower. Jim Wofford’s notable article reckons it’s all about balance and he makes many valid points but surely what we need to find out is WHY they become so?

Perhaps then, it is so it is time to stop looking at internal factors like those mentioned already, or whether the horse was reliable or the rider qualified and perhaps look at the external happenings that influence a competitor. How far did they have to come? Do they have a regular job in addition to equine commitments? Do our education systems put more pressure on to achieve? Perhaps the reasons for the fatal accidents are much more eclectic. Perhaps, looking at that Newmarket article, it is our lifestyles that have changed out of all recognition in the last 30 years. There are so many distractions, so many other demands on our time. We do things now that at one time would have been considered unsafe, like talking on our mobiles when riding? Or going off to ride a test/round with our phones still in our pockets. Thirty years ago, after you finished on the yard the day before an event, you would most likely go indoors, make a few phone calls, watch a bit of TV and go to bed early, where you would be undisturbed by ringtones from text messages or the temptation to check your Facebook. Perhaps it is not that eventing has not moved far enough from the 20th century, may be the problem is that it has-to a deadly clash with 21st century lifestyle.