PDA

View Full Version : Equitable Application of Rules and the Latest Mark Phillips Foot in Mouth



RAyers
Jun. 19, 2007, 10:48 PM
I am wondering if others have read the latest Mark Phillips article in Eventing? I am also wondering what response you had to the article?

I have to admit, I sent a letter to the editor as a result of Phillips' comments concerning how he felt the rules should be applied to elite riders. It seemed to me he advocates bending the rules because the elite riders are the riders who love their horses.

This is NOT a thread about AT!!!!!! This is a thread about equitable application of the rules applied at ALL levels of the sport and how it seems that our team leader feels that they should be interpreted in a vaiable manner.

I doubt he would have made the same comments if the incident in question happened to one of us at a CCI*.

What do you all think?

Reed

Risk-Averse Rider
Jun. 19, 2007, 10:54 PM
Haven't read it - any chance you'd care to give an executive summary, with key quotes?

Janet
Jun. 19, 2007, 11:01 PM
Haven't read it - any chance you'd care to give an executive summary, with key quotes?
I think the key quote is
"Personally I was disappointed that the ground jury chose to follow the letter of the law and refer Amy's case to the FEI Secretary General for review by the FEI Judicial Committee rather than the spirit of the law. Riders at this level, particularly the good ones, love their horses like children and would never knowingly harm or endanger them."

Risk-Averse Rider
Jun. 19, 2007, 11:04 PM
What is that saying? "I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth"?

Well, Reed, he *WAS* closely associated with the royal family. Rank hath its privileges, and all that.

:rolleyes:


(Thanks, Janet.)

azeventer
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:54 AM
So.....he is saying that those of us that plug away at the lower levels do NOT love our horses??? Pretty arrogant comment, I must say... I haven't recieved my Eventing magazine yet, but can hardly wait to read this. He does seem to have a way of putting his foot in his mouth....

JER
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:56 AM
'Foot in mouth'? Hardly -- CMP is speaking from the heart.

One can make a strong argument that a chef d'equipe who advocates a breach in protocol -- for a case of abuse/ethics violations (!) -- is not fit to perform his duties.

Aimee Thanatogenus
Jun. 20, 2007, 03:07 AM
Yes, and I remember when he sold horses to people who had such a noblesse oblige they didn't do presale vet examination and ended up with an overpriced pasture ornament.
Ponce.

RunForIt
Jun. 20, 2007, 06:35 AM
I think MCP overlooked the reason for the rule as he made his statement re: AT and the referral to the FEI judicial committee...the rule exists because ALL riders are people (and people can make both reasonable AND poor decisions) and ALL riders, regardless of level, must be held accountable for their decisions/actions that involve the welfare of the horse that they are riding.

Lori T
Jun. 20, 2007, 06:36 AM
I guess at my level, I don't love my horses and don't take care of them. Hmmmm...at what level does that start to happen?

flutie1
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:42 AM
Would someone please post the article? I've heard about it and would be interested.
Thanks

Flutie

eventmom
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:51 AM
Lori T Clearly if you have to ask the question, you have not ARRIVED yet;)

deltawave
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:55 AM
Oh, he just makes me want to heave. :mad:

First of all, I do NOT love my horses "like my children". That is an ignorant and pitiful statement from someone who calls himself a parent. His poor kids. :rolleyes: But I do love my horses the way anyone else loves their horses, and I'm quite happy that there ARE rules to protect them, even from ME if I make an error in judgment or do something stupid.

And please note I am also not making any commentary on AT. I am defending the fact that there are rules and a system present to ensure that our sport is as safe as possible. If there had NOT been an investigation and AT was given a "pass", how would that have come across? AT has nothing to fear from a simple inquiry. As I often tell my patients who are dreading some sort of surgery and don't even want to meet a surgeon: "talking doesn't hurt and information is not dangerous". Our SPORT has everything to fear from attitudes like MP's. :no:

snoopy
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:10 AM
I hope nobody is actually SURPRISED by his remarks!!!!! Mark Phillips has NEVER played by any rules....except maybe his own. But as long as the US is willing to put up with him, I am afraid we are stuck with him and all his BS. I do not think most british riders would even give him their used tissue let alone take advice from him.

wabadou
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:22 AM
I think the key quote is
"Personally I was disappointed that the ground jury chose to follow the letter of the law and refer Amy's case to the FEI Secretary General for review by the FEI Judicial Committee rather than the spirit of the law. Riders at this level, particularly the good ones, love their horses like children and would never knowingly harm or endanger them."


I read that and got cold chills.
So the lower level riders should be held to the rules but not the upper?
In essence, the upper level riders should be treated like monarchy? Holy cow, did he forget that he's in the US???!
Why the h*ll is he the US coach? If that doesn't speak volumes for NOT being on the same wavelength as the masses, I don't know what does.
Holy Cow, that's all I can say.
I am speechless. I'd heard that he was an elitist but.... Yeah.
Anybody have the editors email handy?

magnolia73
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:33 AM
Riders at this level, particularly the good ones, love their horses like children and would never knowingly harm or endanger them."


Who is to judge that a rider is good or bad? There are examples in all disciplines of very successful riders who did not do right by their horses. Success does not equal caring. I'm sure that there are eventers who have a business like relationship with their horses and do not have an emotional connection. It's not good or bad.... but I'm sure in some cases the horse's best interests are not considered. In fact, I would think it would be hard to stay at the top level if you had some deep emotional connection with every horse you rode.

A rule is a rule and we need to protect the welfare of the horses in the sport whether its giving penalties for dangerous riding, enforcing a whip rule or requiring a tribunal if we think a rider knowingly made an error that hurt a horse.

arnika
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:40 AM
Excellent comments deltawave and RunForIt.

I'm not surprised considering other comments he's made in the past. Does it show much that he has been involved with royalty in his past? Everyone in the USEF who keeps falling at his feet seems to forget that one of the reasons we are American instead of British is to get away from such drivel.

God forbid we hold upper level riders, "particularly the good ones", to the same rules as the lower level riders.

Where's the puke icon???

flutie1
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:45 AM
"... Where's the puke icon???"

I think it's a picture of MP!
Someone, PLEASE post the article???

LLDM
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:52 AM
Okay then...

I haven't gotten my mag yet, but really, is he serious? Why the heck does anyone let him talk anymore? Ummm, maybe it is a plot to have him self destruct? Does he realize that child welfare laws protect children from mistakes too? And don't take "how much they are loved" into account (until maybe the sentencing phase)?

The mind. Just. Boggles.

Oh boy, I can't wait to read this one.

SCFarm

bonjovi4ever
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:58 AM
Here's a copy of the article titled "Ups and Downs" by CMP:

Removed by moderator... DO NOT COPY AND POST ARTICLES HERE!!!

fargonefarm
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:59 AM
If ALL upper-level riders "love their horses like their own children" and would never do anything to knowingly cause them harm, then how do you explain some of the atrocities committed in the upper ranks of H/J and others? Insurance fraud, sharp material in splint boots, etc. And I'm sure it happens in ALL disciplines.
Rules exist for a reason and no one should be exempt, no matter what their resume states. Rules do not exist to protect people - they exist to protect the horses!

Divasgroom
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:18 AM
Copying the article from Eventing is a serious violation of US Copyright Law! :mad: I recommend you remove it from this forum. I will wait until I receive my copy of Eventing to form an opinion.

purplnurpl
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:39 AM
That's funny. I read the article and didn't think anything of it.
But the last two sentences made me laugh my wine all over the magazine.
Three cheers for developing riders! lol.

I got the impression that he was saying that yes, even though pros are pros and in it for the BIZZ!!! Some still do actually love their horses and would not knowingly put them in harms way.

Folks...did he say upper level riders love their horses and lower level riders do not? Don't put words in his mouth. The article was not about you (general) it was about horse injuries and the thought that some riders are in it for the money and don't care about their partner's well being is not always true.

So, sharp stuff in boots, insurance fraud: Those are CLEARLY forms of abuse.
Riding a horse after it trips is not. And he also added a statement that he has been there. He has first hand experience.

And for the record. I hate kids. I will always love Boomer MORE than any child. blech. So for some readers, that statement is true.

Sorry to be the Devil's Advocate here but no one can make a statement that leave EVERYONE with warm fuzzies.

bambam
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:46 AM
He just manages to outdo himself every freakin time he opens his mouth.
I will put in pretty much a big ditto to deltawave's comments.
What planet does he inhabit that he thinks rules as important as this one shouldn't apply to the elite riders just because? Clearly not this one and certainly not one that has the best interests of this sport and its future at heart
Now please excuse while I go yack :mad:

deltawave
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:49 AM
Ditto divasgroom--PLEASE don't "cut and paste" copyrighted stuff here. I believe "snips" are OK with citation, etc. but not entire articles.

purplnurpl, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but your job is not to represent ME. Your salary is not paid in part by MY membership fees. :) One can argue that MP's job isn't to represent me, either (I'd never have hired him) but he DOES represent "our" sport. His place in the spotlight opens him up to this kind of criticism and counter-editorializing.

magnolia73
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:53 AM
So, sharp stuff in boots, insurance fraud: Those are CLEARLY forms of abuse.
Riding a horse after it trips is not. And he also added a statement that he has been there. He has first hand experience.

Yes, but the matter was referred to a committee to insure that the rider made an honest error, and did not knowingly make the horse go on. Her case has been debated, but there are a group of people who believe that the horse showed signs of distress long before the final jump, that the rider must have knowingly gone on in violation of a rule. Obviously someone who matters at the Rolex, at the FEI- not just BB posters - felt the need to investigate. It's a matter of protocol for investigating questions of abuse. You don't just say "eh, she went to the Olympics and loves her horse, so OK that you rode an unsound/fatigued horse because you must not have known." Every case of alleged abuse needs due process. Maybe a competitor put chips in your boots or the mob eletrocuted your horse...... There needs to be questioning and investigation to at minimum to clear the riders name if it was just an error.

I have to believe AT is better off being investigated and found not to have "abused" vs just being let go.

CookiePony
Jun. 20, 2007, 09:56 AM
Nothing new to add but between this thread and the VA** thread I wish we had a despair icon. How on earth could we get rid of him? :(

3dazey
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:01 AM
I must say that I didn't read anything extra into his comments about riders at that level "loving their horses like children". I think it was just part of his overall attempt to defend the rider in question, not a put-down of anyone else. It's an intense situation and he has been inflamatory in the past, so I see where the perception is coming from.

I don't think his comments about the FEI were very well thought out. If he could possibly view the entire picture, he would see that it is absolutely necessary that a formal investigation takes place in this instance. I daresay he is too close to the situation and persons involved to have real clarity. Precisely the reason for the FEI panel, calmer heads somewhat removed from the participants will hopefully make an informed judgment.

event1
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:02 AM
Hey purplnurpl-Just for the record....you clearly DID NOT see the video-Le Samurai did NOT trip-HE BROKE DOWN-BIG difference. And to me-after reading the article-it was clear to me that the only reason MP referenced his own experience of his horses' tendon slipping off the hock-was so that he could back up AT's actions and help justify his own at the same time-of course he is going to stand behind AT-he DID THE SAME THING-pushed an already injured horse.:mad: IN MY MIND-NEITHER AT OR MP CAN BE VERY GOOD RIDERS IF THEY CAN'T TELL THE DAMN DIFFERENCE IF A HORSE IS BROKE DOWN OR THE BANDAGE OR BOOT WAS COMING OFF!!! GIVE ME A BREAK-PLUUUUUUEEEEASE! AT that level of riding-that is a pitiful excuse. Glad I will probably never make it to the 4 star/olympic level so I will never have to deal with CMP as a coach who is clearly a MORON! I also love the fact that once again he is insulting the video viewing publics intelligence by saying that the horse was "locked on" to that last jump-again what a joke! Yeap-you are right Mark Phillips-it would have taken Hurcules to pull that horse to a stop before that fence and because us lower level riders can't tell that difference between pushing and pulling-we'll belive you!:lol: That guy is a joke and in my opinion-an embarrassment to the US and to eventing!

deltawave
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:03 AM
people who believe that the horse showed signs of distress long before the final jump,

Not to dredge up the old AT threads, but may I quibble that NOBODY is arguing that the problem with Le Samurai wasn't very clearly evident well before the last fence.


OK that you rode an unsound/fatigued horse

One last quibble--I would venture to say that EVERY horse that gallops past the finish flags at Rolex is "fatigued" and this is NOT abuse but a natural expectation in an extreme sport. With the unsound part I have no argument, and again I apologize for going into unpleasant territory again and very much agree that the matter was appropriately and (I believe) dispassionately referred for further investigation. "Justice is blind", as the saying goes, and so should these rules be in terms of who is and is not "exempt".

asterix
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:03 AM
One can argue that MP's job isn't to represent me, either (I'd never have hired him) but he DOES represent "our" sport. His place in the spotlight opens him up to this kind of criticism and counter-editorializing.

I think this is the big problem -- we smurfs look on the sport as "ours" -- and at least in Area II, you can easily be a perfectly untalented ammie plonking around novice and training while working with more than one of the people mentioned by name in these little examinations of our "team chances" -- so we naturally feel connected all the way to the top...
but I have to conclude from his published writings that HE does not see his job as in any way to encourage, embrace, or connect with the smurfs. It's only to win medals and international titles.

So he is always going on about what it takes to "be at the top" and makes no bones about the yawning chasm he sees between the smurfs and the people who matter.

While annoying, I suppose this could be narrowly construed as "his job" -- but everyone started somewhere. Everyone fell off at the novice ditch off a mean pony, or put in a dressage test that included "airs above the ground at C", and a 1000 other things that go on the list of "learning how to event," which I am pretty sure is in the dictionary under "humility."

He must think his job is only to goad, cajole, and shape the people who show up in front of him as ready for primetime, and not to nurture any kind of pipeline, or indeed a supportive base of clinic attendees and Rolex spectators.

How shortsighted. Peering down your nose all the time must make you cross-eyed.

FrittSkritt
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:04 AM
From what I've heard from UL eventers, CMP practically views Amy as his own child -- super favoritism and paving the way for her to buy a $$$ horse like Le Samurai... so his words don't really surprise me. (Not that I agree with him in the least, he sounds like a pompous a-hole to me.)

RAyers
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:11 AM
I agree, purplnpurpl, that words should not be put in a person's mouth, however, he is supposed to be the representative of the elite of the sport in this country. He CLEARLY advocates bending rules to accomodate a specific rider. To me this is blatant favortism as well as a bad example of encouraging people to try to get around the rules when they can. The FEI had a rule and the Ground Jury did exactly what it was supposed to do. The FEI did what it was supposed to do.

Just becasue he had similar experiences does not make him the complete expert and does not mean he understands the rules. AT clearly violated rules per the judgement of the Ground Jury whether intentional or not. Should she not then be subject to the rules/penalties per due process as any other rider?

Again this is not to rehash the whole AT incident. This is about are the rules applied equitably at all levels? Should the ULRs get a free pass based on politics so the US can get medals and wins or should our top riders and officials be expected to be held to the same standards as everyone else?



So, sharp stuff in boots, insurance fraud: Those are CLEARLY forms of abuse.
Riding a horse after it trips is not. And he also added a statement that he has been there. He has first hand experience.

arnika
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:11 AM
Nothing new to add but between this thread and the VA** thread I wish we had a despair icon. How on earth could we get rid of him?


Perhaps we can start a recall petition, ala Sheriff Baca?

Adamantane
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:12 AM
I have never met anyone who has anything positive to say about MP.

Judging from posts on COTH, the man is nearly universally reviled in the US, both for his personal demeanor and his opinions.

How can it be that an individual who is loathed by so many and, best I can tell, loved by no identifiable humans except his children, come to be (and remain) in his position? :confused::confused::confused:

Is there some silent majority cabal of MP admirers lurking out there that selected and installed this man while everyone else was off at the barn one day?

(Maybe it is a similar mechanism to that of how vapid twits like Paris Hilton and Regis Philbin remain constantly in the public eye despite lacking any discernible talent, charm or noteworthy admirable personal characteristics. MP, whatever his shortcomings, indisputably at least can ride.)

texang73
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:13 AM
A rule is a rule and we need to protect the welfare of the horses in the sport whether its giving penalties for dangerous riding, enforcing a whip rule or requiring a tribunal if we think a rider knowingly made an error that hurt a horse.

To get back on topic of the article, I agree that a rule is a rule and that is should especially be followed and enforced by those of the upper levels as to lead by example... If not them, then who?

If we, as the "little people" of our beloved sport, have to follow the rules, why shouldn't EVERYBODY?

azeventer
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:14 AM
[QUOTE=purplnurpl;2512713]

Folks...did he say upper level riders love their horses and lower level riders do not? Don't put words in his mouth. The article was not about you (general) it was about horse injuries and the thought that some riders are in it for the money and don't care about their partner's well being is not always true.



No, I guess he did not say that upper level riders love their horses and lower level riders don't. What he does imply is that because upper level riders love their horses, and are "upper level riders," they are not subject to the same sorts of investigations as lower level riders, that somehow, because they have reached this level, they deserve the benefit of the doubt that lower level riders do not. This is a very dangerous attitude. ANYONE can make a mistake, exhibit bad judgement, no matter the level. The rules exist to protect the horses. What he seems to be saying is that because A.T. is an elite rider, there should not even be an investigation. (the FEI hasn't even made a decision on the case yet, after all).

deltawave
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:15 AM
He laments the team's lack of depth and mentions the wonderful opportunity for the next generation....if he's looking to the future, don't you think reaching across that yawning chasm would be part of his job description, too?

If I were a talented young up-and-comer (neither term applies to me, LOL) and had the sensibilities about our country's "team leader" (the demise of the three day, the elitist attitude) I'd move to Canada or anywhere where Jimmy Wofford or Denny Emerson were coaching. :yes:

JIMMY AND DENNY FOR CHEFS d'EQUIPE!

LisaB
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:29 AM
1. He doesn't grasp the developing rider concept. Take a look at the Pan Am team.
2. He doesn't grasp the team concept. Otherwise, he would cast a wider net of that team and not be so exclusionary with very little depth of RIDER talent. Not necessarily HORSE talent (that should be second but put a rider first in developing them)
3. He doesn't grasp PR concept. A good CEO is only as good as his pep talks and speeches to the public. He is in that kind of role.
What he seems to have grasped is to have a few extremely loyal people in positions of power. That's probably how he bagged Princess Anne (she got smart after awhile though). He's probably done this his whole life without having to do the work to achieve the level. Schmoozing and politicking. Prey on a few follower type of people and create this tight net that won't question his actions.

KellyS
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:31 AM
So what do we do?

Someone mentioned feeling despair and I agree. What is happening to this sport that we all love so much?

Ever since the long format debacle--where 1000s of USEA members professed support for the long format but were "put down" by the elite riders who said the short format was better for the horse (or in Amy Tryon's words, would make the horses stars and allow them to compete more)--it's been discouraging to feel that the base of the sport really has no say about the future of it.

Where are we now? Horses are no safer doing the short format, and, in fact, they are running more often, which can only result in injuries and a shorter career. We are losing wonderful events such as Radnor and the FEI levels at the Virginia Horse Center. Our governing organizations are mum about the AT incident while the rest of the world has responded with a resounding outcry (read the Horse & Hound forums to get a feeling for it). And CMP continues to insult us by claiming the horse was "locked" onto the fence (doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the horse very much wanted to pull up well before the fence, right RAyers? ;)).

I support eventing, but have not renewed my USEA membership this year (not competing since losing Traveler) and really don't plan to do so at this point. They are allowed to let CMP write whatever he wants in his editorial, but their relative silence on the topic gives the impression that they support his opinion.

Flame suit on! :winkgrin:

Janet
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:38 AM
Just becasue he had similar experiences does not make him the complete expert and does not mean he understands the rules. In fact, I would say that the fact that he had such a similar exeprience makes him LESS qualified to judge the situation. It gets tied in with rationalizing his own incident.

Janet
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:40 AM
I have never met anyone who has anything positive to say about MP. People (ULR) who have actually taken lessons with him have good things to say about his instruction.

Janet
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:45 AM
Ever since the long format debacle--where 1000s of USEA members professed support for the long format but were "put down" by the elite riders who said the short format was better for the horse (or in Amy Tryon's words, would make the horses stars and allow them to compete more)--it's been discouraging to feel that the base of the sport really has no say about the future of it. Unfortunately, the "base of the sport" can't make people enter the long format events if they don't want to. Where it WAS offered (Fair Hill offered both long and short format that year), too few riders entered the long format for them to run it.

snoopy
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:45 AM
I firmly believe that the reason the US lacks strength in depth, as he puts it, is mainly to do with Mark himself. He clearly cannot see the forest through the trees.

snoopy
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:47 AM
People (ULR) who have actually taken lessons with him have good things to say about his intruction.



Of course they do...its called politics! And I know some who have lessoned with him...elite riders who are not so "glowing" of his methods.

KellyS
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:08 AM
Unfortunately, the "base of the sport" can't make people enter the long format events if they don't want to. Where it WAS offered (Fair Hill offered both long and short format that year), too few riders entered the long format for them to run it.

I completely agree. Wasn't one of the main reasons that the ULRs didn't participate in the long format was due to CMP's influence (ie, if you want to be on a team, don't do the long format)?

As I mentioned earlier, the ULRs supported the short format for reasons that have never been proven as valid. Longer careers? Easier on the horses? Making them stars? What a bunch of you-know-what.

We still have horses dying or being seriously injured, they are being conditioned just as hard for the short format as for the long, they are doing more events, and the combination of conditioning and competing more often is going to contribute to them leaving the sport earlier, not staying around like the super stars of yester year.

And for what? Glory...the ability to win medals at the WEGs and Olympics because the short format is being utilized at those levels. I think it is obvious that it is not the great thing that the ULRs thought it would be, but now we are stuck with it. And in a large part, this is due to CMP's attitude that it is all about the glory and medals. Too bad it's not all about the horses and what's truly best for them.

LLDM
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:11 AM
Maybe I'm just stupid - but what I fail to grasp is how it makes a huge difference whether or not a mistake is intentional? Bettina Hoy did not intend to make a mistake at Athens - and even had a decent defense. But still was penalized. And few who saw that incident will ever let it happen to them! Certainly she won't - which the entire point of penalties! I would think even more so if a horse is harmed.

In that sense it really doesn't matter if one "loves" their horses. It only matters that they treat them properly, with respect, and with their best interests in mind. After all, this is a form of enlightened self-interest - as a physically compromised horse is a danger to itself and its rider. IMHO - horses would rather be respected than "loved" by humans, at least as far as I understand how horses think!

SCFarm

eqsiu
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:12 AM
In fact, I would say that the fact that he had such a similar exeprience makes him LESS qualified to judge the situation. It gets tied in with rationalizing his own incident.

I agree. Regardless of his feelings, rules apply to everyone.

BBowen
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:25 AM
Yes, rules are rules for all. Just ask Bettina Hoy.

arnika
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:42 AM
Wasn't one of the main reasons that the ULRs didn't participate in the long format was due to CMP's influence (ie, if you want to be on a team, don't do the long format)?

Exactly! He actually came out and told the riders that(albeit not in print) if I remember correctly. He was bound and determined to remake American eventing into the sport he wanted and thought it should be. Well, he got what he wanted. Fewer up-and-coming-riders, fewer recognized and FEI level events, more organizers going unrecognized. This will keep his favorites on the team and him in his job until they retire. Then it won't matter if our system implodes as he'll have moved on.

eqsiu
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:50 AM
Yes, rules are rules for all. Just ask Bettina Hoy.

No kidding. I felt so bad for her.

AM
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:25 PM
What can we do? We can stop supporting short format FEI events. Don't volunteer and don't attend.

Speedy
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:35 PM
I'd move to Canada or anywhere where Jimmy Wofford or Denny Emerson were coaching. :yes:

JIMMY AND DENNY FOR CHEFS d'EQUIPE!

This is pretty ironic, considering that Jimmy is well known for preferring to teach only prelim and above. That's not to say that he won't agree to do the odd lower level clinic or lesson, but his preference is ULRs. Don't get me wrong, I love Jimmy, but he isn't exactly a man of the people!

Also, you might all be surprised by how much time CMP spends helping up and coming riders - not people you know by name, but people who are young and working their way up at the 3 and 4 star levels without sponsorship. I've heard good things - so I tend to think he isn't as bad as he's made out to be here.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:42 PM
Far be it from me to defend CMP (I LOVE the word ponce!).

But I have to agree the article wasn't nearly as objectionable as I was ready for. I didn't see an implication that LLR don't love their horses, and I didn't see that he was saying the only ULR should have the rules applied to them differently. I heard him make a case for the spirit rather than the letter of the law, which may or may not be a reasonable point of view, but I didn't get from it it was meant "only for upper level riders".

I do think he has helped create a toxic team atmosphere in this country, and I do think he has driven the sport in an extremely bad direction. I also think his ability to put his foot in his mouth is unparalleled, and he proves that "Out of Touch" ain't just a Hall and Oates song from the '80s. But frankly given his history of commentary I was expecting something FAR more objectionable, LOL.

kcooper
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:42 PM
I have to point out that the USEA has to represent a lot of contingencies, and, in my opinion, is listening to all contingencies. The have created incentives for the Training 3-day Events -- there are now eight of them, which are almost all new in the last 5 years. And the USEA offers points that can be applied towards year end awards for participating in them. This is in direct response to requests from the "masses."
The short format was pushed out by the FEI -- Kentucky the last of two standing, but they have succommed as well. Sorry, but MP is not all powerful. There are a lot of other pressures and factors at play here that led to the demise of the long format. And I find it hard to believe that so many 4* riders would be incapable of making a decision about something like that for themselves. They really don't seem to be shrinking violets to me!
I don't know MP and I regularly disagree with what he writes. However, I am glad that he does a column because I find it informative to know what someone in his position thinks. I would rather hear what his opinions are than just blindly keep reading stuff from people I agree with all the time. It is just an opinion peice; read it for what it's worth.

Erin
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:49 PM
PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE ENTIRE ARTICLES!!!

It is a violation of copyright law, and is unfair to the magazine you are stealing -- yes, STEALING -- from.

If the article is online, you may, of course, link to it. If it is not online, you may quote short excerpts from it, but do not copy and post it in its entirety. That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it boggles my mind that so many people do not realize this.

bonjovi4ever
Jun. 20, 2007, 12:52 PM
Sorry, Erin. I actually typed out the article...I couldn't find a link to it. However, I do realize that it is a violation of the copyright and I apologize. It won't happen again.

RAyers
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:09 PM
If this man is so great a politicing as many describe then I don't think his words were just spur of the moment. A good poltician chooses word very carefully all of the time. Phillips could have easily stated, "Eventers love thier horses...." and included everyone. He chose to specifically mention only ULRs thus excluding LLRs. I don't see a picture of a man who just speaks off the cuff and doesn't parse words to give a specific image.

That being said, does hes set a good example for riders? It has been my experience from being in certain places at certain times and talking with certain folks, that Phillips does hold quite a bit of power when a rider is trying to break into the team and that politics/political connections are as important as riding at that level. It seems that the rules become guidelines (e.g. the spirit of the rule). I have seen instances where riders go against what they desire simply to adhere to the political necessity for them to be noticed even if the rules are bent.

What does this mean for the sport? Denny gave us the charge of making this sport what we want. What do you expect from your team, the ULRs who represent the US, the coach whose salaries are paid by us? Should they be the models we try to emmulate? Should they be excluded as a special arm and not considered part of the general eventing community? Phillips continues to make that distinction even in subtle ways. Do you abide by that?

Reed

mjedge808
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:16 PM
First of all, please remember that the entire article wasn't controverisal, it was merely an update of rider/horse teams' progressions, and AT being so forward in everyone's mind had to be mentioned. Do I agree with his views on the matter concerning the FEI? No, and many others don't. But that is his opinion. We are allowed to have ours, why is he not allowed his?

I believe that rules are rules, but that sometimes there are grey areas that need greater clarification. But when it comes to safety of a living thing, human or equine, that isn't grey. And there are those rules for a reason.

I would like to remind everyone that Mark Phillips isn't on the FEI review committee.

Also, this is just his view. He has stated his views on many things, but that doesn't mean we all agree with him. The short format reigns because that's what people entered. Look at the numbers. I'm sorry but it would be a non-issue if no one entered the short format CCIs. but they do. and that's life.

Different opinions means we get different perspectives on things, good and bad. If he agreed with everything that everyone wanted, not only would his articles be incredibly long and contradictory, they would be boring.

Just some thoughts, please don't flame me. Remember that I think Rules are Rules regardless of who breaks them!

Sannois
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:21 PM
I am wondering if others have read the latest Mark Phillips article in Eventing? I am also wondering what response you had to the article?

I have to admit, I sent a letter to the editor as a result of Phillips' comments concerning how he felt the rules should be applied to elite riders. It seemed to me he advocates bending the rules because the elite riders are the riders who love their horses.

This is NOT a thread about AT!!!!!! This is a thread about equitable application of the rules applied at ALL levels of the sport and how it seems that our team leader feels that they should be interpreted in a vaiable manner.

I doubt he would have made the same comments if the incident in question happened to one of us at a CCI*.

What do you all think?

Reed
It does not surprise me that MP would make such an arrogant statement. I am no fan of hs and his policie. He was part and parcel for getting rid of the Long format, He certainly did not help it.
As far as the rules, I think it goes without saying that the rules should apply to all levels. The fact that he thinks in his elitist manner disgusts me even more!
:eek::mad:

Sannois
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:23 PM
'Foot in mouth'? Hardly -- CMP is speaking from the heart.

One can make a strong argument that a chef d'equipe who advocates a breach in protocol -- for a case of abuse/ethics violations (!) -- is not fit to perform his duties.

with this statement! :yes:

texang73
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:25 PM
Yes, rules are rules for all. Just ask Bettina Hoy.

Or Kristin Bachman from stadium at Rolex 3 Day this year...

Sannois
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:29 PM
Dennys comments on that article. To me Denny is about the only sane voice in our sport that remembers the "Smurfs" To me CMP is destructive to the future of eventing for the Amateur.
The next time USEA solisits me to join again I will tell them in a letter the reasons I wont send money to help support CMP. I am totally dissapointed. :no:

InVA
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:31 PM
Maybe I'm just stupid - but what I fail to grasp is how it makes a huge difference whether or not a mistake is intentional?
SCFarm

Uh.. mistakes are not intentional... that's what makes them mistakes and not crimes. But there are rules in place, which, if broken intentionally or not, have consequences.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:31 PM
Actually Reed, the man is, IMHO, utterly horrible at politicing. He says, or writes, whatever comes in to his mind. No filter. Someone any good at politicking would have cut off his lips before he let the smurf comment ever get out--and yet there are tribes in New Guinea that know about it. And Amy Daum has repeatedly said she doesn't edit/filter him in his column. I actually don't mind this, as it lets me know where I stand (nowhere, with a view of never) and lets me know what he's actually thinking (smurfs be damned and behold the glory of the short format).

So, I've never thought him to be a political animal. He's more like a Godfather--he doesn't have to hide his true colors, because as long as he wins medals, he's doing his job.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:33 PM
it should just be briefly pointed out that CMP is an employee of and paid by the USEF. Other than the column, he has no direct, monetary or otherwise, involvement with the USEA. The USEA has no say in his hiring or firing, or behavior, or anything, except for the column.

hb
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:36 PM
And I hope the USEA continues to print his column including these inflammatory statements because otherwise we might not know what he really thinks.

Janet
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:42 PM
Dennys comments on that article. To me Denny is about the only sane voice in our sport that remembers the "Smurfs" To me CMP is destructive to the future of eventing for the Amateur.
The next time USEA solisits me to join again I will tell them in a letter the reasons I wont send money to help support CMP. I am totally dissapointed. :no:
Huh? Cut off you nose to spite your face, will you?

Neither the USEA, nor any of the USEA membership fees, support MP.

Sannois
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:45 PM
Huh? Cut off you nose to spite your face, will you?

Neither the USEA, nor any of the USEA membership fees, support MP.

I am sorry. I actually have never been a member of the USEF. I guess I am not well read on the governing bodies. Again MY appologies.:eek:

RAyers
Jun. 20, 2007, 01:57 PM
I did not start this to debate if MP should be censured. His words though represent the view of the top administration of this sport since he acts as the primary representative, and subsequently he represents us (at least those who pay our dues to USEF which we have to to compete ;) ). In his recent editorial, he advocates a different interpretation of the rules and does take the FEI and Ground Jury to task for following the rules.

Again, should there be a different set of rules for the elite? Should we (the majority) hold the elite to a different standard (higher/lower) of conduct? While Phillips' comments are mild, they do indicate a perception of difference between levels and how rules apply. And if he is the Godfather, does somebody need to take up a basball bat (reference to the movie not a real suggestion per Bill McNeil)?

Reed

Gnep
Jun. 20, 2007, 02:07 PM
My objection is that Upper Level Riders, that are or can be Team Members, should be treated differant.
That the rules should be bent in their favour.

This expectation makes the statements of our Organisations concerning the wellbeing of the horse hollow.

The defening silence of our Governing bodies reflect this thinking.
2 sets of rules are applied, if you brake the rules at the upper levels of FEI competition, as a Star, than nothing will happen to you.

If USEF rules have a meaning than they should applie to all of us especialy in abuse cases. If somebody brakes USEF Abuse Rules at an FEI competition than USEF and USEA should take action.

If the Team Leader, utters that he is not happy that the stewarts did not bend the rules in favour of one of his riders, than that is a statement that requieres action from our governing bodies.

For what do we have USEF abuse rules, if the top riders can brake those rules at an FEI competition. Take the use of the whip, there was thread were this was discussed in length, ilegal if used after the jump to encourage the horse to gallop on. If any of us does it we have a nice little chat with Ground Jury and if we do it repetetly than we get the book thrown at us and rightly so.
If you do it at an FEI and you are a star than nothing will happen to you and on top of it the Natinal Coach will defend you and is not happy that the rules were not bend a little by the FEI Stewarts. Rather disgusting arrogant Moral Values

RiverBendPol
Jun. 20, 2007, 02:14 PM
I cannot get through this whole thread right now bc Mark Phillips makes me choke and gag. The man is a pompous jackass. The only rule he lives by is the one which states 'Rules were made to be broken'. He makes me puke. Always has, always will.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 20, 2007, 02:16 PM
I did not start this to debate if MP should be censured. His words though represent the view of the top administration of this sport since he acts as the primary representative, and subsequently he represents us (at least those who pay our dues to USEF which we have to to compete ;) ). In his recent editorial, he advocates a different interpretation of the rules and does take the FEI and Ground Jury to task for following the rules.
Reed


My opinion...for what it is worth...was that not much was meant by that article other then public support for AT and a wrap up of the current state of the US team....nothing offended me in that article but maybe I have thicker skin then I thought.

Personally....I think when you get to the highest levels, you need to follow the letter of the rules more closely then at the lower levels. There is often a lot more at stake both publicly, financially and professionally that I think the rules need to be followed to a "T" to ensure as much fairness in the process to all as possible. Since the "lower" levels are often more of the training ground, I would prefer more flexibility at that level and by the time you are playing with the big boys, you had better know the rules and expect them to be applied. Of course, that same logic could be reversed and said that you need to apply the rules more stringently at the "lower" levels so that the lessons are learned there and such lessons do not need to be taught to those riders who have gone successfully through the system......I suppose that may be MP's thought process on this.

In the end, I can see having some different rules through the levels (as we already do) but once you have rules and a process....it should be applied consistently to everyone...if if things are not working right, then the rules and process need to change.

clivers
Jun. 20, 2007, 02:31 PM
So what do we do?

Someone mentioned feeling despair and I agree. What is happening to this sport that we all love so much?

Ever since the long format debacle--where 1000s of USEA members professed support for the long format but were "put down" by the elite riders who said the short format was better for the horse (or in Amy Tryon's words, would make the horses stars and allow them to compete more)--it's been discouraging to feel that the base of the sport really has no say about the future of it.

Where are we now? Horses are no safer doing the short format, and, in fact, they are running more often, which can only result in injuries and a shorter career. We are losing wonderful events such as Radnor and the FEI levels at the Virginia Horse Center. Our governing organizations are mum about the AT incident while the rest of the world has responded with a resounding outcry (read the Horse & Hound forums to get a feeling for it). And CMP continues to insult us by claiming the horse was "locked" onto the fence (doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the horse very much wanted to pull up well before the fence, right RAyers? ;)).

I support eventing, but have not renewed my USEA membership this year (not competing since losing Traveler) and really don't plan to do so at this point. They are allowed to let CMP write whatever he wants in his editorial, but their relative silence on the topic gives the impression that they support his opinion.

Flame suit on! :winkgrin:

Very well said KellyS

JER
Jun. 20, 2007, 04:05 PM
We don't have to look very far these days to see what happens when a sport doesn't police itself and chooses to look the other way at its most elite levels. The USEF, USEA and FEI needs to be very, very careful, especially with 'abuse' charges.

In baseball, there's the shameful spectacle of Barry Bonds and his ilk. MLB ignored the obvious for years, not even having a steroid policy until 2003, allowing Bonds to break one of baseball's greatest records held by one of the greatest men to play the game. Meanwhile, law enforcement has stepped in with the BALCO case (which actually initiated in a steroids-for-sprinters scandal) and Bonds's 'personal trainer' sits in jail on a contempt charge. The official response from MLB is something like "Whatever."

Cycling -- the sport at the forefront of doping technology -- has only made cynical gestures to cleaning up the sport. But again, law enforcement had other ideas, and a series of European-based police operations and arrests have shaken up the sport, if only because certain top riders are no longer welcome in certain jurisdictions. (In some cases, riders are very welcome if only so they can be arrested on the spot.)

Eventing -- and all horse sports -- need to take abuse allegations very seriously. Local law enforcement has every right and reason to investigate and adjudicate when an animal is abused or there are allegations of abuse. There are laws already on the books. I think we can all imagine the consequences. It would not be good for our sport.

There are very few areas in which law enforcement (aside from the fashion police) can step into our sport. Abuse is one of them. We need to show that we can police ourselves -- by adhering to procedure -- and not minimize what is a most serious situation.

deltawave
Jun. 20, 2007, 04:26 PM
I agree. While any horseman can sympathize with how fragile horses are, with how difficult it may be to tell a bad step from a catastrophe, and with the many examples of how complicated horses are, the public (like it or not) ALSO has a perception and it may not be the least bit accurate, but that perception may very well "carry the day". Even a HINT of favoritism among the "elite" might have very negative effects on how our sport (already perceived by many as the playground of snobs and the hoity toity) is seen in the public eye.

Sannois
Jun. 20, 2007, 04:52 PM
:yes:

NeverTime
Jun. 20, 2007, 06:57 PM
The FEI's new safety committee met for the first time and released this report. Reed, interestingly, the "prevention" section seems to have a line-item speaking directly to your issue about lower-level riders being held more strictly to the qualifications than upper-level riders, who sometimes are granted waivers. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but it seems interesting that it specifies low-level international events ...

FEI Safety Sub-Committee Holds Inaugural Meeting in London

As announced in the FEI Press Statement of 11 May 2007 on Safety in Eventing, the newly created FEI Safety Sub-Committee held it first meeting in London on 18 June 2008.

This Committee is chaired by International Rider and Course Designer David O’Connor (USA); the members are: Chris Bartle, International Rider and Trainer of the German National Eventing Team; Laurent Bousquet International Rider & Chairman of the French National Federation Safety Commission and Trainer of the Belgium National Evening Team; Yogi Briesner, Trainer of the British National Evening Team; Andrew Nicholson, Olympic Eventing rider; Michael Tucker, International Eventing Technical Delegate and Course Designer and FEI Eventing Course Director.

The FEI Safety Sub-Committee has now been formalised as a standing Committee reporting to the FEI Eventing Committee. It is intended that the Committee meet twice a year; the next meeting will take place at the end of this year.

The objective of the inaugural meeting was to define the Committee’s mission as well as its frame of work. The role of the FEI Safety Sub-Committee is to:
- Identify all areas of concern;
- Investigate or trigger specific investigations;
- Manage all issues related to Eventing Safety by recommending rule updates and policy changes in the sport;
- Communicate on all findings

Prevention, analysis and management will be part of each discussion for all issues raised.
During the 18 June meeting, the Committee reviewed the following specifics – all proposals need further consideration by different bodies:

PREVENTION:
- Ensuring that the strictest international safety requirements are applied to the national level;
- Development of diversified safety devices for Cross Country construction;
- Promoting research on riders helmets;
- Reviewing of trends in Course Designing;
- Stopping horses on Cross Country course;
- Reviewing of number of refusals on Cross Country;
- Training of fence stewards;
- Introduction of a National Eventing expert to be the liaison between the NF and the FEI in relation to all safety issues;
- Review of FEI Officials education and qualification;
- Qualification of riders at national level before entering low level international events;
- Promotion of FEI Eventing safety database and reports on all the figures relating to Eventing international events.

ANALYSIS:
- Monitoring of statistics (i.e. specific combination of fences, analysis of riders or horses falling several times during a year, events with abnormal number of falls, etc.), and follow-up with FEI Officials and NFs;
- Inclusion of veterinary information on horses in a safety database;
- Review of serious accidents and procedures.

MANAGEMENT:
- Communication and follow-up of safety programme;
- Planning of safety educational seminars.

The FEI wishes to emphasise that it takes the welfare of the horse very seriously and sees safety of both its animal and human athletes as its highest priority.

flyingchange
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:44 PM
Out with the limey ba$tard.

findeight
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:50 PM
From what I've heard from UL eventers, CMP practically views Amy as his own child -- super favoritism and paving the way for her to buy a $$$ horse like Le Samurai... so his words don't really surprise me. (Not that I agree with him in the least, he sounds like a pompous a-hole to me.)

OK, as you know, I do not Event.

But AT did NOT own that horse. There was an owner who did pony up the $$ and put him on the fast track with AT. It does that owner and others who support your sport by providing the horses and paying the bills a diservice to leave them out of the big picture.

Far as this goes, rules ought to be for everybody. That's why we and others threw the monachies out on their rears...or heads in France.
This Brit doesn't get it.

So how did you end up with him as chef/coach??? No talent over here in the colonies? Or somebody was just enamoured of the royal ties?

I never quite got that...not sure the International level results support it either.

findeight
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:54 PM
FEI Safety Sub-Committee Holds Inaugural Meeting in London

As announced in the FEI Press Statement of 11 May 2007 on Safety in Eventing, the newly created FEI Safety Sub-Committee held it first meeting in London on 18 June 2008.


Er....might want to look at that and change it.

Sorry, waiting on a plane at the Atlanta airport and, actually, have NO life at the moment...and for the next 2 hours.

canyonoak
Jun. 20, 2007, 07:58 PM
I have waded through pages of posts and am responding to something in the middle of them--

<<I have never met anyone who has anything positive to say about MP.

Judging from posts on COTH, the man is nearly universally reviled in the US, both for his personal demeanor and his opinions.>>

I think Mark is a wonderful horseman and can, if moved to, make truly intersting and incisive conversation on several topics, including but not limited to horse sport.

I find it interesting that the riders I have met who have worked with him, for the most part, really enjoy his insights and coaching.

he is functioning here as a COACH, not a trainer, and the pre-requisites are indeed different, even if they overlap.

I might add that other countries ran after him when his contract was up, and it was in part because the riders wanted him to stay on that he did so.

back to the original programming.

wabadou
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:09 PM
Sorry, waiting on a plane at the Atlanta airport and, actually, have NO life at the moment...and for the next 2 hours.

Poor you!!
Been there many times with many delayed flights, not a lot to do:(

But seriously ( and I mean that, please explain)
If, as a few have said, CMP is eminently respected for his coaching skills both here and abroad, why is he not coaching in the UK?
What other countries were "in a race" to get him when his contract was up?
What is the difference between a COACH and a trainer?

findeight
Jun. 20, 2007, 08:28 PM
I'm not doing any name calling and if being blunt or saying something unpopular was that big an issue...well..look at our chef over in Showjumping. He invented saying what is in his mind and embellishing it sans feelings for how it might be taken on the other end.

I just am curious why we do not have a Yank instead of a Brit directing us Yanks. Or is it because they are so much better then we are we need them to direct us? I think alot of the thinking in Dressage is along those lines...having to not only go to Europe to compete but to train under a European because they are perceived to be better? Or bring them over here because we do not have anyone of that stature available?

I just find it a curious choice to stick with. I'm sure the riders like him but...is that the best gauge of success?

lstevenson
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:21 PM
This is pretty ironic, considering that Jimmy is well known for preferring to teach only prelim and above. That's not to say that he won't agree to do the odd lower level clinic or lesson, but his preference is ULRs. Don't get me wrong, I love Jimmy, but he isn't exactly a man of the people!


What on earth do you mean by this? "not a man of the people"???

Jimmy, just like almost every other top coach in the country prefers to teach only upper level and very serious riders. How is that different from CMP or the O' Connors?

And I believe what was suggested was that he become the team coach, which would be all top Advanced riders anyway. :confused:

lstevenson
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:39 PM
I might add that other countries ran after him when his contract was up, and it was in part because the riders wanted him to stay on that he did so.


Really? Who told you that? Him? That's not what I heard.

I find it ..... interesting.... that his own country doesn't want him.

And I think it's almost funny that he complains about not having a good depth of up and coming riders, yet for the Pan Am games, our most experienced riders were picked. If they were truely thinking about are up and coming riders, some of them would have chosen them for the team, since the Pan Am's are traditionally less difficult than the Olympics or the Worlds, and it would be great international experience for them. It seems as if winning today is more important than bringing along the next generation of Olympic riders. And maybe they believe that it is. But they can't have it both ways.

Janet
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:46 PM
I just am curious why we do not have a Yank instead of a Brit directing us Yanks. Or is it because they are so much better then we are we need them to direct us? I think alot of the thinking in Dressage is along those lines...having to not only go to Europe to compete but to train under a European because they are perceived to be better? Or bring them over here because we do not have anyone of that stature available? I think it may have been becuase the top US coaches were perceived as having a conflict of interest, based on long histories with some of the riders and not others.

I think it was thought that an "outsider" would not have a "history" with the riders, and be free of suspicion of "favoritism".

But now MP has been here long enough that he has his own "favorites", so the distinctions is not relevant.

canyonoak
Jun. 20, 2007, 10:59 PM
Once upon a time, there was an eventing coach. His name was Jack Le Goff.
He trained the riders. he told them which horses they would ride. He told them which horses they were NOT going to ride--even if that horse had arrived with that rider, as part of the original package.

The success in horse sport he created was legendary.

it was The Golden Time-- Le Goff, de Nemethy, and for a brief while, Ljungquist.

Then, the event riders felt they were not enjoying being treated like children--or at least this is how they perceived their treatment.

So they rebelled, and Jack Le Goff...left.

And the eventing program pretty much went into the toilet, at least as far as international success.

The O'Connors were just starting out on their long wonderful road of success, and one of the people they met in Europe (there was still a need to go over the pond for Serious Sport at that time) was Captain Mark Phillips.
He had a team gold from Munich and he won the Badminton Horse Trials in 1971 and 1972 riding Great Ovation, in 1974 on Colombus, and in 1981 on Lincoln. That was when Badminton and three-day-eventing meant something.


Mark offered insight and advice,I think it was for David O'Connor's Badminton, and a friendship was born.

When it came time to talk about a new person to head the event program, Mark's name was put into the hat. He was hired as chef d'equipe, and did not use the title of "coach" for some time after that.

meanwhile, the American success in international sport began to climb again.

and so on and so forth.

And yes, it is rather an ironic joke that at the time they could have had him, the Brits just sort of shrugged...and then, later, they and several other countries came hats in hand...but Mark felt loyal to the program he was helping to shape, and to the riders he had helped.

I do not know why brilliant technicians such as Denny Emerson or Jimmy Wofford were not picked and have no insight into the machinations of USEA.

But I have to say-- working with elite 'team' riders is not a stroll in the park; requires an enormous amount of time and energy sucked into the dark hole of self-absorption common to top sport athletes; and leaves little time for lots of the fun stuff, like sleeping and enjoying one's family. Let alone having a life.

So it is entirely possible other people, equally capable, just said No Thanks.

BarbB
Jun. 20, 2007, 11:06 PM
As far as his comment that advocating skipping the rules because it is an Olympic level rider....I am as horrified as any of you. For many of the reasons already discussed.

But I am going to play devil's advocate on some of the bashing.
His JOB is to coach the international team and bring home wins.
He is not the president of USEA, delegate to the IOC or a regional coordinator. His JOB is not to mentor the lower levels, or even (and this is admittedly stretching a bit) to bring along the next international riders.
His job is to work with the riders that are given to him and make them function as a team in international competition.

Now....could he do a lot of good by involving himself in the sport in this country at a greater depth? Of course. But it is not, in the end, what he was hired for.
He need to be judged on how well our international team competes on the world stage, anything else is irrelevant.
Now if the team wanted to fire him for NOT being more involved in promoting the sport at all levels....etc etc.....fine. But change the job description.

This is really, despite appearances, not my support of MP. Everytime he opens his mouth I wonder why on earth we ever hired this guy! :eek:

But I think that expecting him to be all things to all people is unfair.

Gnep
Jun. 21, 2007, 12:51 AM
Barb, he is the National Coach, so to speak the top honcho of all coaches. He reprsents the sport as all riders and officials do that are part of the National Team. It is absolut important that they are not only top of the crop as athlets, it is equaly important that they are top of the crop concerning their moral values.
They represent US, THE EVENTING COMUNITY. For that they are admired, for both and it gives them the ability to earn money.
If they bend the rules or suggest that the rules should be bent in their favour, than they lack the moral values to represent us. All of us have to obey by those rules ste by the governing bodies and just because you might be the source or a candidate for a medal should not excuse you from the rules.
And if some one violates the rules, they should not be helped, protected or aided by our governing bodies, instead they should be judged and penalized regardles of their stature.
And if a representive of the USEF suggest different, that he rules should be bent in favour of a athelet than that person should be judged and penalized.

It is the example they are, what becomes of our sport and if we tolerate that there are 2 rules, than we can kiss our sport good by

sofiethewonderhorse
Jun. 21, 2007, 12:54 AM
For those of you who have met CMP and watched the riders under his Tutelage...your insights have been very informative.

>>From what I've heard from UL eventers, CMP practically views Amy as his own child -- super favoritism and paving the way for her to buy a $$$ horse like Le Samurai... so his words don't really surprise me. (Not that I agree with him in the least, he sounds like a pompous a-hole to me.)<<

Excuse me dear...Le Samurai was purchased by private investors with the blessings of the selling owner and trainer; unless you have sat down with any of these people, please refrain calling names.

tulkas
Jun. 21, 2007, 01:45 AM
I spent years wondering how on earth rational beings could form lynch mobs. From what I have read here, I must conclude that either I must continue to wonder or that the majority of you are not rational. Vicious and hate filled, yes, but rational - I think not.

Tulkas

Meredith Clark
Jun. 21, 2007, 01:51 AM
I spent years wondering how on earth rational beings could form lynch mobs. From what I have read here, I must conclude that either I must continue to wonder or that the majority of you are not rational. Vicious and hate filled, yes, but rational - I think not.

Tulkas

hahahaha... I heard he's a witch... BURN HIM!!

then again.. i'm not allowed to care, I ride at the lower levels.

BarbB
Jun. 21, 2007, 05:40 AM
If they bend the rules or suggest that the rules should be bent in their favour, than they lack the moral values to represent us. All of us have to obey by those rules ste by the governing bodies and just because you might be the source or a candidate for a medal should not excuse you from the rules.


I absolutely agree. In fact I indicated that.
My remarks were in no way a defense of that statement by MP. He probably should be fired for that statement, he probably won't be.

What I was referring to is the non stop criticism of his lack of interest in anything but The Team.
The reality is that The Team is his job, the rest of it is just perception that he should be more involved in the entire sport. I doubt that being the compass for eventing in the US is part of his contract.

canyonoak
Jun. 21, 2007, 09:19 AM
In dressage, they have finally created a 'pipeline' that sort of mimics what I thought you all had in eventing: that is, dressage now has a Young Horse coach--Scott Hassler; a Developiing Rider/Horse coach-- Debbie McDonald; and The Great Kahuna, Klaus Balkenhol.

It seems to me that eventing has had Jimmy Wofford, David O' Connor, Kim Severson and probably others as Developmental Coach for umpteen years.

What has happened to this pipeline?

wabadou
Jun. 21, 2007, 09:26 AM
And I think it's almost funny that he complains about not having a good depth of up and coming riders, yet for the Pan Am games, our most experienced riders were picked. If they were truely thinking about are up and coming riders, some of them would have chosen them for the team, since the Pan Am's are traditionally less difficult than the Olympics or the Worlds, and it would be great international experience for them. It seems as if winning today is more important than bringing along the next generation of Olympic riders. And maybe they believe that it is. But they can't have it both ways.

I can't help but believe that with the short format ( don't kill me here, in the long format you did not see as much or any of this, really) and the practice of every top rider showing 4 5 6 horses at an outing every few weeks has helped to facilitate the top horses being concentrated in the hands of a few. Previously, it would seem that owners had to find other riders to get their horses out as the ULR were limited in how many horses they showed in one outing and how often they could show. Is is possible that there is a shortage of up and coming riders, in part, related to this new phenomena of the ULRs having and showing more promising horses and in greater number and more frequently than in the past...? Is it possible that the promising horses don't have to be spread out as much among riders, as they used to be?

wabadou
Jun. 21, 2007, 09:40 AM
>>From what I've heard from UL eventers, CMP practically views Amy as his own child -- super favoritism and paving the way for her to buy a $$$ horse like Le Samurai... so his words don't really surprise me. (Not that I agree with him in the least, he sounds like a pompous a-hole to me.)<<

Excuse me dear...Le Samurai was purchased by private investors with the blessings of the selling owner and trainer; unless you have sat down with any of these people, please refrain calling names.
Sophie,
Mark Phillips did play a substantial role in getting Amy the ride on Sparky, accoring to several published sources:
Amy Tryon Welcomes A New Star To Her String 07-13-2006 The Chronicle Of The Horse
"Amy Tryon, of Duvall, Wash., just added another elite horse to her string when she acquired the ride on Le Samurai.

When word spread that Sparky was on the market, U.S. Equestrian Federation Eventing Chef d, Equipe Capt. Mark Phillips suggested that the horse might be a good match for Tryon and assisted her in finding three generous sponsors to help her purchase him."
Nothing wrong with this but it does sound like he played a pretty substantial role in facilitating her getting the horse.
Is this incorrect?

RAyers
Jun. 21, 2007, 10:04 AM
tulkas and others, this thread is meant to discuss the ramifications of the actions of Phillips, his role as a leader in eventing ad how he views the rules comared tohow we see the rules. I see no lynch mob here. Just like MP is allowed to have his opinions published we can state our opinions.

I agree that Phillips should focus on the team, however part of his job in creating a team is creating a pipeline of riders and support. That means scouting and including low level riders and building support from the majority (it means more monetary support).

At the same time, he should also hold himself and his riders to the utmost stringent standards of decorum. This means strict abidance to the rules and to the rulings of the officials at all competitions and to not question the situation (at least not in public). This is what being a professional in any job means.

Nevertime, it is interesting the findings of the safety committee. Again, I have problems with the make-up of such a committee but we hashed that out when we discussed the USEF safety committee. You are right, it does appear that a graded application of rules may be the result. That concerns me because young riders/trainers emmulate the elite regardless of understanding. See the recent hulabaloo about pulling shoes in the hunters for hacks. Many folks do it simply because they saw the top riders/trainers do it at the biggest shows.

These folks at the top are the public faces of our sport. They must be above reproach and that means following rules regardless of outcome. If the Ground Jury or TD makes a determination, then they should set the example that show officials are to be respected and accept a ruling. They can go through the regular channels to protest but they should not make it public or talk about it in public.

Reed

canyonoak
Jun. 21, 2007, 11:06 AM
Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.

Hannahsmom
Jun. 21, 2007, 11:30 AM
I agree that Phillips should focus on the team, however part of his job in creating a team is creating a pipeline of riders and support. That means scouting and including low level riders and building support from the majority (it means more monetary support).

At the same time, he should also hold himself and his riders to the utmost stringent standards of decorum. This means strict abidance to the rules and to the rulings of the officials at all competitions and to not question the situation (at least not in public). This is what being a professional in any job means.
Reed

I agree with you Reed, but when you look around at many sports coaches today this doesn't seem to be the rule anymore. Actually I have to admit that in my lifetime, not just now, winning coaches are often allowed all sorts of shenanigans. Just look at basketball and football alone. I'm not excusing him, but it definitely isn't different than the 'norm'.

lstevenson
Jun. 21, 2007, 11:36 AM
Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.


Why do you think that is a good arguement?

That's like saying, 'lots of people murder and steal, so it's fine for me to do so'. As the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right".

LisaB
Jun. 21, 2007, 11:38 AM
I think what we're trying to point out is that these folks in question do hold themselves above moral ground.
When we all mess up and put our foot in our mouth, we generally put our tail between our legs and apologize or make it up in some way. Repeatedly, the folks in question have gone about their holier than though attitude without repercussions.
but I on the other hand make no mistakes. Just ask Winston :winkgrin:

eventmom
Jun. 21, 2007, 11:40 AM
Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.

So, lets all move to Cuba where the great unwashed are not allowed to question the decisions of the almighty Castro. I mean really, how dare we challenge the ideas of our leaders?:eek::eek::eek:
You know what really is getting on my last nerve? You see it especially in the h/j forum. Everytime anyone wants to ask "why" about someone up there in the sport, you get 50 posters breathing down there neck about "how dare they"! Just go look at th recent thread about Chron homepage and Dr. Wolf. :eek::eek:

RAyers
Jun. 21, 2007, 12:04 PM
canyonoak you are competely missing the point.

In the NCAA there are codes of conduct for the athletes. The universities have codes of conduct as well. If the athletes, WHO REPRESENT THE UNIVERISTY, act inappropriately, there is a perogative to punish them. No, this does not always happen but I have seen plenty of cases where it has worked. The ahtletes are held to the same expectations as the students. Just because they are "elite" does not excluded them from being professional.

It is your perogative to accept the situation and, here on this thread, defend it. It is my perogative to try to change the system by being involved with the USEF, USEA, proposing rules and participating in the process because I see the beginnings of Eventing turning into h/j where I saw too many cases of "the ruels do not apply to me." I will hold the international representatives to higher standard because they are the face of the sport to the public and to the up and coming riders.

Reed

eventmom
Jun. 21, 2007, 12:22 PM
RAyers.... very well said:):):)
Much kinder than my version :cool:

snoopy
Jun. 21, 2007, 02:06 PM
Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.


This remark is always used when a poster as NOTHING relevant left to say. Nothing constructive to contribute to the debate at hand.

I for one have NOT lived a fully blameless life BUT I do own up to my actions and the consequences that follow.

Adamantane
Jun. 21, 2007, 04:10 PM
And if some one violates the rules, they should not be helped, protected or aided by our governing bodies, instead they should be judged and penalized regardles of their stature.
And if a representive of the USEF suggest different, that he rules should be bent in favour of a athelet than that person should be judged and penalized.

It is the example they are, what becomes of our sport and if we tolerate that there are 2 rules, than we can kiss our sport good by

Well a lot of the attitudes and behavio(u)rs commented upon can be accounted for if we remember that to have one's mother-in-law head of a major international religion (not to mention head of state) will after a while lead one to view the world and its ordinary inhabitants quite differently. :winkgrin:

Leadership consists in a blend of competence, honesty, fair-mindedness, objectivity and good humor, often with a dollop of added charisma.

If any of the core five are in short supply or missing, to lift and tweak a phrase from Her Majesty's German antecedents: 'The king called and all the people didn't come.':no:

Leadership does not consist in first being anointed leader and thereafter having one's future random pronouncements and acts deemed ipso facto leaderly. :lol: Are the people answering the call? Are they?

By all accounts each of the various onetime theoretical contenders mentioned for the role are highly competent and honest, and on that basis, at least, above reproach.

Based on what I can tell at a great distance, from others I respect who are in a position to know, and having watched one of these guys up close as he dealt professionally with 'ordinary people,' some possess every ingredient of leadership needed to successfully persuade and inspire. But not all do.

It's not just about sitting in a gilt chair and regularly making little speeches.

Henry V didn't win at Agincourt simply because he was king, he won because he was a leader beloved of those who went out and fought the battle, one who could inspire the best from them and impart a vision.

William IV, despite inheriting a realm by then arguably the richest and grandest in its world, never accomplished much of anything in his own right beyond warming that very same chair for a few years until Victoria at last succeeded him, whereupon she placed her own name and stamp on an entire era.

Lose That
Jun. 21, 2007, 04:42 PM
Oh my god people. Stop putting words into the man's mouth. He didn't say anything ABOUT lower level riders. Just because he said upper level riders love their horses does not mean he thinks lower level riders don't. If he had said "lower level riders love their horses" would you all be complaining about what he was "saying" about the UL riders? Haven't you heard of that logic principle that goes something like "All ravens are black, therefore all black things are ravens." and how that is NOT TRUE?

Go ahead, flame away. Sometimes I think people on this board live for conflict...:no:

Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?

snoopy
Jun. 21, 2007, 05:18 PM
Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?

Well he did state that he was "disappointed" that this incident was being investigated further....so it would seem he may well feel that amy does not deserve to be investigated. Yet this is a serious matter.

Janet
Jun. 21, 2007, 05:48 PM
Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?
THAT is pretty obvious.

deltawave
Jun. 21, 2007, 07:04 PM
It's pretty obvious he thinks Amy doesn't "deserve" to be investigated. However, that is in direct contradiction to the RULES, which MANDATE an investigation. He's the chef d'equipe--you'd think he'd know the rules and I'm sure he does. He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion expressed in the way he expressed it is indefensible (in my opinion) and gives a bad impression.

canyonoak
Jun. 21, 2007, 07:55 PM
<<
It is your perogative to accept the situation and, here on this thread, defend it. It is my perogative to try to change the system by being involved with the USEF, USEA, proposing rules and participating in the process because I see the beginnings of Eventing turning into h/j where I saw too many cases of "the ruels do not apply to me." I will hold the international representatives to higher standard because they are the face of the sport to the public and to the up and coming riders>>

No.
And again-- no.

You--and by "you" I mean all the ones I am giggling at-- you can NOT changte the nature of the thread. You can NOT slide off to some new territory of thought. You can NOT keep on and on and on pretending to be talking about one thing and then insisting you are talking about somethi9ng else.

This thread began with RAyers making a statement :

<<have to admit, I sent a letter to the editor as a result of Phillips' comments concerning how he felt the rules should be applied to elite riders. It seemed to me he advocates bending the rules because the elite riders are the riders who love their horses.

This is NOT a thread about AT!!!!!! This is a thread about equitable application of the rules applied at ALL levels of the sport and how it seems that our team leader feels that they should be interpreted in a vaiable manner.>>

Whatever this thread is about--this thread IS about the perception that Mark's editorial suggests bending over backwards for elite riders, even in questionable situations.

I read the editorial.
Amazingly--I did NOT COME AWAY with this perception.

Now--if we cannot agree the sky is blue and the earth is brown, we probably cannot agree on this matter either.

So far, I have given my reaons for liking and admiring Mark.

I have suggested that he who is without blame can cast the first stone when it comes to higher moral ground--and that I find it difficult to believe that everyone here inhabits that same high lofty moral ground.


Anyway, as I already said-- carry on.

deltawave
Jun. 21, 2007, 08:42 PM
Hey, nobody minds your having your own opinion on what is, in reality, merely someone ELSE'S opinion. That's why they call them "editorials", or at least that is what that term has come to mean. I'm sure there are a number of people (at least THREE on this thread) that like and admire MP.


this thread IS about the perception that Mark's editorial suggests bending over backwards for elite riders, even in questionable situations.

Ummm, yes?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but as others have pointed out, the "if you've never made a mistake you're entitled to an opinion, otherwise shut up" argument is specious and irrelevant. But hell, I'll speak up: I have never tried to get the rules bent for someone because of their status as a rider. :)

flutie1
Jun. 21, 2007, 09:35 PM
"... He's the chef d'equipe--you'd think he'd know the rules"

Actually Lynn, he doesn't - and furthermore, he's admitted it.

Flutie

retreadeventer
Jun. 21, 2007, 09:43 PM
But that's what a coach does. They defend their team, and their riders. In the world opinion, for the coach to be silent, to say nothing, or not to go to the defense of a rider would be tatamount to abandoning the team.
Man, I wish eventers would look at the big (International) picture. Good grief, we hurt our team by being so domestically critical.

deltawave
Jun. 21, 2007, 10:42 PM
I think if MP had solidly proclaimed his support for AT without mentioning his private lament at how the FEI was "sticking to the letter of the law" nobody would be criticizing him. One can stand behind one's team members and support them while still upholding the rules, can't they? He could've accompanied AT to the hearing, made a statement on her behalf, made the entire editorial into a proclamation of her "innocence" but still graciously acknowledged that the rules are there and for good reason. The latter is the part he DIDN'T do and no, it's not the end of the world but it IS something I find unsavory and I do feel it diminishes MP (further!) and makes a mockery of the intent of a rule like this: to make SURE the horse has a dispassionate advocate and a voice. Yes, in this case the judgment may very well be that no wrong was done intentionally, etc. etc. but how does a hearing and a discussion "harm" anyone and why shouldn't the hearing take place if everyone's so darn sure there's not going to be any negative ramifications? Why is MP whining on AT's behalf--I haven't heard HER whining about the hearing.

Lose That
Jun. 21, 2007, 10:43 PM
THAT is pretty obvious.


Ok, if it is SOOO obvious to everyone that the mere point of the article is that he doesn't feel Amy (one person in one case) does not deserve to be investigated for this then why is everyone twisting his words around so much? He never said "Elite riders deserve to be above the rules" and I think it is completely ignorant and unfair to believe that is what thinks.

And speaking of OBVIOUS... I'm sure everyone has noticed that when you write something down (weather over email, letter, instant message or EDITORIAL), without tone, inflection and stress on certain words it is very easy for the original meaning of the statement to be completely lost. Even in re-reading what you've written, since you know what you meant when you wrote it you might not realize the way it is going to sound when someone else reads it.

And just for the record, I have absolutely no opinion on MP. I've heard people say both good and bad things about him and I remain a neutral party. I'm not even trying to defend him here, I just think it's unfair to come on this board and relentlessly bash people when you have no idea of what the person meant or was thinking or anything (just like the thread bashing AT after Rolex) and I think it's important for people to be on both sides of the argument. Call me devil's advocate I guess because not only do I not really have an opinion on MP or what he thinks, I really don't care. It's opinion and his idea and he can have it, as can all of you. But someone has to point things out from the other side of the fence.

fergie
Jun. 21, 2007, 10:47 PM
He's not the brighest bulb in the lamp, is he?

deltawave
Jun. 21, 2007, 10:54 PM
Hey, LT, duly noted, but you also have to acknowledge that this sort of discussion is HEALTHY, for the most part, because it allows people to air their thoughts and opinions, even if they're not nice and "sterile" or "politically correct". When one is in a position of authority and one holds forth with an editorial/opinion, one must accept that people may disagree. Many of us disagree with MP's editorial. Many of us also can't stand the guy because we perceive (note emphasis) that he is less than a staunch supporter of the traditional 3 day event and is fairly indifferent to the "smurfs". For this, yes, he is widely resented. Fair? About as fair as anything else in life when opinions fly and people trade their thoughts on things that MATTER to them.

Why try to make nice? Nobody's saying to lynch the guy. (well, maybe a small minority but I know the COTH "voices" well enough to appreciate humor and sarcasm when I see it) :) Most of us appreciate the fact that MP is the US "elite rider" coach (I get tired of typing chef blah blah) and not a real voice of the unwashed masses. Most of us appreciate that his job description doesn't entail elevating the 95% of USEA members or even acknowledging their existence. My main heartburn with the guy (aside from the above) is that he COULD do both if he'd make half an effort: encourage the lower level people, be an ambassador, narrow the gap, etc...but he doesn't seem capable nor interested. THAT is worth objecting to, IMO.

As to "twisting his words" and misinterpreting the written word, well, welcome to the world of print. My impression from listening to him speak and reading his writings is that communication and clarity are not strong suits. Woe unto him--take an English class. :lol:

pwynnnorman
Jun. 22, 2007, 06:36 AM
I think both Lose That and Deltawave make strong points. I do think these discussions are just outstanding ways to air issues and while I don't know how set in stone others' opinions are, I find myself rethinking things a lot upon reading these threads.

1.) Horse sports--eventing maybe more than any of the other Olympic disciplines--really, really need to "coach" their figureheads on how to interact with the public, especially through the print media. I get the strong impression that there may be an attitude out there that doesn't care about that. I am, in fact, a little surprised that it still exists given the whole NGB fiasco and how quickly those folks learned to communicate better to avoid landing in the poop. Indeed, MP could learn a lot from David -- and also from Bill Moroney, two individuals who are really skilled at handling delicate issues in a positive and encouraging way.

2.) Canyonoaks comments made me consider something that--and I since I refuse to buy a flame suit, fire away!--I hadn't thought of before: TALENT. Should talent be excused from wrong? ANY wrong, or just some degree of wrong? Where should the line be drawn AND for what type of "talent"? Canyonoaks got me thinking about AT's talent and why MP may be desparate to keep it. (Although I'm pretty stunned by the revelation that he helped her get the ride on LS--we really need to be much more careful about even the appearance of bias in coaches. I'm amazed by that complication in all of this!)

Anyway, you gotta admit that Amy can get a horse around a course. That's a lot of what got her into the spot she's in right now, but I think I can see a LITTLE from MPs perspective in trying to field strong teams that having a rider like AT around is a godsend. Indeed, the situation reminds me of Mike Plumb when he rode the relatively green Blue Stone (I think that was the gray's name) in the Olympics (can't remember what year). Mike could sure "muscle" a horse around a course, but for that reason, he could also be relied on to put a score on the board and keep the team in contention.

I think that's the way a coach HAS to think. Bruce could do it, but doesn't have the horseflesh. (Bruce is amazing to me in that I think he can muscle when necessary but you'd never know it when it wasn't necessary. AT's ability to muscle is apparent in every stride.) I honestly can't say that Karen could fill that role--she isn't into "muscling" a horse--doesn't even carry a crop sometimes. Who else among our most experienced riders can be relied on to get that third horse around? Kim and Darren can be exceedingly determined, but muscle? Nah. Buck can muscle, but he doesn't have the horseflesh or the experience, wouldn't you say? Look at the most recently posted A and B Pan Am/USEF Training List (which AT is on with Coal Creek and Leyland). Who on it could be counted on to get around the course, regardless of how the course was riding, how the horse was feeling, or EVEN a problem on course (like a rider fall or a bad, confidence-shaking slip up on the horse's fault)? Who is our current Mike Plumb? Why, it's AT, isnt it? (And Phillip Dutton, I suppose--as he's proven with Tru Luck this past year, in fact--but I'm not totally sure about that.)

Again, I'm not condoning AT's actions and I'm not condoning MP's bad PR, but I think if folks were trained to communicate better--to provide information that helps interpret action--we might be able to be more understanding about how things are evolving.

pegasusmom
Jun. 22, 2007, 06:57 AM
pwynn - two comments.

How does our society as a whole accept perceived misbehavior by top atheletes?

And after last weekend's Phillip Dutton clinic, I'd say it's not AT but PD.

LisaB
Jun. 22, 2007, 07:56 AM
Pwynn, good point but ...
AT recklessly abused a horse. (don't even start with me about that). It's not like bending the rules a little. Like Darren has on numerous occasions asked to ride at a certain time for certain horses because they go better. He's a PITA but hey, he's a good competitor for the team. Organizers let it go and give him a certain favoritism. She ought to be punished and I'm appalled by anyone who thinks otherwise.
CMP is probably an excellent coach. But not good at PR and he has too much power. He shouldn't even suggest anything to the FEI regarding an investigation. Not his place. His place is to support his team. And he wants to try to save AT's professional career. Of course he writes it in such a way that pisses us off.
He needs to butt out of the USEF board, he needs to stop writing an article for the mag, he just needs to coach and that's it.

magnolia73
Jun. 22, 2007, 08:53 AM
Horse people are notoriously bad business people, and need some help from PR. OTOH, MP should support his team members, like a coach....However, in this sport, you have the quiet team member- the horse, that you also need to look out for. He needs to understand that there are a whole lot of people who know about horses and jumping who don't think the whole incident should be forgotten. Do I think she should be kicked out of riding? No. But she should have to answer for her actions and if found negligent, no matter how caring and loving, she should be punished in some way. Look at it this way- mom backs over her beloved child in the driveway. Sad accident, but that death of that child will be investigated no matter how devastated mom is. If the FEI is to do their job and look after the equine athletes of these sports, they must investigate these matters

bigdreamer
Jun. 22, 2007, 09:40 AM
i skipped a few pages here so i'm sorry if this was already asked, but i was wondering- who hired CMP, who can replace him, and how in the world can we persuade them to do so?

bussgirl
Jun. 22, 2007, 10:26 AM
I have been reading this post from the beginning and have to say there are many valid points. But I was wondering if the real issue isn't the fact that as 'smurfs' our voice is not recognized. We are and always have been the backbone of eventng. We join, volunteer, compete, and although the USEA claims that adult amatures (you know those of us without rich sponsers!) are their most important member, the price of entries comtinues to climb. But we continue, because we love the sport.
Yet when we have a gripe it is swept under the carpet. Although we make up the vast majority of membership do our opinions count? We didn't want to go to short format, but here we are. Many have criticized AT for her decisions at Rolex, and have asked for rules to be followed. I am not saying Amy was right or wrong, but don't we as members have a right to ask questions? There was another thread started by Denny about safety in the sport - did we ever get any answers? Why not - don't we as members deserve at least that?
Other than Denny do any ULR read these posts? Don't you think if they cared they would want to know what's on our minds? In business you need to know your cutomer, and please your customer. We are the customer, but they make us feel as though we are lucky to be a part of their world.

RAyers
Jun. 22, 2007, 10:59 AM
I agree completely. That is the way a coach should think. However even top professional coaches and college coaches are willing to sacrifice top players (OK, more so at the college levels) to adhere to NCAA and university rules. Remember the UF runningback who was suspended from the NCAA championship due to his grades. He was a Hiesman contender but he did not follow the rules. The coach was strong enough to bench him even though he was needed for the game.

A coach does not just lead or represent the team. He represents the city, univeristy, country etc. and they have to recognize that. I think media training is a great idea.

canyonoak, while this thread is focused on MP, realize that he is the focus of larger isssues since he does raise the considerations in his comments.

canyonoak
Jun. 22, 2007, 11:21 AM
One.
I have never said talent should be excused from the rules.

Two.
If a horse sport coach does NOT keep an eye out for talented horses and try to make sure that a talented rider gets the ride--what on earth is the coach supposed to be doing in carrying out the mission of his job?

Three.
Rules can be bad rules.
Rules are created by human beings.
Human beings can make bad choices.
Therefore, rules can and sometimes ought to be changed. Or modified.

Four.
You can all keep changing the nature and purpose of your thread as much as you like. That is what a BB is about. That is what life is like.

Just as an aside: When the issue of long format to short format came up, when it FIRST came up...there was no discussion here.
That discussion started after the change was a fait accompli, done behind closed doors by the FEI weasels.
Helped, as I recall, by Wayne Roycroft's capitulation.

Started by sticking Christoph Hess on the FEI Eventing Committee.

Mark loved long format--obviously.
He said whatever he could say and did whatever he could---as did others.

In the end, they were voted down and the rest-=-well, we have seen the results of the rest.
Yayyyy FEI.
Blechh.


Once the short format was a reality, however, he and the other team coaches HAD to create the best possible teams to win the existing competition.
There was a thread on that right here.

Blame him however you want, but at least blame him for realistic stuff.

flyingchange
Jun. 22, 2007, 09:50 PM
good grief!

there, I just wanted to try saying it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually say "good grief!" except Charlie Brown and Peppermint Patty!

sorry, just wanted to try it ....

GOOD GRIEF!!!

KBG Eventer
Jun. 22, 2007, 11:25 PM
[QUOTE=Speedy;2513279]This is pretty ironic, considering that Jimmy is well known for preferring to teach only prelim and above. That's not to say that he won't agree to do the odd lower level clinic or lesson, but his preference is ULRs. Don't get me wrong, I love Jimmy, but he isn't exactly a man of the people!

QUOTE]

I have read throught the whole thread already and don't want to open my big mouth since I don't know what I am talking about, but I wanted to come back to that statement about Jim Wofford because I was just rereading my March 07' edition of PH. In Jim's article he writes..."As a side note, while I go to AEC to coach at the upper levels, I have to confess that my favorites to watch are the Junior Novice rides." Although he *does* state his coaching of just the upper levels...he does mention us kids as well! :)

wabadou
Jun. 23, 2007, 09:34 AM
KBG,
I remember that article, also. He did sound like he enjoyed very much watching the Junior Novice kids :) !

FLnurseRN07
Jun. 23, 2007, 09:53 AM
Nothing new to add but between this thread and the VA** thread I wish we had a despair icon. How on earth could we get rid of him? :(

Can someone point me in the direction of the VA** thread? I am new to this posting, but am I correct in assuming that MP seems to have said or done things that will in fact come back and bite him you know where? :eek:

Is it just me, but do a lot of the US upper level and team riders have some issues with him?

THANKS,
LH
Connemaras do it all!

findeight
Jun. 23, 2007, 10:04 AM
You know what really is getting on my last nerve? You see it especially in the h/j forum. Everytime anyone wants to ask "why" about someone up there in the sport, you get 50 posters breathing down there neck about "how dare they"! Just go look at th recent thread about Chron homepage and Dr. Wolf. :eek::eek:

I don't usually pull something up from a few days back but this stuck in my mind and I did not have time to respond a couple of days ago.

Ummmm that thread on H/J is an unsolicited equitation critique of an Ammie who does not get alot of saddle time caught at an awkward moment and projected into why the Hunters have gone to hell.

This thread is about some controversy involving our International Eventing team and it's coach,selection procedures and...the 800 pound gorilla in the room is a dead horse. Lurking in the wings is the spectre of too many accidents and other dead horses. Coincidence? Format? Emphasis on dam the torpedos full speed ahead and kick on regardless? At the expense of horse welfare and rider safety? I don't know, suspect others don't either. Hence the discussion.

But I do know the analogy between a bad picture and a dead horse is invalid.

JAM
Jun. 23, 2007, 02:55 PM
One.

Three.
Rules can be bad rules.
Rules are created by human beings.
Human beings can make bad choices.
Therefore, rules can and sometimes ought to be changed. Or modified.

Is it your view that the "abuse of horse" rule -- which is the rule in question here -- is bad, needs to be changed or modified? Is it the "excessive pressing of a tired horse" part, or the "riding an obviously lame horse" or something else? If so, how would you modify it? Or would you eliminate it?

eventmom
Jun. 23, 2007, 04:00 PM
Jam ..... ;)
findeight, I was not making any analogy between a dead horse and bad hands. What I was refering to was simply the use of the word "why". "Why did Jimmy say what he said". then you get the "how rude of you to question him crowd". And actually the Dr. Wolf picture, I don't even care how his hands were. I do question the use of that picture in the magazine. For whatever reason , they keep using pictures of riders with bad form over fences in these h/j magazines, and for whatever reason it gets copied by the younger set! But "why" again gets slammed as a "how dare you talk about a private citizen", yada, yada, yada,..... totally distracting from the point of the thread at hand.

Gnep
Jun. 25, 2007, 02:03 AM
The point is, the comments were made with the full knowledge that a horse had died and as the FEI Stewarts saw it as a abuse case. The Stewarts did not know that the horse had to be killed, but MP knwe it when he wrote his piece.
So feeling a little peefed about the process that followed is kinde surprising and suggesting that the rules should have bent or disregarded is rather strange, or a question of a mind set.
But what ever it is, it is moraly wrong and rather troubling.

What concerns me most how easy it is treated, bad luck for Amy, the sucker is dead, ok, big deal, and those Stewarts had to refer it to the FEI, gee, what did they do that for, it was not doping. Come on guys get a live, its just a horse and now we got one of our best riders going to court, what an pain in the ass, not realy justified. I mean they DQ her aint that enough, what else do they want.
But by the way, things are looking great everybody is doing fine and we got a great team going to the Pan Am.
Ok fans lets get it rocking, he was locked on.
f...

pwynnnorman
Jun. 25, 2007, 06:06 AM
Actually, I think the two threads do have a lot in common: communication.

As I said on that thread, had someone simply indicated the context in which the awful-looking photo was taken--as Molly did umpteen pages later--that would have ended it. The OP's criticism would have been more or less nullified. Expanding that one photo to represent an entire sport would not have been possible.

There is MUCH here in this thread that would END if someone (official) would explain the context in which decisions are or have been made. Expanding how certain issues have been handled to represent all that is wrong with the sport might be a bit tougher to do if good PR were applied to addressing the (eventing) public's impressions.

Janet
Jun. 25, 2007, 06:20 AM
Can someone point me in the direction of the VA** thread? I am new to this posting, but am I correct in assuming that MP seems to have said or done things that will in fact come back and bite him you know where? :eek:

Is it just me, but do a lot of the US upper level and team riders have some issues with him?

THANKS,
LH
Connemaras do it all! It is not just you. But I think MORE of the lower level riders have issues with him.

Hannahsmom
Jun. 25, 2007, 06:58 AM
I agree completely. That is the way a coach should think. However even top professional coaches and college coaches are willing to sacrifice top players (OK, more so at the college levels) to adhere to NCAA and university rules. Remember the UF runningback who was suspended from the NCAA championship due to his grades. He was a Hiesman contender but he did not follow the rules. The coach was strong enough to bench him even though he was needed for the game.

A coach does not just lead or represent the team. He represents the city, univeristy, country etc. and they have to recognize that.

Hear hear! Thank God for the coaches with backbone enough to withstand the win at any cost mentality. I applaud all of those coaches gutsy enough to take a stand to do the right thing. I don't know enough about CMP to know what kind of man he truly is. In this case, the article states things that casts a certain light which appear unfavorable. I hope for our team's sake that he is truly a leader to look up to in more ways than for winning.

LisaB
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:13 AM
Nope, Janet, et. al who think the ULR's don't have issue with him. They do but are afraid to voice it because he is the coach and don't want to wreck their chances to be on the team or be outcasts whenever they go to an event. They need to earn a living and by voicing their opinions, they will most certainly get trounced by the chosen few.

Janet
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:04 AM
Nope, Janet, et. al who think the ULR's don't have issue with him. They do but are afraid to voice it because he is the coach and don't want to wreck their chances to be on the team or be outcasts whenever they go to an event. They need to earn a living and by voicing their opinions, they will most certainly get trounced by the chosen few.
I guess I wasn't clear. I was AGREEING that the ULRs DO have issues with him.

LisaB
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:08 AM
Hee hee, I guess I need more coffee! Sorry Janet!

canyonoak
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:36 AM
Look, of course there has to be some kind of inquiry.

After all, Laine Ashker's horse dropped dead after a grueling cross-country on an extremely hot and humid day, and even though everyone here seems to agree that the rider was not at fault for pushing her horse, the FEI is going to investigate this horse death as well.

Kudos to the FEI for consistency.

What I do not agree with is the tendency here to showboat in front of the jury of one's agreed compatriots, shouting,

"SO! When did you last hit your wife, Mister Brown!!!??""

There is hardly any answer one can make that in any way is viable.