NEW ARTICLE FROM USEA! Interviews w/ Mark Phillips, Bruce Davidson and Leslie Law! [Archive]

deltawave

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:42 PM

many in the Eventing community . . . using the anonymity of cyberspace to cast a dark shadow over the future of the sport

:mad:

My name is LYNN CRONIN, I've been a USCTA/USEA member since 1994. I live in Michigan. My USEA number is 58094. I'm not anonymous and I think you should have been canned 5 years ago, CAPTAIN. By the way, I outrank you. :D

If nobody can make the time, and making the time means you're reckless, then why the hell isn't the time being changed?? For pity's sake, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. "The hell with the course, the speed is THE SPEED." :no:

It (EIPH) has nothing to do with the fences or the coursesHOW DO YOU KNOW? Data, please. Chapter and verse, preferably.

I cannot agree with those that say we should go back to the thrill of just jumping straightforward fences.Fine, but please realize that there are THOUSANDS of us who cannot agree with YOU.

Bruce (Davidson, Sr.) went on to opine that courses today at every level are "just not right. There is too much pulling and jerking. You have to gallop full-out to a series of jerky combinations" and then repeat this all the way around. "Because fences are being placed as they are, horses aren't able to focus on what they should be focusing on. Blind turns, sharp corners. Horses have to see what they are going to jump." He feels that sadly, we've lost the "put your hands down and get that lovely galloping rhythm and maintain it all the way to the end" school of cross country riding.

Well, hooray for BD! :yes: Can't we give HIM the job of Chef d'Equipe? When, after all, has Mark Phillips actually RIDDEN a modern-day course?

Snapdragon

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:48 PM

I only briefly read BD's and LL's articles (will do a more thorough read when time allows), but I want to comment on this by MP (and I have nothing against the guy at all):

"Anonymous, vitriolic Monday morning quarterbacking all around the world on the internet is not helpful, it is destructive, and demeans the sport we all love and live for."

Except for the vitriolic part, which I agree with, if it hadn't been for the Monday morning quarterbacking on COTH, he (and the many others, including li'l ol' me) wouldn't have responded. I think some real good will come out of people posting their thoughts and ideas on these threads. So what if thousands around the world, including journalists, read this? Eventing should be able to stand up to the scrutiny. If it can't, well then that's real trouble.

RAyers

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:50 PM

I am sorry, but CMP's is classic denial and defending the status quo. Mr. Phillips, please quote me on that as I refrain from being anonymous. I sign all of my responses.

He may be able to ride a horse to hell and back, he may be the trainer of the world, but his arrogance and refusal to accept any responsibility to this sport (I'm not saying you need to be blamed, Mr. Phillips) reeks of ignorance of the evolution of the sport.

I agree with Bruce Davidson and Leslie Law.

Reed. Dr. Ayers to you Mr. Phillips.

Edited to add, USEF 40089, member since 1975 or somewhere in there

Tuckertoo

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:53 PM

I'm sorry I cannot agree with those that complain about the time being difficult at Red Hills. The time is almost impossible to make there because of the terrain and arboretum of trees and shrubs.

Uh....then slow the friggin speed required and adjust the time to that. The OT should never be "almost impossible to make." Good God. :mad:

Haven't commented on the rest because I haven't gotten any further than this yet.

ps. Lynn, I love it! :D

ETA: Becky Borden, my USEA # 109221,

Snapdragon

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:53 PM

Ah . . well, DW, about the vitriolic part--maybe I was wrong, 'cause that was :lol:

snoopy

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:55 PM

Thank god...I read mark's bit and I was stunned!!! Then once I pinched myself, thought...same old $hit different day. He does NOT get it, does NOT see it, nor will he ever.

I agree with you all.... especially the bum hole comment. The only one doing the sport a disservice is the captain himself.....

RunForIt

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:56 PM

I think that the order of the 3 articles is helpful in seeing the contrast in the opinions and understandings...bear in mind that the latter two articles are by seasoned, international caliber, medal winning event riders and trainers. They also RIDE these courses so they have a perspective that CMP will never have at this point.

My name is Lynda Clary-Burke USEA # 64354. I am, like Lynn Cronin, Anastasia Curwood, Bruce Davidson, Denny Emerson, Reed Ayers, and Leslie Law, NOT one of the silent generation.

CookiePony

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:58 PM

Lynn, you are one spunky Smurf! :winkgrin::lol:

Well, hooray for BD! :yes: Can't we give HIM the job of Chef d'Equipe?

Hmmm... perhaps you are on to something there...

ETA: My name is Anastasia Curwood, USCTA/USEA member off and on since 1990, current membership #66217.

Lisamarie8

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:58 PM

Now, maybe I'M the asshole but this:
I'm sorry I cannot agree with those that complain about the time being difficult at Red Hills. The time is almost impossible to make there because of the terrain and arboretum of trees and shrubs. If you make the time or nearly make the time you have arguably gone too fast unless you are on a very experienced horse. It is not a competitors 'divine right' to be able to 'make the time'. Far more it is the riders' responsibility to ride their horse at a speed appropriate to its ability and experience and the prevailing conditions on any one day. 'Making the time' is a way of life growing out of courses where heights are a meter or less and where the speeds are considerably slower. At all levels, and especially Preliminary and above riding your horse and jumping the fences must be the overriding priority. This fact has not changed since Eventing began. The sooner riders at all levels come to terms with this the safer the sport Makes no sense to me. Isn't it called the OPTIMUM Time because if you ride the Course at an optimum, "ideal" or "Best" pace you will not have time penalties? If it doesn't matter, or is only attainable to those very reckless or well horsed few, why make it a part of the sport at all. Maybe that's what optimum means in this situation: Those on the best and most experienced horses, or those who have reached a the peak of crazy mountain?

I'm being serious, have I been wrong all these years? I mean not that Optimum Time was something Ozzy and I saw on a regular basis, but had I known it was a ridiculous goal I would have stopped worrying about it long ago.

LexInVA

Mar. 26, 2008, 09:58 PM

I guess CMP is gonna get a one-way ticket to the backside of Hell...

Snapdragon

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:10 PM

LisaMarie8, SUCH a good point. Even though I've only ridden up to training level, I always thought optimum time meant the speed at which you can safely, but competitively, ride without having time penalties. I thought that was a given. Was I wrong all these years?

flightinstructor

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:14 PM

Re: Mark Phillips comments
Just shows how out of touch he is. On the positive side, if there is any sense at the top he should be rapidly digging his own grave by making comments like he has in light of the recent tragedies.

Mike Benczkowski
USEA# 77894

AiryFairy

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:15 PM

"If you make the time or nearly make the time you have arguably gone too fast unless you are on a very experienced horse. It is not a competitors 'divine right' to be able to 'make the time'. "

What an utterly stupid comment - and what a wonderful illustration of what is wrong the sport and his philosophy of it. 98% of the people who compete should not be riding at breakneck speed just to make the apparently-designed-to-be-unattainable time!

Cheers to Bruce, the voice of common sense.

Vuma

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:22 PM

Sadly, the internet trolls CMP is talking about are not the unidentified folk. They usually (and proudly) display their names, and their unwarranted arrogance, out there for all of us to be repulsed by. Such is the "who is CMP sleeping with" and "what is his yearly salary" BS.

There are a lot of us being turned off by all the negativity that truly is destructive to the goals we are all seeking here. Turn the condescending one-liners into something cognitively appropriate that will actually prove to be productive instead of turning away COTHers who don't have time to sort through all the sorted irrelevant and personal attacks.

IFG

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:25 PM

Bravo Bruce and the Leslies! Will hold my tongue on CMP.

Ilana F. Gareen (as Reed put it, Dr. Gareen to CMP). USEA # 15476.

tx3dayeventer

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:29 PM

I really like when Leslie Law said this

"Lastly, one final side comment would be: while the USEA is examining how to improve it's rider qualifications to move up the levels we need to lobby the FEI to examine some of their bizarre legislations for the rule that allows one to be qualified to do a CIC *** without ever having completed an advanced horse trials. This is beyond comprehension."

I mean, SERIOUSLY!!!:eek:!!!!! How the hell can you do a CIC*** without ever doing Advanced??? Or better yet, WHO would ever TRY to do a CIC*** without ever doing Advanced??

WOW

Oh and I guess since we are spouting names and IDs:

Meredith C Robin, Kid Gloves & Sir Peach E. Keen. Been a member of USEA/USCTA since 1989,been a member of AHSA/USEF since 1994 or 95, been a member of the FEI since 1999, was a member of USET in 2002-2005. I dont remember all my numbers much less my horses numbers but if anyone cares that much feel free to look them up.

There, I am no longer a member of the silent generation. As if I have EVER been silent :lol: :lol: :lol:

McVillesMom

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:32 PM

Agree with you all about the time.

"I cannot agree with those that say we should go back to the thrill of just jumping straightforward fences. Understand nine out of the eleven fatalities worldwide in recent months were at straightforward fences in the middle of the park."

Did you ever think that maybe that's because people are having to go like a bat out of hell between all the technical combinations in order to even come CLOSE to the time?

"I often wonder if people in the chat rooms are aware that every word they write is seen by thousands and thousands of people around the world"

Of course we know - and we're hoping it makes a difference.

Bravo to Bruce and Leslie.

crazy_horse1095

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:34 PM

I've only read CMP's and Bruce's articles so far and just wanted to say:
YOU GO BRUCE! I'd give him three thumbs up if I had three hands, but alas, I only I have two...

In regards to CMP'S article, he made this statement "If you make the time or nearly make the time you have arguably gone too fast unless you are on a very experienced horse. It is not a competitors 'divine right' to be able to 'make the time'. "
WTF!? HOW does this make sense? It's seems absolutely absurd, anyone care to enlighten me?

Oh, and I'd hardly consider myself anonymous given the fact that I've voiced my opinions to my area chair, Kevin, and the president of my regional eventing association-all of which have my name and info.

Tuckertoo

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:36 PM

From Leslie Law:
With regards to those who argue for slower times, I ask them this, "Why does one assume that the time should be easily, or even simply, MORE EASILY, obtainable?"

I don't think people think that it should be too easily attainable...but it should be obtainable.

Way to go Bruce! :)

FoxChaser

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:40 PM

Yes, bravo Bruce and LL!! I'm SO glad to hear BNRs, especially Mr. Davidson, Sr. himself, weighing in on this issue. It looks like there is a revolution indeed and that CMP may very well be talking his way out of a job.

Sarah Price, USEA #100963

bosox

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:44 PM

time is almost impossible to make there

jumpers....if the OT is not working out...and the riders are going over the OT---they will adjust the OT.

Jealoushe

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:46 PM

*****???? WHYYYYY aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Its sad that he wrote that letter just to say people were complimenting him on his course and whatever else to boost his ego and bash the "cyber" world as he puts it.... he does not actually give a flying poop ball about the rest of us and our opinions. Well guess what....we don't care about you CMP!!! You are the weakest link....GOODBYE!:mad::mad::mad:

Snapdragon

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:50 PM

Vuma, I appreciate that MP put himself out there and expressed his thoughts and opinions--he had lots of good things to say. Thing is, he certainly couldn't have thought that he wouldn't get some criticism, especially by taking a side swipe at the "monday morning quarterbacks" and "anonymous" posters (who, apparently, aren't so anonymous).

BD and LL (and I'm sure lots of others not willing to put it out there in such a public way) don't seem to agree with him in total. The fact that they did do it in such a public way speaks volumes to their character and love of eventing.

MP could have left out the remarks about all the speculating on COTH and been much better thought of.

LAZ

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:53 PM

Lee Ann Zobbe. Member of the eventing community since 1980. Old USCTA number 3464, USEF 166898 have to look up my current USEA number. Cochairman for the 1987 3-day PanAm Games. 2002-2005 Area VIII YR Coordinator (though I have no children of my own), competitor, organizer, volunteer, show organizer, farm owner, coach, trainer, organizer of regular clinics with many top clinicians, including twice yearly clinics with Ian Stark. I've attended every Rolex since 1980.

I have kept my opinions to myself on CMP thus far, but his latest driveling pontification is one too many. For a non-US citizen to publish in an American magazine, insulting the majority of his American audience and clientele is one step too far over the line even for me, and I am a tolerant person.... If it were up to me you'd be fired and going home immediately. Your remarks project an amazing lack of concern for the injuries and deaths that occurred under your watch and I am ashamed to be associated with an organization that you head.

To Bruce Davidson--who does and has always, year after year, on many different horses, walked the walk and while doing that given us all a riding lesson, thank you. Thank you for standing up and saying that you love something enough to make yourself heard. You are an icon in the eventing world.

To Leslie Law, thank you for your words for the future of our sport, and a clear line of what you perceive to be a good an attainable course of action.

melodiousaphony

Mar. 26, 2008, 10:58 PM

I'm glad there are some ULR that think something needs to change to make this sport all that it can be. It saddens me that some people in positions of power cannot admit that there may be a problem and that something needs to change. While I agree riders do need to be responsible, we put our faith in those who have more experience than we do to not give us unachievable goals, hard I enjoy working toward, but dangerous, that I cannot support.

Jocelyn Petitto
USEA member since 2006

Jealoushe

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:10 PM

I really like this from LL

We need to get away from the 'winning ribbon' mentality… our competitions fuel this ridiculous mindset by dividing divisions into embarrassingly small fields! At shows where there are 20 prelim riders, the events will split these into two divisions so basically everyone goes home with a ribbon! Competitors with cricket scores can place 6th and because they tote that ribbon they, and/or their parents, think they should be able to move up! The mindset has to change to improved riding skills and get away from ribbon chasing. The general eventing participants need to recognize that the average age of Olympic riders is in their 40's! And these are most often people that have been riding right from an early age, people that have a wealth of experience, and horsemanship, that someone coming into the sport later on in life will NEVER have.

Lose That

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:13 PM

First of all, I would like to say that I really don't have an opinion on CMP either way, except that I hear he makes everyone jump out of two point... which doesn't fly with me. But if he can make it work, cool.

But, I do think people are over-reacting to the situation, bashing the hell out of him and using him as a scapegoat. I'm pretty sure he doesn't feel awesome about how the weekend went down. I actually have some really strong thoughts on this whole issue but it would do no good to post them on here and start a train wreck. Suffice to say, I think he was defending himself politely in his article without pointing fingers. There IS a lot of anonymous junk that goes around the internet and while, I'll agree when I read his comments I immediately thought of this board, there are a whole lot of websites and other boards out there and I'm sure they are all having similar thoughts.

I just think it's funny... what 10 fatalities and tons of serious injuries this year and all of sudden, because of one accident, everything is CMPs fault. If the course was so horrible, why didn't people WD like people are saying they will do at the Fork if the course isn't good? I don't think we should be looking for a scapegoat here.

I liked what he said in the article, about how you should not be worrying so much about the OT, rather about riding the fences well. I totally agree. There is a reason time faults are rampant at the ULs. I also really liked his idea about adding a level at 3'5". While I don't think that the pros and their horses need such a level, I think it would be great for amateurs and increase safety because the jump from training to prelim really is daunting until you become very experienced.

Jealoushe

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:18 PM

No one is using CMP as a scapegoat. His remarks in response to what has been going on is just another reason why so many people are upset. No one is blaming CMP single handedly, but there is a lot of implications with his course design, training and input into our eventing world that isnt sitting right with a lot people. This is nothing new, its just that THIS incident has finally gotten the attention of the PTB and now is our chance to change things.

crazy_horse1095

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:27 PM

I don't think CMP is being used as a scapegoat either. He's not the only problem, but he's certainly NOT part of the solution. I think his courses and his mindset *represent* what's wrong with our sport today.

RedKnight

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:46 PM

I think that CMP could have worded some of his comments better. But he has to deal with the fact that its his course the accidents were on. which of course is what they are... that being said. we should be proactive about making a change instead of being enraged by peoples comments, we need to do something about our sport.
Just a few thoughts...
More extensive Rider qualifications
Creating virtual course maps
Being safe and learning as an individual when to quit!

The most important thing is for everyone to be accountable.

And to let this be known, my name is Lara Chance my USEA #92818. go ahead and look at it, its not pretty and i am not ashamed of it. I rode a very difficult horse, and we had our days of glory and many more times where we went home in tears. but at the end of the day i was safe, I pulled up and WD when things weren't going right. (try explaining a WD to your parents...)

How about we try to fix things instead of continue to complain. and CMP might be defensive, but wouldn't you be in his situation? and even if he is going to make rude comments about this board, how come we can't stand up and be the bigger person and let the bitching end?

TexasTB

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:48 PM

I'm really not sure where to begin with how I feel about Mark Phillip's letter. I pretty much agree with everything most people have said thus far, so I will spare you all the soapbox.

Thumbs up for Bruce Davidson, though!! Hopefully him and Leslie Law will set the example for other BNR's to speak out as well!

Jazzy Lady

Mar. 26, 2008, 11:54 PM

What I really like about Bruce's comment is that he relates eventing to the future generations, to his grandchildren. USEA# 123193

Mary in Area 1

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:04 AM

Thank God for Bruce and Leslie and the voices of reason.

My daughter rode in a 2-day clinic with CMP. It was the worst clinic of her life. He really only understands one possible position (his) and one way of riding (his) and can't fathom that other people, esp. women, don't just lean on their knees and use their big upper bodies to yank the horse into an uphill balance. He's a very rough rider, and he clearly expects us to tolerate that. I don't.

As far as Optimum time, I feel that if the pros should be allowed and rewarded for their experience and well-trained horses, then those divisions should have DIFFERENT Optimum times! The scariest divisions to watch are the YR Prelim and Intermediate divisions where they are hell-bent-for-leather to make the time. Just as the pros should not be punished for being able to safely ride at those fast paces, the YR's and ammy's should not be REWARDED for riding too fast. There has to be a better way to time these courses.

CMP feels we should only communicate thru our Rider Reps. But many of us don't take the winter off to go frolic in the sun. We need a method of communicating our dismay over the direction of our sport. The internet is a powerful tool, but we have a right to use it to express our opinions. And I am not anonymous either.

Mary Piro, USEA#53827, USEF#238568 and representing 3 other "card-carrying" family members.

welshcob

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:48 AM

started eventing in the early 1980's. I had wanted to join the sport since the the early 70;s, following every coverage of the sport in Great Britain.

I competed in Canada and the US through Prelim 3-Day. i Stopped eventing in 2006. It is no longer the sport I loved.

Shame Shame on you CMP... This is no longer a sport of obedience on day 1, Bravery and speed on day 2, and obedience on day 3.

Anyone who followed three day eventing in the 1960's.and 70's, can hardly equate the courses with todays....

Although I keep tabs on the eventing circle, my $$ will no longer contribute to "my" perceived ruin of the game..

JER

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:10 AM

A fact of life in Eventing is that all too often when we have a bad day, we have a very bad day. This is because on these occasions people's heart goes out of riding across country, they don't ride forward so well and therefore understandably find more trouble. This certainly happened at Red Hills.

Uh, did it ever occur to CMP that he was the one that had a 'very bad day' at Red Hills?

If the consequences of his actions weren't so serious, I'd say we should just vote him Upperclass Twit of the Year and be done with it. But eventing isn't a Monty Python skit, is it?

CMP has a long, well-established history of not taking responsibility for his actions. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just google the terms "Mark Phillips" and "paternity suit".

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:13 AM

Whew. Ok, I never set out to post anything that will inflame debate just for the sake of stirring the pot and hesitate to say anything at all, but I'm going to anyway.

First, you all know that I am part of Red Hills, and you may take my comments as defensive of my beloved event, but please consider what I have to say anyway.

CMP's article deserves some of the criticism it is getting here, but, and I think this is important, he is right in one really big way:

Until there were problems on course, we heard NOTHING. No concerns, not ANYTHING about the course. There were FOUR rider reps, and they are good ones and they didn't ask for ANY changes.

Now, I don't know how many of you have ever served as the liason person between one of these ULR rider reps and the Ground Jury, but I have. And, I can tell you that they are NOT shy about expressing their concerns, whether it is an Olympic year or not. I've had in the past, Jim Graham, Ralph Hill, David and Karen O'Connor and Phillip all question jumps or questions that they thought needed to be double checked on the Friday before cross country.

None of the rider reps asked the POJ or the TD to examine or change fences. Two very respected TDs signed off on the course. We didn't hear anything but "gee, it looks AWESOME" prior to Saturday.

Now, perhaps people were kissing up to us in hopes of getting a better temp stall next year? I doubt it. If the concerns were there, they simply weren't expressed to anyone who could make a difference.

So, that part of CMP's letter is correct.

Also, I take issue to some degree with the decoration comments. I was actually chair of the committee that decorated the jumps for several years -- the giant ants on the picnic basket were ones I found, I made the original giant pilows, I found the giant teddy bears at the tables -- some even more creative designs were on jumps we don't have any more.

Do you know that I have NEVER before this year, heard a single complaint about that? Now, all of a sudden it is contributing to dangerous riding. I didn't help at all with the decoration of this year's course, but I can tell you that the wonderful couple that did, and their committee would be utterly devastated to hear the disparaging remarks made here and in the commentary. Something like that would be really easy to tone down or change but riders have NEVER said anything but "gosh we just LOVE the decorations on the jumps!"

Now, again, are these riders kissing up to volunteers in hopes of making the Team? I don't think so. It would be a whole lot less work for that group of lovely folks to not have to do all that stuff, and a lot less expense for the event to not need to hire cool things made to comprise the jumps, but we have NEVER before now heard that that is a problem.

The other item that I wish to emphasize is that the prelim jump that is drawing such criticism was negotiated safely by the first prelim riders out on course and that the C element was a black flag option and did not have to be jumped, so it didn't demand an unfair performance by the prelim horses, as if your horse was not prepared for it, you could choose a different route through that complex. I am as devastated as any of you guys here about Darren's accident -- please don't misunderstand or miss that. I know him personally, and have spent months in that very same neuro intensive care unit with a close family member, so I appreciate what he and his family are going through. That is a point, however, that I believe should be made.

Lastly, I often DON'T agree with CMP about many things, but I do strongly agree with this -- that Saturday was a bad day for our Sport and for our Event. It was one of the longest and saddest days I've ever been through in the ten years I've been involved in helping to put on what I believe to be one of the best events in the country.

Frankly, as many others and I agreed, Saturday basically sucked. About that, CMP was correct. I would give just about anything if I could go back and undo it, but please at least consider what I've pointed out.

If we are going to change things and make the sport safer, we really do need to start with the folks that have to ride the course, and until Saturday's events, they didn't speak up and I don't think we should let that point be lost.

I do agree with most of you that the points about OT being all but impossible are ridiculous -- if time can't be made on our course because of the terrain -- which is tough, guys -- nothing else like it in Florida, then OT should be adjusted. If it is optimum, then a mean or median number of riders should reach it, yes? Not just the top few?

I also would like to compliment Leslie and Bruce for very well written pieces, with the aforementioned complaint about the lack of concern about the jump decoration until now, noted.

Libby Duffy, who doesn't remember her USEA or USEF numbers at the moment, but who does have them, along with my 200+ (small compared to all the other folks) volunteer hours to make this thing happen each year.

AppJumpr08

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:39 AM

CMP: someone who hasn't ridden a real course in YEARS.

BD: someone who rides more young horses and puts on more miles then most other riders. Let alone other riders HIS AGE.

CMP: someone who destroyed his own reputation through a huge ego and disregard for the health and safety of both horses and riders.

BD: a man who has ALWAYS put his horses first.

I'm honestly not surprised at how CMP tries to cover his a$$ in this article. He's been designing dangerous courses for some time now. He's got to try to save face somehow. Bruce and Leslie have nothing to lose: they have been at the top of our sport for so long that not even someone like CMP can take them down.

Major kudos to Bruce and Leslie. Shame on CMP. He'll get his eventually. pompous a$$es always get theirs. ALWAYS.
Jessica Creighton
USEA # 77380
(currently not UTD on membership fees because I'm not sure I want to support the USEA the way it's going at the moment)

poltroon

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:40 AM

Thanks for your comments, Bensmom.

On the optimum time - once upon a time rules actually gave bonus points for coming in early. The current optimum time (and, later, speed faults) rules were adapted to keep people from risking their horses by going too fast. So, if a course is set with an optimum time that is too fast, that is obviously against the intent of the rule.

I think we are all shaken to the core to have one of our most experienced riders hurt at what should be a very easy competition for his skill level. When lesser riders are hurt, we console and insulate ourselves by saying we're carefuller, better trained, better horsed - or maybe we don't ride at that level - but it can never happen to ME.

I hope Captain Phillips can put his heart a little closer to his sleeve and be part of the solution, instead of trying to get us to move on and stop talking about it.

I love eventing. My daughter is 7, and I hope she'll enjoy riding and competing. But I'm starting to seriously wonder if I am comfortable introducing her to my beloved sport, or if instead I'll point her at the pony jumpers.

And if someone like me is thinking that, eventing will not survive for the next generation in America, IMHO.

Clear Blue

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:45 AM

I thought the criticism of the decorative jumps were that they were less suitable for the frangible pin design.

With the lack of concern about the course beforehand, maybe it suggests that all new tracks need to have a few test rides before they are "OK"ed.

flutie1

Mar. 27, 2008, 07:15 AM

"None of the rider reps asked the POJ or the TD to examine or change fences."

Thanks for posting this, Libby - and I think it embodies a pretty serious problem. I have never seen the RH course so I am not in a position to comment, but I have talked with several riders after the fact, and they had plenty to say. Why didn't they voice their concerns through the proper channels? That to me is a $64,000 question. Did they fear retribution? Bruce touched on the designer/team coach conflict of interest issue. Is this valid? One rider said that when asked about the course by the GJ, his evaluation of certain fences was "they aren't dangerous - just stupid." Another questioned the response she got when asked why "the cannon" (site of Darren's accident) didn't have frangible pins and a more significant ground line and was told because it is a cannon and that would spoil the design and it had been there for several years and hadn't caused a problem.

As easy as it is to throw stones, every one is to blame for the sport's current precarious situation - designers, officials, riders, owners, coaches, organizers - and now it's time to move forward. The past is the past, and as Bruce said, we must learn from it and kick on. Everyone in every aspect of the sport is going to have to put his/her respective Ego on the shelf, take a deep breath and dig deep for solutions which will involve changes, both physical and more importantly philosophical. It'll take both guts and time.

We can all rant and rave about CMP, and yes, I agree that he is a grand champion at shooting himself in the foot and making stupid, arrogant, hurtful and inflammatory statements. Are we all not guilty of that? On the other side of the coin, CMP has also brought positives to the game. He has been a valuable course advisor and deserves credit for helping to standardize Advanced courses around the country. I have known him in this capacity for over a decade, and it's almost like there are two Mark Phillips. His course recommendations are appropriate and on the "soft" side, totally different than some of the questions he asks on his own courses. And yes, he's won us medals which is why he was hired like it or not.

I for one have a lot of faith in Kevin and the Task Force (which conferences for the first time tonight) to keep "recovery" on track. My own feeling is that we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water and effect knee jerk reactions which might in fact exacerbate the problems. But change must come if the sport is to be there for Bruce's grandson to enjoy.

Flutie

(Oh right, full disclosure - Katie Lindsay, organizer/FEI official, USEF and USEA member)

Tamara in TN

Mar. 27, 2008, 07:30 AM

[QUOTE=deltawave;3102542]A**hole. :mad:

My name is LYNN CRONIN, I've been a USCTA/USEA member since 1994. I live in Michigan. My USEA number is 58094. I'm not anonymous and I think you should have been canned 5 years ago, CAPTAIN. By the way, I outrank you. :D

just using deltawave's post to piggy on.....you are right to give your names and at least put a stop to the "anon" protests of Mr. Phillip's....however,I think had his feelings not been hurt, he would not have spoken out...as an outsider I think,your task as a community is to not run for the pitchforks and lighter fluid just yet.....

you must keep the non committed in your sport from seeing this as a witch hunt of one man or his ideas...he maybe an asshole...I dunno....

but it would seem that his course ideas have added to a general slowdown and decay of a sport that so many of you love....you MUST focus on that....and nothing personal....you weaken your own case in doing so...and look exactly as he describes....

as my husband shrugs and says when some semi hysterical woman complains about her $150/worth of hay...."this is just business...nothing personal...we'll fix it an go on"...

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 07:59 AM

Thank you guys -- I really hesitated to speak up, as I am not one of our organizers and don't really speak for the event and want to be careful about doing so, but I have noticed the same thing flutie did -- since the event riders have had plenty to say and since in years past, they *have* raised concerns, I didn't understand why if it was so bad this year, no one said anything.

As far as the decorations affecting the ability of the jumps to be pinned -- not the decorations here, as far as I know -- there would be no reason, for instance on the picnic basket jump, that pins couldn't have been used in its construction -- it was a nice fence with a tablecloth and "stuff" hanging down the front of it -- I am NOT a course builder, but can't see why that would prevent the actual construction being made with frangible pins. Maybe someone here that knows more about that could explain if that is, in fact, the problem.

I can guarantee that if the decorations are making things actually, construction-wise more dangerous, we would NEVER hesitate to fix that!

Thank you all for a good discussion, and flutie particularly for your good points about what we can take from this and learn and move forward.

Looking forward to hearing what the task force has to say after their first meeting,

Libby

LisaB

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:11 AM

Bensmom,
I think your event is the straw that broke the camel's back. It wouldn't put the entire burden on your event. It's indictitive of exactly what BD is putting forth. I would defend it too if I were you. BUT now, here's an opportunity to make an example of what BD is talking about. Yes, the injuries and deaths were "flukes" that we will see. BUT you're forgetting how many people WD and reasons why they did so. Yup, they didn't go up the channels and complain. Why? Because then generally, they have to spend a lot of time challenging the cd and td. If you were an adv rider, would you want to go up against CMP? I think not.
Foggy never admits his mistakes. Are you guys surprised at his response? I'm not. He's a shithead and is never going to change. I want him out of my hair. I've had guys like him on my team at work and now that I work for the DoD, I have absolutely no tolerance for it since lives are at stake.
I LOVE BD!!!! He was thoughtful and decisive. He put into words my exact thoughts.
LL seems to be playing the game. Yup, it is my responsibility BUT I would like to ride a real x-c course, thank you very much.
Lisa Burnett
USEA #62242
USCTA #624 (yeah! that's right! the 624th member!)

Debbie

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:31 AM

Yes, I am in a "frenzied tailspin" in regards to our sport, but what I feel CMP fails to see, with only the evidence of his words in this article and others, is that this has been building for years among a diverse group of stakeholders that come to this sport from many different aspects: riders, spectators, organizers, volunteers -- all horse lovers -- but with strikingly similar concerns.

When I read Kevin's summary of the concerns he's received it was really affirming that what I've been seeing and feeling about the direction of the sport is widely shared. CMP's article ignores that and only focuses on the accidents at Red Hills. Those accidents were the final impetus to what amounts to an uprising against continuing to change the nature of eventing. CMP, please read Bruce's article a hundred times over and absorb it, learn it, live it.

Bensmom, thanks for your postings. You chose your words thoughtfully in defense of your personal experience and shed an important light. I was a little taken aback initially at the comments on decorated, artful fences. As a spectator, I enjoy them, but I can see where it has gone too far. No one wants to shoot at organizers, especially those of marquee events, but I think it's hard to avoid a spirit of competition - of rasing the bar on who has the most unique, artful courses.

I was involved years ago with an event where the organizer insisted on one particular jump over a car that everyone had heartburn over -- vets, riders, safety folks, but the car stayed over all those objections. In that case, no one was hurt, but the wrong motivations controlled the day.

If indeed these:

USEA Guiding Principles
1.We will not wait for the FEI or the rest of the world; we will lead.2.The sport shall emphasize the success of horse and rider, not a philosophy of elimination.3.Identifying and implementing appropriate standards of course design and speed at each level.4.Addressing and respecting our members' concerns at competitions and in the governance of the sport.5.Encouraging and developing opportunities for members to participate in all facets of leadership at all levels.6.In all of our endeavors and pursuits, we affirm our commitment to the welfare of the horse.

Are the measure for moving forward, then there is a guideline to push back with and insist upon.

I would love to hear from the 4 rider reps from Red Hills in retrospect, but I also suspect that they were reviewing well built, lovely courses that reflected what has become the "norm" in terms of technical questions. The aftermath of the event, as a culmination of experiences, is that a broad contingent of stakeholders is saying that the "norm" is unacceptable.

Debbie Brady, USEA member, spectator, volunteer, would be competitor when my young horses and my older self get it together.

Jazzy Lady

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:40 AM

Bensmom - Thank you for your insightful comments. Red Hills is a wonderful event. The organizing committy does an amazing job to run a world class event. Nobody is taking that away from them. But as the above poster said, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back and it was because it was the rider who it was that it happened to that this has all come forth. Darren is one of the best. The man hardly ever misses.

As for the decorating the fences... Leslie pointed out that perhaps the decorating be around the fences and I agree. It still looks wonderful, but is not as distracting. :)

frugalannie

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:44 AM

Libby, thanks for posting. Everything that I have read stated that the Red Hills organization (including the volunteers) were exceptionally good on the day, despite everything happening, and had produced a lovely event.

But you also identified an issue that I wrote to KB about as soon as his e-mail addy was posted: the system is broken! If there were problems with the course, and people who were there seem to think that there were, why weren't they identified before any competitors went out there? As far as I can tell, there are a limited number of scenarios:
1. Rider reps, TD and others noticed the problems and spoke to the GJ/ organizers and nothing was done. Knowing what I do about the Red Hills organization, I doubt this would have happened, but it needs to be mentioned and investigated.

2. Rider reps, TD and others noticed the problems and didn't speak up. If this is the case, we have the wrong people in these roles.

3. Rider reps, TD and others did not notice the problems (except in hindsight). Thsi is the one that scares me the most: if we really can't predict problems from course walks, where the heck are we?

But the bigger issue is that many of us feel that the XC test should be a galloping and jumping test, and that has been gotten away from.

StrawberryFields

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:57 AM

does CMP realize how ridiculous he sounds?

no comment on him *rolls eyes*

go bruce!!! (I'm a HUGE fan of his :yes:)

Sarah Kullman
USEA # 101426

ponygirl

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:40 AM

"Thanks for posting this, Libby - and I think it embodies a pretty serious problem. I have never seen the RH course so I am not in a position to comment, but I have talked with several riders after the fact, and they had plenty to say. Why didn't they voice their concerns through the proper channels? That to me is a $64,000 question. "

I have also wondered this. I know of a particular BNR who said the course design was very bad. BNR rode this course. BNR said CMP tried to "dumb it down" by making the distances shorter btwn elements which you'd think a particular wonder pony would be given the advantage due to this . It completely backfired! When a horse starts banking jumps, loss of confidence due to the course seems to be the logical answer. BNRs SO pulled their mount from the course b/c of the design. BNR wonders if their own mount has had a loss of confidence. So maybe CMP will read this and hopefully think about it. When top horses with top riders have issues, who have gone to, say, the Pan Am games and have come home with, say, GOLD or some other flavor of medal, I would hope that what is obvious to 1000s becomes obvious to one.

RAyers

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:56 AM

Bensmom's post to me, exemplifies the crux of the entire issue, people such as CMP, speaking without real, hard data, blaming riders and 1,000 other things. They don't look at the process or consider the entire system. They simply dismiss things as flukes.

For example, CMP states that the causes of certain falls were fence designs and "they fixed that." However, the analogy is that is like the TSA stopping people from taking liquids on aircraft because ONE person, ONE time tried something. Is this how folks propose to fix the system, one instance at a time? Could you imagine your vet starting to fix a colic by first looking at the teeth, checking the feed, and after each time waiting to see if the horse got better?

Like it or not, Red Hills has become the lightning rod for a system in need of repair. We have all seen rides everywhere that, for whatever reason, could have been a disaster but weren't. These are never counted but they too are indicators of problems, if people are paying attention, instead of dismissing it as a "rider problem only."

We investigate every accident at the university. Many times, we find that while an incident may be a ONE OFF, single time event, there is a CULTURE that leads up to the single accident. The same thing that was found at NASA post Challenger. Yes, freak accidents can still happen (Columbia, STS-107) but the culture had been changed to enable a safer operation.

While I have not been intimately involved with incidents, I have been part of many investigations of major system failures (Columbia, 3 Titan IV launch explosions). Every time, nobody was considered immune from fault. The system underwent complete review. The amazing thing was almost every time we found issues that while they may not have contributed to that particular death/explosion, they could have and we fixed them.

That is why there is a NEED for a DATA driven, independent safety review.

Reed

As far as the decorations affecting the ability of the jumps to be pinned -- not the decorations here, as far as I know -- there would be no reason, for instance on the picnic basket jump, that pins couldn't have been used in its construction -- it was a nice fence with a tablecloth and "stuff" hanging down the front of it -- I am NOT a course builder, but can't see why that would prevent the actual construction being made with frangible pins. Maybe someone here that knows more about that could explain if that is, in fact, the problem.

I can guarantee that if the decorations are making things actually, construction-wise more dangerous, we would NEVER hesitate to fix that!

Thank you all for a good discussion, and flutie particularly for your good points about what we can take from this and learn and move forward.

Looking forward to hearing what the task force has to say after their first meeting,

Libby

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:03 AM

Bensmom's post to me, exemplifies the crux of the entire issue, people such as CMP, speaking without real, hard data, blaming riders and 1,000 other things. They don't look at the process or consider the entire system. They simply dismiss things as flukes.

Yes "flukes" have become a convienet get out clause to dodge resposibility and accountablity for a flawed system that they created.

bambam

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:33 AM

CMP's repsonse is hardly surprising although it is disappointing. While he started out talking about accepting responsibility, he proceeded to say "not my fault" for the rest of the article and his total disinterest in actually examining what the problem currently is in eventing or even admitting that there is a problem are the main reasons why I wish the USEF would just get rid of him.
While some of the internet discussion was vitriolic, most of it was incredibly constructive and I suspect may have been one of the motivating factors in USEA publicly and forcefully stepping up to the plate last weekend- yeah such a shame we dared open our mouths and voice our smurf opinions on this.
And while I think he is right that too much blame was perhaps placed at his feet after Red Hills on this board, the tone of this article and the fact that he so consistently comes across as a total jacka** (whether he is nor not) are why it was so easy to point fingers at him and he will never "get" that I suspect and will never stop showing such disdain for the people whose dues not only pay his salary but whose money permit the team riders to make a living teaching us, training our horses and selling us horses.
While he actually had a couple of valid points, his tone and attitude drowned those out and basically made me want to stick a fork in my eye (or his) when I was done reading it.
Like everyone else, I loved Bruce and Leslie's input and appreciate their publicly speaking out- more BNRs need to stand up to the plate and do that.
Bensmom- thank you for speaking up- we need to know the facts and the fact that no one objected to the course means there is a huge problem either in communication or the ability to see course problems- and we need to figure out which and address it.

Barbara Miller
Area II (don't know my USEA number off-hand but that should be enough to ID me and I would have no problem saying anything in this post or in my posts the past couple of weeks to CMP face or anyone at USEF).

eqsiu

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:52 AM

Bensmom- for the record, I love well decorated jumps. I think they are cute and fun. I don't think decoration makes a difference in these courses.

I think the issue is that courses now are perceived to be works of art. And people are concerned that the decorations are becoming the focus and that basic jump and course design is being lost. Kinda like a cake made only of frosting, you know? I don't live in an area where the jumps are fancy, so I can't say much else about the trend. But that is the gist I've gotten from others.

Mark Phillips presented an extremely arrogant argument for keeping eventing as it's become. I think he's too focused about the upper echelons of the sport, and is forgetting about the normal eventers. The optimum time should be attainable to an experienced pair. Bruce Davidson and Phillip Dutton should find making time a piece of cake. Riders new to the level shouldn't expect to go that fast. If next to no one is making time, it's not exactly optimum, now is it? Each course should ride safely at the given speed. Perhaps FEI events can have higher speeds, and horse trials lower, to reflect the supposed experience of competitors. The whole idea of the optimum time is to test the rider's knowledge of pace and the ability to establish a harmonious gallop. We need to keep it optimum.

-Kelly Wepsiec, USEA member off and on since 1996

IFG

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:06 AM

Many of you might find a look at the USCTA Book of Eventing enlightening. It was subtitled"The Official Handbook of the United States Combined Training Association." It was edited by Sally O'Connor. I have the second edition published in 1987.

There are several descriptions of courses at the lower levels. These include interviews with the course designers. Folks such as Pete Costello and Patrick Lynch discuss the courses that they designed and the rationale behind the placement of fences. Pete Costello says, "I believe the a Pre-Training (now called Novice) course should be built so that everyone should get around." Richard Newton says of the Training level course that, "I like to have every obstacle be straightforward and very solid with direct approaches."

My favorite part of these descriptions is the discussion regarding the confidence building for horse and rider. When the course builders discuss their courses, they note that after each test (usually a test of boldness, not agility), there is a confidence building fence. I love the thought that was put into designing courses to make confident horses and riders.

RAyers

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:07 AM

Yes "flukes" have become a convienet get out clause to dodge resposibility and accountablity for a flawed system that they created.

Once or twice is a fluke. A series over the years is a problem (be it rotational falls, "heart attacks," rider inconsistency at a level, and so forth). What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

Reed

pwynnnorman

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:36 AM

I think those who call for sound, empirical research before drawing major conclusions are spot on. However, I would hope that that same attitude would be applied to the jump decorations. It's my hope that they are not causing problems themselves, but rather serve to enliven the course and reward its sponsors and volunteers.

I realize jump decorations have nothign to do with the origins of the sport, but I think they have potential to help the public appreciate the sport more (and, yes, I know, for some this is a sore point, too: caring about the public or sponsors and their like, but I'd like not to get distracted by that for a moment). The elaborate ways jumps are being decorated on some courses may help, IMO, to popularize the sport in terms of what it means, intrinsically: going cross country through or over whatever may lay before you.

That's kinda a neat idea for a sport. It's a bit more like the old lore about steeplechasing (racing from steeple to steeple over whatever happened to be in between), but if it brings greater understanding and appreciation and support (and, maybe, helps to combat that "grueling" image), I hope there isn't too much haste to do away with the decorations (and the themes they imply). And they really to present great opportunities for sponsors.

I suspect this is going to be a really unpopular post, but oh, well. Another thing that keeps rattling around in my mind is how happy and proud some of the Red Hills volunteers I spoke with were about those decorations. And a close friend of mine has been in charge of the decorations at Richland Park, too, and it's like the highlight of her year.

Maybe the decorations represent a bigger issue of compromise--for the financial health of the sport. Through all of this strife, there is still also the underlying issue of financing the sport. As it becomes more and more expensive to put on and to compete in, what is necessary to provide it with the support it needs? Due to its need for land and so much more infrastructure, I don't see how it can suvive with just exhibitors footing the bill, unlike hunters. Anyway, are we sure decorations distract the horse? Maybe its the riders who get distracted?

Anyway, I'm trying to think of jumps at Red Hills that were overly decorated. Certainly, the cheese. And then there were those carved beaver or foxes of whatever scattered around the first element of that complex early in the course. The hammock-like table with the dog and the dummy just before the fungi problem spot. The picnic table with the bright, pastel tablecloths (that one, I really wasn't very fond of). Do all the carvings count? Hmm, as I list them, they do start to seem more an more excessive and unnatural.

Oh, well, so much for my stream-of-consciousness writing!

bornfreenowexpensive

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:39 AM

Well...I still don't really have an opinion about Red Hills (didn't walk the course, ride it or watch it)....but was very sad by what happened there and understand the affect that it is having on our sport. I'm hoping it will turn out to affect the sport in a good way!

But perhaps I will get flamed....but I read all three articles....and to me, I thought they were all well written (well, well written enough for me!) and just expressed different views. I have to admit that I didn't have quite the outrage as other for CMPs responses (but it takes a lot to offend me)......BUT Bruce hit the nail on the head for exactly how I feel and I thought Leslie and especially Lesley both expressed thoughts that I also agree with strongly.

I think all three responses are very usesful. They express opinions and insights into three (really 4) different eventers viewpoints and in particular in the direction of course design. I may not agree with all viewpoints but part of making change and giving direction to the sport must come by understanding the viewpoints of everyone.....and then having one clear and concise view point adopted and supported by the USEA. And one that the majority of us can get behind and do what is necessary to support. I look forward to what Kevin and the task force are able to accomplish.

I also agree with others....is there some (preferably simple) change that can be done to make it easier for riders to speak up if they object to something on the course...or to effect a change on the course if needed? I know that there are rider's reps.....but that doesn't quite seem to be enough....you see a problem on the day of the event and it makes it a bit hard to fix...especially if it is a fundamental problem. Having been an organizer for an event....I know how hard a job that already is (and how expensive HTs are to run) so hate to add one more thing....but perhaps we need to have the course and its design more fully vetted far in advance of the HT. I know that the TD looks at the course in advance of the competition....but perhaps the group that examines the course and its design in the weeks leading up to the HT needs to be expanded.

Melissa Stubenberg (member USEA and USEF for a while now)

Jazzy Lady

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:47 AM

Pwynn - Richland's courses are beautifully decorated. They lay mulch and plant plants and flowers and decorate the jump with natural things that make the fences still inviting and look amazing. They did such a fabulous job this year, and the lighthouse at the water is amazing and makes the water look like a spectator area, but it is not ON the jump, rather something to decorate the area and I think it is very well done.

Camstock

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:49 AM

The vast majority of people who post on this site are identifiable either overtly or with a little legwork. By anonymous, what CMP probably means is "unknown to him," with all the dowdy trappings of the great unwashed bourgeois that suggests.

He might have some positive attributes, but his communications style will be his downfall. He doesn't recognize that he needs a handler, for his own good, one with a gag bit.

Bensmom's and Flutie's comments are spot on. Go Bruce. Go Leslie.

Perfect Pony

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:49 AM

The only difference between CMP and LL is IMO the former is honest, the later (by the actions I have seen and the people he does business with) is saying one thing and doing another...

This business is about money and "fame" as much as anything. Moving people up the levels and continuing to ride and compete lame/injured horses is the norm for most of them.

LAZ

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:49 AM

I talked to a couple of people that had been at Red Hills, they told me when they walked the course it did not appear so difficult, but it rode much harder and they felt their horses lost confidence as they went around.

Sometimes in spite of the best intents of everyone a course or a fence/fences rides harder than anyone would expect--Red Hills must have been one of those, through no fault of the organizer or committee. I would not even hold the course designer completely to task, other than CMP editorial just completely rubbed me the wrong way as I didn't get the impression that he felt there was anything wrong with the design. When so many people have problems something is clearly wrong, and it needs to be dealt with so that in the future these things are minimized.

I grew up in car racing, another hazardous to your health sport. In the earlier days of racing there were many deaths and dismemberments, first came seat belts, then roll-over structures, helmets, nomex, etc. There have been so many improvements in the safety proceedures in car racing that you rarely have deaths anymore; now, we can't build horses with energy disapating break away parts in the event of crashes, so we will have to do some hard research and figure out what CAN be done.

I am willing to put my time in and work in whatever capacity that my help would be useful in pursing this (and I've sent an email to Kevin to that effect). I've loved this sport since I watched my first horse trial in 1979, and have been involved since 1980. This past year really has me questioning my committment to the sport, and whether I should continue to encourage young riders to take it up...

I haven't bashed CMP at all in any previous threads. However, his disdainful and dismissive attitude towards the vast majority of American event riders just really offends me....as does the feeling I get of "oh, suck it up and go out and do it if you want to impress me" for the ULR.

Again, kudo's to BD, he's an Icon to the sport of eventing.

mbarrett

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:52 AM

I find it interesting that CMP said Red Hills was "a very bad day," or something to that effect. A very bad day in my book is losing your keys down the storm drain, forgetting your proposal for a big project when you're already on the plane, or finding out the fence is down and you have to fix fence instead of ride. THAT is a very bad day, not one rider seriously injured and two horses in heaven. The incidents that happened at Red Hills was a horrible, terrible, shocking day!

Kudos to Bruce Davidson for speaking up and speaking the truth! He is in a place in his career that he isn't afraid of ramifications from CMP or anyone else about what he says. You go Bruce!

I'm sure that no rider was willing to complain about the course at Red Hills because they were afraid or intimidated to speak up. I'm sure there are riders who want to make the Team, but don't want to get on the bad side of anyone in particular.

Anyway, THANK YOU to all COTH posters who put their two cents worth in. If it weren't for us rattling the cage, I don't think anything would be done! At least we got the ball rolling on some of the issues that face eventing today. Where it goes, no one knows, but lets keep pushing!

I sent my letter to Kevin B. at USEA with my suggestions. How about you?

By the way, I am a nobody, with no connections to eventing whatsoever. I am a proud jump judge and entry level eventer! I have been a fan and follower of eventing since 1978. My claim to fame is that I competed in an entry level event two years ago. Jill Bogart, Rock Island, IL USEA #48600

Debbie

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:53 AM

pwynnnorman

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:53 AM

missamandarose

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:13 PM

I am 30. I have never ridden in an event, but have wanted to since I was about 10 and saw "Sylvester" for the first time. I have been leasing a horse for about a year and I will be riding in my first ever schooling show (not even a CT... a schooling hunter show) this weekend. I follow this sport as best I can. I went to the Area 3 intro clinic a month ago and knew I was pursuing the right sport. I joined USEA LAST WEEK, despite all the news Red Hills made.

Phillip's article made me wonder if I even want to pursue a BN event this fall... I know nothing about him other than he's the CD'E... but he just seemed to have empy comments. One of the first things I thought was "all these things are flukes? How can that be?" There were (IMO) no real insights into the issues at hand, and that worried me.

Bruce and Leslie's comments and insights gave me hope and confidence that we will ALL (from newbies like me to the top riders) learn from the current incidents and that will perpetuate change--From the bottom up AND from the top down-- for the betterment of our chosen sport.

Well done gentlemen.

Dressage62

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:34 PM

I am grateful to USEventing.com for posting these articles....I think CMP made his points very clearly... I am also surprised to read a totally different viewpoint from BD and LL and LGL.
Now that spring is here and the eventing season will be in full swing, we'll see what happens next.

inquisitive

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:37 PM

I haven't read all of the responses, but just want to emphasize what I've said in a couple other threads: it's all about RIDER RESPONSIBILITIY. I am TIRED of hearing people propose one idea after another to make it 'easier', like amateur courses, or more levels, or more qualifications, etc. I agree that something needs to be done to prevent these accidents, and I think that ideas such as the frangible pins are great. Just like Leslie Law said, there's no reason to dumb-down the courses, or slow the time, just because riders are irresponsible.

If you dumb-down the course the result will not be 'better' riding, in fact it could be worse riding. As well, why should the great riders such as the likes of Bruce and Phillip (amongst many others) who have spent a lifetime mastering the art of riding fast across country, SAFELY, be penalized? As well, if you dumb down the cross-country portion and make the dressage and show jumping weigh more than they already are, you will no doubt find that people start riding more and more of the type of horse that excels at those two disciplines yet could be the type of horse that WILL NEVER COPE WITH ANY KIND OF CROSS-COUNTRY COURSE – EASY, DIFFICULT, OR OTHERWISE. Then you are going to have more accidents than you do already.

AND

I strongly believe that the emphasis for safer Eventing needs to be rooted in Rider Responsibility. One needs to know their limits AND their horses limits. If one does not know what they are, one must entrust someone wiser to tell them.

AND FINALLY

And those who disrespect the sport by riding dangerously or above their capability need to be punished instead of punishing the entire sport. And they need to be punished harshly so that they think twice before doing it again.

Stop trying to come up with all these reasons to prevent people from moving up, and start outcasting those that are stupid about it!

inquisitive

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:38 PM

the two Grants.

Law and Grant-Law :)

purplnurpl

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:51 PM

If nobody can make the time, and making the time means you're reckless, then why the hell isn't the time being changed?? For pity's sake, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. "The hell with the course, the speed is THE SPEED." :no:

these were my exact thoughts.

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:52 PM

I'm sure that no rider was willing to complain about the course at Red Hills because they were afraid or intimidated to speak up. I'm sure there are riders who want to make the Team, but don't want to get on the bad side of anyone in particular.

I really, really, really disagree with this. This is the point I was trying to make in my first post. If you haven't ever seen a rider rep approach the event's officials to complain about a fence, perhaps you don't know this, but typically, even in the last year that was an Olympic year, they have NO problem doing this. These guys have spent untold dollars, as well as blood, sweat and tears getting these upper level horses ready to compete -- even if they were intimidated by the powers-that-be, which I don't believe -- they wouldn't risk their horses just because of that intimidation.

Perhaps a younger, newer rider might? I don't know, but the four rider reps at this event are not "afraid" to raise concerns.

The earlier comments about the number of riders that withdrew as an example of how dangerous the course was I also disagree with.

Our event is one that "everyone" wants to come to -- it is not unusual for a rider to enter a horse that isn't quite ready in hopes that the horse will be ready by the time the event arrives and to get there and decide that their horse isn't ready. We make no bones about the fact that the course isn't easy -- the number of spectators and the roped off galloping lanes make it ride differently than everywhere else for example, and the terrain is very different than Ocala or Rocking Horse or even Pine Top -- all places with more wide open galloping than we have. I know several riders that did decide not to run after arriving.

One thought the dressage test was too tough for her relatively green horse. One stated that she was very superstitious and was concerned about her horse and the course anyway, and when she saw the chopper come in after Darren's accident, made the choice to withdraw.

So, you can draw some conclusions from the WDs on the results list, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Who would have thought that at least one of them was due to the dressage test being too difficult?

I hope I don't sound like a broken record -- I really think the reason we are hearing complaints now about the course is because it rode harder than it walked. Having seen KOC raise concerns when she didn't think something was right or safe, I cannot imagine that she was too intimidated to do so this time.

Oh, and about the time -- at this point, what I understand is that for each level, the time is set at so many meters per minute and the flexibility to adjust it outside that window doesn't exist. Perhaps that is one change that we might want to look into -- more flexibility to adjust OT or speed more based on conditions or terrain?

Libby

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 12:57 PM

Having seen KOC raise concerns when she didn't think something was right or safe, I cannot imagine that she was too intimidated to do so this time.

Libby

That is because she has nothing to concern herself with with regards to team politics...NOTHING.

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:02 PM

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:13 PM

Ask her what she thought of the course....I know what she thought of that course. In so far as no one speaking up, what ever their reason, could it just be that these courses have been getting more and more unfair...in such a way that over time one begins to become complacant...meaning it is like watching your hair grow...you do not see it growing but one day you wake up and realize that you are in desperate need of a haircut. Perhaps it took Redhills to be the wake up call. It could have been any event, just so happens it was this one.
Now this topic is nothing new...we have discussed this at great lengths last summer and I am sure others have discussed this over the years. But enough is enough. Regardless of how we got to this point, the fact is things need to change....and when those who can effect those changes do not see a problem, then we are in trouble.

It is time for the bosses to visit the shop floor.

rivenoak

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:29 PM

The vast majority of people who post on this site are identifiable either overtly or with a little legwork. By anonymous, what CMP probably means is "unknown to him," with all the dowdy trappings of the great unwashed bourgeois that suggests.

:lol::lol::lol:

Good one, Camstock.

I'll fess up to being bourgeois, but I certainly hope I'm not dowdy. And today I know I'm not unwashed. :cool:

But, realistically in the eventing world, I'm just a smurf with one season's record behind me. I'm sure I'm the lesser pimple on a pimple on a pimple on Some People's arse.

And for that reason, I'm grateful that BD & LL "spoke up," too.

I'm not sure I like the way things have been going in the event world. I don't compete these days. If things don't change, I may never do so again, refusing to risk my neck or a horse's any more than necessary. I like what I'm reading from KB. I hope he can lead us where we need to go.

I begrudgingly re-upped for a noncompeting membership in USEA (and USEF, don't get me started; I hold a grudge since the AHSA/Dolan lawsuit days) *ONLY* because I'm actively involved with the Coconino Horse Trials & have to hold active memberships as the Event Secretary (shameless plug alert! Spring HT opening date: 4/1/08).

I don't have my membership cards/numbers with me. Look me up, I'm not concerned about being "known."

As always, your disobedient servant,

Amy Dudley
2008 Event Secretary, Coconino Horse Trials; Flagstaff, AZ

Camstock

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:35 PM

Just a thought, but I wonder if the rider reps did not speak up because they didn't perceive the problem, which for the horses that were lost, arguably seems to have been the overall challenge of the course, not, probably, any individual fence. The cumulative effect is a much more subtle difficulty to detect.

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:37 PM

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 01:58 PM

snoopy -- I have a pretty good idea of what KOC thinks of the course at this point. I'm not interested in arguing against your secret insider information, and many people have a different opinion of the course and that day now, than they did before the start of xc Saturday morning.

However, I still stand by my point that I do NOT believe that the four rider reps held their tongues on concerns that they had prior to riding that course because they were afraid to speak up.

I do think it rode harder than it walked. And it would be interesting for the rider reps to report back about the course after they rode it -- I would love to know their impressions.

I do, however, stand by my point that the reason that they didn't speak up was not because they were afraid to do so. Tell us what you know that those riders thought of the course after the fact, because I was too busy Saturday evening with duties that no one wants to read about here because it was too sad, to attend the competitor party and listen to what most of those guys did have to say. I have some ideas, but I'd love to know the specifics of what you've heard.

subk

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:00 PM

In so far as no one speaking up, what ever their reason, could it just be that these courses have been getting more and more unfair...in such a way that over time one begins to become complacant...meaning it is like watching hair grow...you do not see it but one day you wake up and realize that you are in desperate need for a haircut.
Bingo!

Hidden

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:00 PM

After having read over the article and the Bruce Davidson/Leslie Law interviews. I have to chime in here. I went back and checked on the Planning committee report and it seems to me that CMP is directly opposed to the concerns of the eventing membership that KB condensed in that report. The optimum time, complexity of fences and top down approach were the concerns and apparently CMP doesn't agree. What is the USEA going to do about this "representation" of our team and our sport when it seems in direct conflict with the member concerns?

I have also written directly to Kevin B with my name and concerns clearly identified.

RAyers

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:07 PM

CookiePony

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:17 PM

My problem with CMP's article was not his tone so much (although he would have well served to not engage on the "chat" room issue) as the steadfast refusal to address, or even acknowledge, the big picture. So nothing he said cranks me so much as just not getting it that today's courses (at least the controversial ones) are visibly not fun for the horses and as such aren't fun to watch which will ultimately make them not "fun" for sponsors either, so no matter where your interest/emphasis intersects with the sport - where we are does it a disservice.

I agree with Debbie, and with the idea that perhaps Red Hills is a "tipping point" of sorts for the current trends in course design. I also believe that CMP just doesn't "get it" in the way that Kevin and Bruce do. I do wonder how Kevin is going to bridge the big gap between concerns of the membership and CMP's comments.

I must admit that I was surprised by CMP's and LL's idea that the Optimum Time is no longer Optimum at the upper levels. This might be old news to the UL riders out there, but to me this seems wrongheaded. This is one trend that I REALLY do not want to see filtering down the lower levels.

If anyone wants to know who I am I already posted that info on page 1 of this thread.

LisaB

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:21 PM

Inquisitive,
While we are trying to speak from individual experience and we are not BNR's, we DO want to help them out. There are deaths across the globe and it's concerning us. And the most disconcerting aspect is that they are good riders on good horses. We are not going down the same avenues that have been approached before. Yeah, we KNOW about rider responsibility. We beyond that now. There's something ELSE amiss.
I hope that clears the air on our arguments and suggestions. And yup, I vehemently disagree with some suggestions but I will not put down creative input.
This is not black and white. Sorry!
There's some deeper issues.

LisaB

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:24 PM

And I forgot to mention a point.
John Williams had a disaster at Jersey Fresh(I forgot which year) on the water jump, it was basically a diving board. And you know what? He was devastated. He made a public statement and while he could have made excuses and pointed a finger at the builder, he didn't. He sucked it up. And we forgave him and he never made the mistake again.
Compare that with the numerous mistakes CMP has made over the years. THAT'S why we are so friggin' mad at him!

pinkdiamondracing

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:35 PM

I don't like the term "dumbed-down" being used. It implies that some of us are not intelligent enough to ride-- just because we aren't ULR's-- does not mean we are not smart-- couldn't people say the phrase "simplify" instead?? I for one may not be an ULR, but my younger sister is, and neither one of us is "dumb."

inquisitive

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:40 PM

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:44 PM

subk

Mar. 27, 2008, 02:52 PM

The optimum time, complexity of fences and top down approach were the concerns and apparently CMP doesn't agree. What is the USEA going to do about this "representation" of our team and our sport when it seems in direct conflict with the member concerns?
In the earlier heyday of American eventing we had another non-citizen Team coach, Jack LeGoff. The USEA Hall of Fame says this about him: "Jack was not only a brilliant coach of international teams but took the time to study the grass roots riders, attending not only the top level competitions but those at the lower levels as well."

I don't think it is the actual job description of Chief d'equip, but it seems like the ones that sick around for very long are in the position to drive the direction of eventing in America--and they do. Jack certainly did. And for those that think that CMP is some new scapegoat I would suggest a search. There has been much grumbling for years as to the direction eventing has been going and his role in it. Generally the response is that his "job" is to win medals and all other aspects of that job are ignored.

I think we place international figures who are not American citizens in the role of CD'E because they have some immunity to the politics of it all. There is an advantage to that. But I think that same immunity so desired when filling the job leaves the the powers-that-be at a very difficult place at a time like this.

I do believe that the current place we find ourselves is a result very slow and creeping changes, and perhaps those closest to those changes are the most blinded simply by their own nearness. Forrest, trees and all. To me the question is regardless of the possible causes of the current predicament do we all recognize where we are? Because only with some kind of consensus as to our current predicament can we come together so as to move forward. My concern, however, is that possibly the single most influential hand on the rudder of our sport in this country appears to be in denial.

My name is Susan Kaestner. I first joined the USCTA some time around 1979 and have competed through CCI** Long Format.

rivenoak

Mar. 27, 2008, 03:12 PM

because each level from the bottom up is supposed to be a stepping stone to the next. And right now the view is from the top down and therefore these courses have a trickle down effect.

Prelim and training should not be mini 4 stars

This brought to mind a course walk from what was my 2nd to last HT, in 2001. Approaching the final fence, a vertical (with a spooky-to-the rider decoration scheme) on a downhill, after literally coming Down A Hill, towards the finish, my trainer said, "You'll have to show-jump to this one."

Novice.

IMO, not an appropriate question to ask. Legal? Of course. But, why on earth should a N rider ever have to set a horse up *that sharply* at a fence. (And you needed to.) At this point, you should be learning to ride forward, forward, forward to fences.

Trickle down? IMNsoHO, heck yes. Because you have to start to learn to do it at some point, if you're going to have to crank (and turn) at some point up the line.

Now, was it actually a fair question? For me, yes. While an Eventing newbie, I'd hunted and ridden what is now Level 6+ Jumpers for years and was riding a horse who'd gone T at least (maybe some outings at P). Piece o' cake, actually, and an interesting question of "whoa while you're barrelling downhill to the end and don't look down at all the junk & buy the farm." But for someone newer to this sort of thing? I doubt it.

It all rolls downhill, folks.

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 03:18 PM

In the earlier heyday of American eventing we had another non-citizen Team coach, Jack LeGoff. The USEA Hall of Fame says this about him: "Jack was not only a brilliant coach of international teams but took the time to study the grass roots riders, attending not only the top level competitions but those at the lower levels as well."

I don't think it is the actual job description of Chief d'equip, but it seems like the ones that sick around for very long are in the position to drive the direction of eventing in America--and they do. Jack certainly did. And for those that think that CMP is some new scapegoat I would suggest a search. There has been much grumbling for years as to the direction eventing has been going and his role in it. Generally the response is that his "job" is to win medals and all other aspects of that job are ignored.

I think we place international figures who are not American citizens in the role of CD'E because they have some immunity to the politics of it all. There is an advantage to that. But I think that same immunity so desired when filling the job leaves the the powers-that-be at a very difficult place at a time like this.

I do believe that the current place we find ourselves is a result very slow and creeping changes, and perhaps those closest to those changes are the most blinded simply by their own nearness. Forrest, trees and all. To me the question is regardless of the possible causes of the current predicament do we all recognize where we are? Because only with some kind of consensus as to our current predicament can we come together so as to move forward. My concern, however, is that possibly the single most influential hand on the rudder of our sport in this country appears to be in denial.

My name is Susan Kaestner. I first joined the USCTA some time around 1979 and have competed through CCI** Long Format.

AGREED!!! You got it sister!!! And I agree that this should NOT be about RedHills either. This is about current trends, denial, direction, change ect.
It is unfortunate...VERY unfortunate that RedHills was to be the "tipping point". As I have made clear in some PM's my gripe is not with RedHills and those who went to great lengths to host the event. This is about a thought process and a course design that differs from my own.
Some see the glass as half full and some see it as half empty. That is to say that those who have a big hand in driving the sport look at it from the top down whilst others look at it from the bottom up. It is getting the two parties to meet that seems to be the issue...at least for me anyway.
And it would seem that some do not want to "play ball".

flyingchange

Mar. 27, 2008, 04:06 PM

Jazzy Lady

Mar. 27, 2008, 04:41 PM

You can't fully tell how a course is going to ride by walking it on feet. It is far different than what you feel when you are galloping at 560mpm around it. I don't expect riders to challenge an entire course when it probably looked do-able to them, but then it rides very challenging and the riders say something. What bothers me is that AFTER it has been shown it was too much and riders have spoken up, CMP still will not admit that there was ANYTHING on that course that could have been done differently, not one single thing. I think the Fork and Poplar this weekend will be a big indication of how the horses are feeling after that weekend. Hopefully all goes well.

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 04:57 PM

http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?id=1440

Another point of view....

Jazzy Lady

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:04 PM

Another conflict of interest thought. Some don't agree with me, but I'm happy to see there are others out there that think that someone so closely involved with the team perhaps should not be designing selection trials.

Debbie

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:10 PM

"It is an insult to our generous, sensitive partners whose main intent is to please us."

amen, amen, amen

I don't ride at the upper levels, so my view has been summarily dismissed by some, but I am a lifelong horseman and the continuing "insults" to the generosity of our top horses -- those who are prepared and have the hearts of lions -- is visible to the spectators.

One of the motivators quoted for changing the fundamentals of the sport at the top levels was to make "stars" of the top horses. How does yanking and spanking them around make them stars? :no:

asterix

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:14 PM

I think it is clear that there is a broad consensus about reconsidering the nature of courses today. KB said 90% of his responses sounded the same note. We now have several very respected riders at the pinnacle of the sport publicly saying the same thing.

I don't know whether Red Hills was some kind of terrible anomaly or the straw that broke the camel's back; I am sure no one, and I mean NO ONE, wanted any of those things to happen.

But out of tragedy we have tried to take some positive energy to make a change. There are strong feelings here and words spoken on both sides might have been more moderated (as you have all proven on this thread, we are most certainly not afraid to provide our names and numbers and it was never our intent to hide in the dark. Most of us sent letters to KB, signed, I assume, with our proper names, not our "monikers" :lol:).

What CMP sees or understands about the current uproar is clearly not something we can change. Let's focus on the changes we CAN influence, with the USEA and beyond.

I take responsibility for myself and my horses, and it would wreck me if I made a bad decision on their behalf, but I'd like to feel that my sport is helping me make good decisions, not setting traps for us.

Nancy Seybold, USEA 78067 (also forced to be USEF member so I can run prelim).

Mary in Area 1

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:17 PM

Yeah! Good for Corinne. And as a long-listed rider, she implies that it IS hard to speak out against the powers that be. Well done.

BreckGirlKY

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:23 PM

It's amazing how a well thought out statement, free of negative emotion and blame, can make a valid point (whether you agree or not) so much easier to digest and understand. Bruce, Lesley and Corinne all made postive, unemotionable statements, that clearly address the fact somethings in our great sport do need to change, and that they are open and willing to help see these problems addressed. People who can't or won't recognize problems, are frankly dangerous and I question their motives. For myself and a great many others, this sport is a hobby, the day it's not fun anymore, why be involved? I hope the USEA and the great riders and trainers continue their best efforts for all levels of riders in our sport, so we can continue to aspire to ride like them one day.

AlexMakowski

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:25 PM

I like that the issue over over zealous decorating is being addressed. This will be my first year as a USEA member and I was taken to watch the FHI back in that fall. I couldnt help but ask my friend "Why are they having you jump this tiki hut surrounded by giant inflatable animals and beach balls. I thought it was 'natural fences'. Then I laughed and said something to the effect of "jumping in a land where hobbits really do exist"

Tuckertoo

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:47 PM

Sorry for my ignorance... but who choose the Chef d'Equipe?

poltroon

Mar. 27, 2008, 05:50 PM

So, Ralph Hill, Darren Chiachia and others are "irresponsible riders?"

If I take your argument and apply it to cars, we should still be driving Model-Ts becasue it is irresposible drivers who cause accidents. The car should not need to be made safer. The drivers should be made to be more responsible.

This is as much a cop-out, stick your head in the sand approach to safety as focusing on single fences and course designers.

I am tired of hearing "RIDER this, RIDER that," when sometimes the rider has done EVERYTHING possible to do it right and still shit goes wrong that beyond their control but was in the control of another person.

If you are so inhuman as to never make a mistake, then I can understand you POV. Otherwise having a safe sport goes a LONG LONG LONG LONG way away from just the rider.

Reed

Well, of course, those arguments about cars WERE made, and for years. "If we pad the dash drivers will drive faster and more recklessly!" "If we add seat belts, drivers will lose their fear of crashes."

I think everyone here believes in rider responsibility. But still, our sport has to be designed so that careless riders are eliminated or go to the bottom of the pack, not that they pay with their lives. And the fact is that from what I recall, around half of the accidents over the last decade have been with experienced riders well within their ability. That must mean something is wrong. In any case, even if all the deaths were caused by irresponsible yahoos, every one of us still pays a small price for each one, because it reflects on the sport as a whole.

I mentioned on another thread that it seems to me (impressions only, not data) that horses tend to have cardiopulmonary deaths on courses where there have been other major incidents - that is, a lone CP death should be dramatically more common than one where multiple horses have severe problems, but it seems to me that there have been many incidents of a CP death along with a major fracture or fall, suggesting that there is something about the overall course that is too stressful - perhaps not necessarily any oneIt obstacle. I think this is a place where more research is in order. Until now, we've dismissed the CP deaths as just being flukes and unrelated to course design. I know they can happen at any time, but maybe the deaths we're seeing are related after all.

As for the time allowed, the designer is the one who chooses the track. He can choose direct or windy routes between the obstacles once built. If more discretion is needed beyond that, then perhaps we need a rule change.

It sounds like this course walked better than it rode. Perhaps all CDs need to make a habit of finding a spare trusted rider to test drive every new course and give feedback. I don't know if that's possible for everyone. I wouldn't make it a rule but perhaps a Strong Suggestion.

And I admit, I like decorations as both a rider and spectator, but I haven't been to an event in 3 years, so perhaps things have gotten out of hand.

RunForIt

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:11 PM

So, there would have been no reason for her not to have, as one of the rider reps, come to the officials and said "x,y and z on this course are not safe" since she has no fear of Team politics. Which is my point.

She didn't, and that makes my point. She didn't keep her mouth shut about course concerns because of Team politics. I'm not claiming that some riders might not have, had they been in that position, but stating that the ones that were the rider reps here, whose job it is to raise concerns, did not do so.

I am not claiming that politics don't exist -- I don't have near the knowledge of that that some do -- I just know that in this instance, I don't believe that Team politics kept the rider reps silent.

Which I guess, means that you and I agree on this issue. :)

Lib, you are a fiercely loyal person, someone that I seem, feel to really know, even though we've never met in person...with that in mind, I am still saying this: with all good intentions, you're assuming things that Karen may or may not think. This time, for me, Karen needs to speak for herself if I'm going to understand why she didn't speak up at Red Hills.

subk

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:17 PM

As for the time allowed, the designer is the one who chooses the track. He can choose direct or windy routes between the obstacles once built. If more discretion is needed beyond that, then perhaps we need a rule change.
I have personally wheeled about a half dozen Rolex courses, although not in the last two years. Historically/traditionally the published distance is about 100 to 150 meters shorter than my result. This can be as much as a 10-15 seconds difference in the optimum time--which is huge. I am told by top experts that they expect this.

I think course designers already have as much leeway as they want to adjust the XC times--they certainly seem to have used it going the other direction.

deltawave

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:18 PM

still will not admit that there was ANYTHING on that course that could have been done differently, not one single thing.

Substitute "in Iraq" for "on that course". Remind you of any other dictatorial idiot you know? :lol:

AlexMakowski

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:26 PM

BNRs? Beginner Novice Riders?

Also. Since we are paying members, dont we have the vote to who is Captain? If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Debbie

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:30 PM

BNR = big name rider in this discussion

The USEF, not the USEA of which most of us are members, hires the coach for the USET riders.

deltawave

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:58 PM

His being a "Captain" has nothing to do with his title as coach of the Equestrian Team. It's his ex-military rank; he hangs on to it for some unknown reason.

Bensmom

Mar. 27, 2008, 06:58 PM

Lib, you are a fiercely loyal person, someone that I seem, feel to really know, even though we've never met in person...with that in mind, I am still saying this: with all good intentions, you're assuming things that Karen may or may not think. This time, for me, Karen needs to speak for herself if I'm going to understand why she didn't speak up at Red Hills.

I do think of myself as loyal, and really appreciate that and will take it as a compliment, but I'm not really stating anything other than a fact: The rider reps did not approach the ground jury.

It is my belief that, based on past behavior, that had there been concerns, they would not have been afraid to do so.

My above quoted comment was simply in response to snoopy's comment that Karen has no fear of Team politics. I don't know that, but my opinion is that snoopy is probably right and that I am pretty sure that isn't why she didn't speak up at Red Hills.

But, my original post in this thread was made simply to note that if it was such an awful course, the fact remains that the safety setup -- i.e. the review by the Ground Jury and by the riders themselves, did not raise those concerns.

That's it. I don't speak for Red Hills, as I've noted earlier, at least for the actual organization, and I certainly don't speak for Karen, or at least have done so only when she instructed me to do so :) Loyal to her? Sure -- she has never been anything but wonderful to me, but my comments on this thread have not been designed to defend her or to speak for her.

But, your point is taken, nonetheless -- perhaps someone who has the ability to do so should ask the rider reps why they didn't speak up. I know that Phillip was one, Karen was one, I think Jon Holling was one and there was one more == I'll have to check and see who they were, since my brain is blanking on me. I know they are all well respected riders.

Oh, and it is strictly my guesstimate too that the course maybe rode harder than it walked. I am aware that I can't speak for those guys and truly would not try.

Libby (now, ya mess with Woody and I'll come after ya! ;) :lol: )

RunForIt

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:02 PM

Libby (now, ya mess with Woody and I'll come after ya! ;) :lol: )

NEVER! I LOVE WOODY TOO! You're a good woman! :D :cool:

subk

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:07 PM

(now, ya mess with Woody and I'll come after ya! ;) :lol: )
Libby I've been wonder how Woody feels about not being "the little guy" anymore? You got any insight--being President of his fan club and all...

retreadeventer

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:17 PM

Libby,
I sympathize with you as I know you feel like the lightning rod for the aftermath of RH. I know you've brought up the point that BEFORE the event, riders did not come forward.

To add my thoughts to this:
I would not have expected much in the way of complaint, due to several factors. The course designer. The lovely reputation RH has always enjoyed among the upper level riders. The early date on the calendar in the season for the upper level competitors. The fact that it's a Gold Cup course. The Olympic Year and selection trial program. Riders having a family member, a horse, a student or associate, an employee, or themselves as Olympic team candidates. The spectators present. The fact that lower levels are also held -- meaning clients, students and lower level horses are also being ridden at the same trials. The fact that nothing quite this catastrophic has occurred before. (Who knew?) and the tipping point was reached, unfortunately at your event. If you had great prizes, prize money, great dressage judges, all those factors also would be present as well.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have.
I'm saying they had good normal reasons not to.
To hold up their silence as approval would be wrong. They may not have said what they felt but believe me, I heard from several people -- many were in shock way before Saturday. They probably just didn't feel it was to the level of a "protest".

In my day, the word just put chills down your spine. Nobody protested unless it was a real do or die matter, unless you had solid proof someone clearly cheated, or if the rule violation was so blatant and there were so many people who could and would back you up. Protesting in a sport that you love and participate in because it is fun is a really hard decision to make and you had better be absolutely sure, and completely confident, because it will mark you for life with every official and organizer in the world. There are so many times I have heard gripes and complaints at events. But rarely do any reach the level of a true protest. It is a lifechanging decision to bring a protest. That's the way it's been, in any case.

I think that we may see that there will be closer scrutiny including a far more detailed examination of a such courses prior to competition, including but not limited to test rides, oversight from different people including the TD and his or her superior PRIOR to competition, a requirement to back up GPS clocking with wheeling by actual walking, and more ideas not of my creation. It is too important an issue to leave solely to rider reps to deal with.

I don't think that courses of such a level and importance will any longer be allowed to be presented as a fait accompli a day before the day they run horses over it. I have a feeling that due to the complete surprise of RH this year, and how it caught many unawares, there will be years of fallout. None of which is of your making, of course.

To say that no one said anything doesn't mean what happened was surprising. It just means it was a perfect storm of complacency, ignorance, or overconfidence at the highest levels of the sport.
It is just bad luck it was RH where this all came together. JMO.

RunForIt

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:20 PM

retreadeventer, thank you so much for the detail of your thinking - that's the sort of reply that helps all of us reason.

Gry2Yng

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:40 PM

Bensmom,
I have never been to RHHT. I have entered many times and been waited listed or injured. I am quite sure the the intentions of the organizers and volunteers is only to provide a safe event. I believe the term "tipping point" has been used. It is unfortunate that those dedicated to the this HT have come under fire, only because their event was the "last straw".

While fear of repercussions, might be one reason rider reps would not speak up, I am sure there are other reasons why no one mentioned their concerns.

A previous poster mentioned that perhaps we all just woke up to the fact that "we need a haircut". I buy into this theory. I have also been a rider rep and I have voiced concerns to rider reps, and I have voiced concerns to TD and POGJ. I can say that I am dismissed more often than I am taken seriously. Make no mistake. I have spoken to TD's who have heard my concerns and addressed them. I have also spoken to TD's who have told me that I don't know how to walk a distance, who were later overruled by the POGJ, when I furthered my complaints.

In one instance I questioned a TD about the fact that the video van was parked in my student's line thru a combination on the xc. I was told that was not a proper line and my student would incur penalties if she rode it. I tried to explain the line to the TD and was told I did not know the rules. I ran to the warm up, gave my student a different route - which she did not get to walk. It was her first prelim, I did not want her to have to fight over 20. Thank GOODNESS she was an easy going kid and did not get flustered. One other rider took our original route, got penalized, protested and the TD later conceded "no penalty".

Maybe no one spoke up because SOMETIMES when we talk, no one is listening. Could be that RHHT had a great set of officials, but if you get ignored for long enough, the eventer mentality is to suck it up and give it a go.

There are great officials out there. They listen and they consider and they make changes when appropriate. Then there are others. I am just suggesting that perhaps the rider reps felt no one would listen, so they just kept their mouths shut, tried to make a safe plan and rode.

Kudos to BD, LL and LGL. Love their comments! Everything I think about CMP has already been said. Christine Lies, former Area Chair, former YR Treasurer, NAYRC Chef, USEF, USEA, USDF and FEI member. I am not currently an active member of any of the above, but continue to love the sport and applaud this great effort.

Debbie

Mar. 27, 2008, 08:48 PM

Tripp Graves

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:21 PM

In one of the darkest times of our sport we should not be pointing fingers and making accusations towards Capt and Red Hills, but take time to encourage growth and change in our sport. We need to rehabilitate the idea of responcibility and accountability our sport once had. Our trainers and coaches need to stop drilling our young riders into making time and finishing, but instead restore confidence and calm while under pressure. This is a time to keep our wits about us. Where has the fun of our sport gone?
Eventing needs a change of course. A large rider concern is that courses need to go back to big galloping cross cvountry fences again. If you look at the statistics of the previous year, it becomes quite apparent this is not the correct route. Most rider fatalities did not happen in tight combinations, but at galloping fences. The riders of our day cannot ride galloping fences, yet this is what they want? Kevins letter mentioned reversing course design. What does this mean? Our courses are now more critized for the amount of flowers surrounding them, than by the quality of questions set before horse and rider. "Po dunk" events have been cast to the side to make way for these disney like cross country course venues. These "po dunk" events are the stepping stones of our sport and should be appluaded. Most riders have little capability to fathom what it takes to put on an event, yet they feel free to critisize. There is no doubt that Red Hills cross country course was inappropriate for the time of year. But people still rode it, when it blantintly said in the omnibus, big and difficult.
We all hope the best for Darren, but it does not speak highly of the ICP program when he takes an inexpierenced horse around a difficult track. Is trying to qualify more important than being able to walk home at the end of the day? What kind of message is this sending? Trainers need to restore the confidence in our young riders, so that they can say, "today is not my day." Why is there more pride in pushing yourself and your horse into dangerous situations, than there is in pulling up? We need to stop celebrating mere completions of a course, but encourage safe rounds. Do not foreget when mounting up, that you are not only representing yourself, you are are representing your sport.
The expectations of horse and rider have increased over the years. It is time for riders to reavluate their goals of eventing. Why is only going training not good enough? Why do we feel the need to push ourselves to the point of possably insanity? This attitude of, it won't happen to me, is not realistic. We need to learn to say, enough is enough.

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:22 PM

I do find it interesting that his home course...Gatcombe Park...does not have the type of design seen in his american courses. To give Mark his due, I have found the course to be tough...BUT fair. I am starting to wonder if this is an american problem for him. Do we perhaps perhaps have different expectations and challenges that do not persent themselves in the UK? Now I have competed in the uk for the better part 16 years, and can say hand on heart that the courses have not evolved into what I see here. Yes there has been some change to suit the short format, but the event sites have not changed over the years and most are still good galloping courses. And it is interesting to note that whilst these courses have not changed, the British riders seem to adapt to an entirely different course design at major championships. So the argument that courses in the US must reflect/prepare for what will be seen at major championships does not hold weight with me.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused:

RunForIt

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:27 PM

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:37 PM

So, in light of the fact that courses in the UK may not have changed as much in terms of the galloping (a point of contention here? - yes?), could pictures be made of courses by level, jump by jump, compared and contrasted, to use in thinking through how eventing course in the US might be revised?

This is the rather puzzling thing for me to understand....Mark knows and designs courses in the UK and I cannot really fault them...honestly. I am not changing my tune on the situation here in the US but I am telling you folks I have ridden CMP courses and they are completely different here.
I really have to wonder what it is that moves him so far outside the box over here.
Now I am not saying that the UK is with it its faults .....on occasion....I am really stumped as to WHY this trend is happening over here????
Perhaps we are indeed feeling the pinch where the amount of land is becoming too small to actually run a horse trials....or the fact that, sorry folks, americans do not like walking courses and therefor the need to cluster fences for maximum spectator appeal. This will undoubtably keep me up at night. Mark Phillips if you are reading this my PM box is at your disposal.

RunForIt

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:43 PM

This is the rather puzzling thing for me to understand....Mark knows and designs courses in the UK and I cannot really fault them...honestly. I am not changing my tune on the situation here in the US but I am telling you folks I have ridden CMP courses and they are completely different here.
I really have to wonder what it is that moves him so far outside the box over here.
Now I am not saying that the UK is with it its faults .....on occasion....I am really stumped as to WHY this trend is happening over here????
Perhaps we are indeed feeling the pinch where the amount of land is becoming too small to actually run a horse trials....or the fact that, sorry folks, americans do not like walking courses and therefor the need to cluster fences for maximum spectator appeal. This will undoubtably keep me up at night. Mark Phillips if you are reading this my PM box is at your disposal.

am trying to think through these ideas in terms of Area III...Poplar has no end to land, gooddirt can tell you more about Pine Top than me, but have not seen the cows eating up the land of late, ...the Aiken venues have been in place for many a year...the land itself doesn't seem to be an issue if we're comparing "now' to "then". :confused: Haven't heard any complaints about PTF re: galloping course, Aiken courses? Poplar?

snoopy

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:47 PM

am trying to think through these ideas in terms of Area III...Poplar has no end to land, good dirt can tell you more about Pine Top than me, but have not seen the cows eating up the land of late, ...the Aiken venues have been in place for many a year...the land itself doesn't seem to be an issue if we're comparing "now' to "then". :confused:

I cannot compare the now and then thing as I have been away from the US for so long....most of the events I remember are no longer with us.

ss3777

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:48 PM

I would like to thank CMP for his interview. It certainly has helped to once again galvanize folks. The USEA was incredibly clever to publish all three of these interviews for all of us to digest. May the Bruce Davidson’s of our sport continue to shine brightly.

Susan Lynch Smith USEA # 51354

RAyers

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:50 PM

Eventing needs a change of course. A large rider concern is that courses need to go back to big galloping cross cvountry fences again. If you look at the statistics of the previous year, it becomes quite apparent this is not the correct route. Most rider fatalities did not happen in tight combinations, but at galloping fences.

Where is your data? Could it be that the riders were gong too fast over those fences in order to make time lost at combinations? What about at horse trials? Where is that data? I assume you are speaking from the FEI reports. Where in those reports does it list a "galloping" fence/line? Until you can give me that I don't believe your statement there.

Otherwise I totally agree with the rest of your statements!

Reed

BarbB

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:52 PM

'Making the time' is a way of life growing out of courses where heights are a meter or less and where the speeds are considerably slower.

On what planet??? 'Making the time' has ALWAYS been a factor and an informal way of determining the difficulty of the course.
In fact, wasn't it usual, long ago, to have a test ride of the course (at least at advanced) and adjustments made based on that test ride?
I have a whole collection of Badminton tapes from the 80s where 'making the time' was a MAJOR part of the critique of the riders. (and back then the critiques were no-holds-barred).

Apparently the lower levels with their slower speeds are having a bad effect on the upper levels. :confused::confused::confused:

But, OTOH, I sure am glad he is happy with his course design....not.
*insert gag me emoticon here*

edited to add:
Yay for Bruce, I totally agree.
And while I don't agree with Leslie's thoughts on making the time, he certainly states that side of the issue better than CMP does. I do like his comments on tricky and trappy fences.

Tripp Graves

Mar. 27, 2008, 09:58 PM

FEI is the place to find the records. One death was at a corner, the other was in some combination. 11 others were at single, non combination fences

Gry2Yng

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:23 PM

FEI is the place to find the records. One death was at a corner, the other was in some combination. 11 others were at single, non combination fences

Just because a fence is not part of a combination does not necessarily make it a galloping fence.

TB or not TB?

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:25 PM

FEI is the place to find the records. One death was at a corner, the other was in some combination. 11 others were at single, non combination fences

Technically that would only be 7 others (including a fence that wasn't properly secured); there were 9 deaths in 2007. If you're going to include 2006, there are a few more combinations.

LynLyn

Mar. 27, 2008, 10:26 PM

I did send a letter to Kevin B. and voiced my concerns. As for the USEA reply, of the three, CMP's is the one that has a CYA feel to it. I cannot decide if it is that he doesn't get it or that he doesn't care. I can see the difference between natural looking decorations and things that are out of context for a gallop around a course. I wonder what the horse thinks when coming to a fence that has chickens around it. This has been a long time coming. And if there had not been the uprising in the cyber world, I don't think that anything would be happening.

Derith Vogt USCTA 23568 USEA 47930

RAyers

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:19 PM

FEI is the place to find the records. One death was at a corner, the other was in some combination. 11 others were at single, non combination fences

Then there is a great likelihood that there is MUCH more death and injury than you even conceive. Why? The FEI only track CICs and CCIs. It does not track horse trials. It does not track other levels. As a matter of fact, the data, as presented by the FEI is incomplete without any statistical testing for significance so you just don't know what is really happening.

Relying on the FEI for horse trial data is foolish.

Reed

Gnep

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:22 PM

Flutie,
Have you ever tried, as an competitor and as a Rep to have anything changed on course. do you know how it feels to run in a concret wall. You do that several times and than you know, the system of Rider Rep as it is now, is just a bone to the dogs. Useless, frustrating, a shame.
Riders know that and decided its a waste of energy, 99% of the time.
Strange is our lemming mentality, that is true.

considering course design. It is the job of good course designer to take the terrain in account and design according to it, good riders on good horses should be able to negotiate the course at the proper safe speed an make time. To design a course with the knowledge that time is next to impossible, is just bad course design. Course Design has to be safe, not just the jumps, asking riders to push and go faster speeds and knowing they still can not make it, is just plain very bad and extremly dangerous course design.
Dummer, dummer, am dummsten ? does that exist, it sound good, doesn't it.
CMP X-C Design philosphy = am dumsten.
That is the type of Course Designer Eventing realy does not need, he should have his license revoked.

Were does the FEI statistic place the jumps in correlation with the course, does it say jump was part of a combination.
And as Reed said it only tracks FEI fatals.

the danger of the big gallping fences has all ways existed. But today we have to ask the question, way do we negotiat the most compliated combinations ever and than crash at a rather simple oxer, or oxer replacement table. Maybe those ever complicated combinations are so stressfull for horses and rider that they just need a break, menatl exhaustion, and than get caught out at the so called easy fences
Guenther E. Hardt

JER

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:23 PM

Re: decorations, cardiac incidents and rider responsibility.

(A lot goes on here while I drive slowly across the US.)

Ah, decorations. Here's another area in which actual scientific research is needed. As obstacles and course-clutter start to look less 'natural', we need to be sure that we're understanding what the horse is seeing. The rider and the horse don't always see things the same way.

A researcher at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Alison Harman, has done some very interesting work studying what a horse sees. Horse & Hound ran a spread of photos showing how a horse sees various XC obstacles. It was very interesting and also very provocative in terms of future study. Picture-frame or 'keyhole' fences are seen as simple jump obstacles by the horse -- they don't see the frame at all. However, certain situations cause optical illusions for horses, like the top of the obstacle when it's inline with the top of a fence or obstacle in the distance (think a showjump and an arena fence). Other visual patterns, generally referred to as 'predator patterns' -- like whorls and tiger stripes -- cause major disruptions in the horse's vision. A few years ago I was at a HT which had a showjump covered in tiger-striped fabric. It was a tiny, nothing fence at all levels and many horses wouldn't go near it. Lots of stops, falls, refusals from 4 strides out. (I would have complained but I had to deal with an injured kid and didn't have time to walk the course. My mare -- a very bold horse -- wouldn't go near the thing.)

Recently, I've seen decorations that go too far. Like life-size scarecrow dummies sitting/lying on a jump. Or full-sheeted ghosts. Or big, grinning, toothy jack o'lantern faces. My old Prelim horse hunted for many, many years and he had one big rule that I could not mess with: he did not jump stupid things. He'd learned to look after himself hunting with some very difficult hunts and when he started eventing, he always put self-preservation ahead of obedience. He's 24, sound, happy and still jumping around just fine.

poltroon brings up a very interesting point about multiple cardiac deaths on the same course. Like she says, we need the science. This is something that Formula One racing measured in their drivers. The idea wasn't that F1 drivers were having heart attacks (they weren't); rather, it was to see if various physiological stresses combined to make accidents more likely to happen. (IIRC, thermal issues were especially important.) We need to do the same for horses in eventing.

Finally, the issue of rider responsibility is at this point, a straw man argument. What does 'rider responsibility' mean if the only responsible thing a rider can do -- after paying entry fees, trailering to the event, taking time off from home/work/school -- is to withdraw from the event? In the past few years, I have seen utterly inappropriate courses at even the BN level and I've seen groups of riders complaining and getting nowhere with the TD.

Reed is right about the Model Ts and all that. F1 racing did the studies, analyzed the data and made one of the riskiest of sports much, much safer. It is no accident that F! hasn't had any fatalities since 1994.

The first scary wave of eventing fatalities was in 1999. A number of experienced riders were killed in rotational falls in the UK. The resulting studies and safety investigations resulted in (1) the identification of rotational falls as a particular danger in eventing and (2) the frangible pin technology designed to reduce serious injuries and death from rotational falls.

That was in 1999-2000. This is 2008. Time for a haircut.

RHdobes563

Mar. 27, 2008, 11:51 PM

Time for a haircut.

Sounds like an appropriate "T-shirt."

snoopy

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:00 AM

Sounds like an appropriate "T-shirt."

except mark ain't got much left, well not if you like the donald trump look.

lstevenson

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:03 AM

lstevenson

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:12 AM

A large rider concern is that courses need to go back to big galloping cross cvountry fences again. If you look at the statistics of the previous year, it becomes quite apparent this is not the correct route. Most rider fatalities did not happen in tight combinations, but at galloping fences.

But the rider fatalities at the galloping fences most likely were a direct result of the fact that horses are constantly being broken in and out of their galloping rhythm. And pushed for speeds much faster than required for each level because of all the extra time it takes to show jump the constant technical questions.

My guess is that if the courses went back to being more gallop-y and the fences all had forgiving faces, we would see a noticable reduction in rotational falls.

Mary in Area 1

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:17 AM

Bingo!

Mary in Area 1

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:19 AM

It's probably because as the US coach with his neck on the line, he is more invested in producing winners at all costs. I bet he thinks that he is doing our riders a big favor for testing them so harshly to really "toughen them up".

This is what my "Bingo" originally applied to, but both of your posts are on target!

Bensmom

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:19 AM

Libby I've been wonder how Woody feels about not being "the little guy" anymore? You got any insight--being President of his fan club and all...

As a matter of fact, I do! :lol:

Woody HATES the Pony. Hates him. (sorry, wynn!) And the Pony doesn't much like Woody either.

Woody apparently feels Upstaged (so to speak -- sorry, guys, I couldn't resist! :lol: ) and just Hates Ted. I've stayed in his good graces by making sure to just visit him and Billy and to stay away from the Pony when I visit. Which is cool, as Ted usually doesn't seem crazy about me.

Funny though, maybe that is related to all the fawning I do over Woody -- when Teddy was at RHHT this year without Woody, he was quite pleasant to me and much friendlier than normal.

Almost as if he was saying "see! Now, you too can become a crazed fan of the Real Bionic Pony!" :lol: :lol:

Libby (who thinks the Pony is awesome, but always loves Woody best!)

Bensmom

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:25 AM

retreadeventer - I appreciate your views about the hesitancy to protest and its implications, but I do think that is not a factor here. As Libby has pointed out and I've also experienced being part of the organization at FEI competitions, there is no systemic hesitancy to protest among big name riders :lol::lol:, boy howdy there is not. (Trying to say that diplomatically, but I may still be missing parts of my a$$ from the lack of hesitancy to protest.. err vehemently.) Newbies to the levels and ammies maybe yes, but they aren't usually the rider reps.

I really lean toward the theory that the course looked normal to the reps and they had no foresight that the tipping point on "normal" would occur over that course. I think this is a far greater problem.

I just have to add that I think I still have some of my A$$ missing from a chewing it took from an unhappy BNT several years ago :D :lol: :lol:

I'll never forget it! This someone I'm thinking of has no problem expressing unhappiness with just about anything, so I just can't imagine that this BNT had serious concerns and stayed quiet! This is a different BNT than anyone has discussed here so far, and I certainly wouldn't want to connect this A$$ chewing story to anyone undeservedly!

snoopy

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:27 AM

As a matter of fact, I do! :lol:

Woody HATES the Pony. Hates him. (sorry, wynn!) And the Pony doesn't much like Woody either.

Woody apparently feels Upstaged (so to speak -- sorry, guys, I couldn't resist! :lol: ) and just Hates Ted. I've stayed in his good graces by making sure to just visit him and Billy and to stay away from the Pony when I visit. Which is cool, as Ted usually doesn't seem crazy about me.

Funny though, maybe that is related to all the fawning I do over Woody -- when Teddy was at RHHT this year without Woody, he was quite pleasant to me and much friendlier than normal.

Almost as if he was saying "see! Now, you too can become a crazed fan of the Real Bionic Pony!" :lol: :lol:

Libby (who thinks the Pony is awesome, but always loves Woody best!)

I do not know how Marcus would react to that statement!!!

snoopy

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:28 AM

I just have to add that I think I still have some of my A$$ missing from a chewing it took from an unhappy BNT several years ago :D :lol: :lol:

I'll never forget it! This someone I'm thinking of has no problem expressing unhappiness with just about anything, so I just can't imagine that this BNT had serious concerns and stayed quiet! This is a different BNT than anyone has discussed here so far, and I certainly wouldn't want to connect this A$$ chewing story to anyone undeservedly!

Honestly libby you are such a tease!!!

poltroon

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:36 AM

As a matter of fact, I do! :lol:

Woody HATES the Pony. Hates him. (sorry, wynn!) And the Pony doesn't much like Woody either.

Woody apparently feels Upstaged (so to speak -- sorry, guys, I couldn't resist! :lol: ) and just Hates Ted. I've stayed in his good graces by making sure to just visit him and Billy and to stay away from the Pony when I visit. Which is cool, as Ted usually doesn't seem crazy about me.

Funny though, maybe that is related to all the fawning I do over Woody -- when Teddy was at RHHT this year without Woody, he was quite pleasant to me and much friendlier than normal.

Almost as if he was saying "see! Now, you too can become a crazed fan of the Real Bionic Pony!" :lol: :lol:

Libby (who thinks the Pony is awesome, but always loves Woody best!)

I had a couple of older retirees who were totally incompatible - one majorly hurt the other - until I brought a pony on the place. And then a second pony. All of a sudden, they looked each other over, decided that the ponies were THEM and are now bestest buddies. :)

pwynnnorman

Mar. 28, 2008, 08:47 AM

Where is your data? Could it be that the riders were gong too fast over those fences in order to make time lost at combinations? What about at horse trials? Where is that data? I assume you are speaking from the FEI reports. Where in those reports does it list a "galloping" fence/line? Until you can give me that I don't believe your statement there.

"Where is your data?"

Now there's a question that just screams for a survey of riders, doesn't it?

Maybe USEA should just go straight to the source and ask? Put up online a questionnaire with USEA member number-access only and the promise of anonymity. Even ask specific questions about specific events' jumps (of an important subset of riders, such as ULRs or YRs).

This may be the perfect time to get a great response rate, given how everyone is thinking about it.

So, what type of questions do you think would yield useful data on such a survey?

pwynnnorman

Mar. 28, 2008, 08:59 AM

As a matter of fact, I do! :lol:

Woody HATES the Pony. Hates him. (sorry, wynn!) And the Pony doesn't much like Woody either.

Woody apparently feels Upstaged (so to speak -- sorry, guys, I couldn't resist! :lol: ) and just Hates Ted.

Silly, Ted. He seems to get along fine with Hugh, who is about to stomp on him big time. Like, downstaged and then some.

Bensmom, Karen and Max joked about Max taking Woody Training level when the PCers where there yesterday. It occurred to me that I'd LIKE to see that--and I hope Woody would enjoy the fun of it without the strain, too. That's what I'd like to see in Ted's future, too, eventually.

Interesting OT, in fact. Since Woody represents what good horsemanship can indeed produce in this sport: a horse who can throttle back from being at the highest level for many years--and still be healthy enough to enjoy the sport in other ways. Like golf's senior tour, I think Woodies are the goal all ULRs should strive for.

frugalannie

Mar. 28, 2008, 09:07 AM

I only have a computer for 5 minutes, so I apologize if what I'm about to write makes no sense or is redundant. I wasn't able to catch up completely.

I saw some comments about the course at Red Hills (only used as an example) not walking as hard as it rode. Therefore, the rider reps had no comments.

What if (thinking way outside the box) a rider rep or two were the first out on course and at the end of their rides there was a 30 minute, scheduled, review and adjustment period. Then, if the time was really impossible, or a fence rode really badly, changes could be made. For their trouble, the rider reps would be given free entry to the event. And I don't think this would have to be done below prelim, necessarily.

And back to fence decoration: one of my favorite fence decorations was at Groton House I and A. There's a table (with a slanted front) up the hill after the water jump. The back wall of the table was taken out, and underneath there was hung a hammock. Several empty (plastic) bottles were scattered about to make it look like the fence crew's hideout. Horses never saw the decoration, and it was all safe, but it showed up in photos!

subk

Mar. 28, 2008, 09:42 AM

I went back a re-read CMP and this paragraph struck me:

"Understand nine out of the eleven fatalities worldwide in recent months were at straightforward fences in the middle of the park. The others were portables that tipped over and that has been corrected. Angles and narrows were introduced a while back to try to get riders to sit up and ride them and not treat them as 'hurdles'. I cannot agree that the professional sport is spoiling the cross-country experience for the young, the amateurs, and the adult amateurs. I believe this country has a very healthy and vibrant relationship between its rider groups. At all levels we are seeing more attractive fences, larger materials, softer profiles. The trouble starts when riders don't respect enough these fences that encourage forward flowing riding."

I find the first sentence a bit distressing--it is if the job is one of "Fence Designer" instead of "Course Designer." The earlier fences relate to the next ones. The last XC course experience will relate to this experience. I think the concept that because most of the issues have happened at galloping fences therefore we needn't question any other kind of fence is obtuse. The more technical the questions have become the further apart the skill set of jumping a galloping fence compared to that of jumping a technical fence. For example, we've discussed the Wofford gymnastics here that is a set of tight distances then a set of long distances. The exercise is going from one set to the other then back to the first, and how the compression (or extension) at one set makes the question on the opposite set so much more difficult. They are all related distances even if they are a 1/4 mile apart!

I think he is absolutely right on the last sentence. We are not teaching our horses and riders to ride *forward.* And "forward" is the most important element of everything we do. Even in Darren's instance as much as I don't want to speculate, CMP's own description was of a horse who missed a distance and lost the "forward" before the jumping effort. But what I wonder is if Darren didn't miss the distance and lose the forward, but instead he lost the forward and because of it missed the distance.

I think most people understand the great challenge in galloping as fast as you can and pulling up for a technical question. But I think what is missing is the understanding that after one pulls up, one then must get the horse forward again to negotiate the obstacle. Easier said than done, especially when the fences are being designed to back the horses off--or when a horse was recently punished when they were forward.

What I fear is that the technical fences and the nature of today's courses are teaching/encouraging our horses and riders to not go forward or to fear going forward, if we are not forward that's the recipe for disaster.

Bensmom

Mar. 28, 2008, 10:46 AM

Silly, Ted. He seems to get along fine with Hugh, who is about to stomp on him big time. Like, downstaged and then some.

Bensmom, Karen and Max joked about Max taking Woody Training level when the PCers where there yesterday. It occurred to me that I'd LIKE to see that--and I hope Woody would enjoy the fun of it without the strain, too. That's what I'd like to see in Ted's future, too, eventually.

Interesting OT, in fact. Since Woody represents what good horsemanship can indeed produce in this sport: a horse who can throttle back from being at the highest level for many years--and still be healthy enough to enjoy the sport in other ways. Like golf's senior tour, I think Woodies are the goal all ULRs should strive for

Yep, I understand that Woody is the only horse that Ted isn't buds with. :lol: Poor Woody, he probably didn't ever think that anything smaller and cuter would come along and compete at that level!

On a more serious note, but still OT -- I agree with you completely. I know they were probably joking about it, but I think that would be awesome to see Max take him Training! :yes:

And, I also think that a horse that has competed and stayed sound at the upper levels as Woody has, especially after the injury he had, is something to strive for! :yes:

Libby

jhodkin

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:01 PM

I've not managed to catch up on all the posts on this thread so apologies if this has been discussed - Optimum Time and people chasing it irresponsibly.

The Optimum time is merely a number which is reached by multiplying the length of the course (as wheeled on the riding line) by the required speed for the class (as per the rules). It does not take into consideration the geography, the date in the calendar, or any other factors. It's not the Optimum time for THAT particular track, it's just the time it should take given the 2 limited parameters used to calculate it - speed and distance.

This naturally means that courses that are built on flatter land, or have less twisty tracks are easier to achieve the optimum time on. In the UK we all know the tracks that are difficult to get the time on - like Gatcombe and Burghley, which are hilly and tiring and are notorious for having very few if any riders achieving the time. This is a KNOWN aspect of the sport. The optimum time for every single track will have a different level of achievability based on the natural topology regardless of other 'man-made' characteristis such as twisty-ness or technicality.

I'm struggling therefore to understand the call for times to tailored to the individual track or 'type' of competitor. Surely it's the resposibility of the rider to assess how quickly they can safely ride after reviewing the course with all it's aspects considered? If that speed is enough to achieve the optimum time, all well and good. If not, then should have the intelligence to accept that they will incur some time penalties. The skill required to go cross country safely is an INTEGRAL part of the sport. It's part of the test. By going faster than they can safely ride, riders are merely demonstrating that they do not have that skill or judgement. If a time is difficult to get, it SHOULD seperate the great from the good and the good from the average, that's the test...

In these instances my view is that the Ground Jury should be able to yellow flag riders to warn them to slow down. If they receive a yellow flag warning, they should be required to see a Ground Jury member (or other appropriate person) after they have completed their round, in order to be spoken to about the issue with the speed they were doing. These warnings should go on the riders record and if they receive 2 warnings in a single season they should be suspended for a month. If they receive 3 warnings they should be suspended for the rest of the season (and if the offence happens in the last 3 months of a season, they should be suspended for the first 3 months of the next season). We also need to explore what opportunities there are for some edicuational programmes on cross country safety. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to gain enough sponsorship from equestrian firms to make a short video or organise some training workshops, explaining the dangers of riding faster than your skill level and how to judge a cross country round sensibly. We don't want to frighten people - just educate them.

This may seem harsh, but I'd rather see a sulky child/adult than a dead one.

Riding dangerously needs to hurt these people by depriving them of participating in their sport until they learn how to ride safely, before riding dangerously deprives them of their health. I've watched some VERY scary riding.

...and let's not also forget, that the irresponsibility of a few is now impacting the many - the negative publicity generated by their acts, impacts our sport and could ultimately reduce sponsorship, eventing membership, and potentially Olympic status. Let's hope that parents and coaches heed the words of the likes of Leslie and take some responsibility for educating and disciplining their dependents, so that dangerous speeds cross country are seen rarely, not regularly as is currently the case.

(Please, please do not take this as specific criticism of any particular person who has had a fall, especially Darren, as many of them had nothing to do with riding too quickly)

eqsiu

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:08 PM

This naturally means that courses that are built on flatter land, or have less twisty tracks are easier to achieve the optimum time on. In the UK we all know the tracks that are difficult to get the time on - like Gatcombe and Burghley, which are hilly and tiring and are notorious for having very few if any riders achieving the time. This is a KNOWN aspect of the sport. The optimum time for every single track will have a different level of achievability based on the natural topology regardless of other 'man-made' characteristis such as twisty-ness or technicality.

The idea is that the speed set should be adjusted for the track, and not be just a random parameter. If the course is hilly and it is unsafe to go 570 mpm, then the s course speed should be 520 mpm and the optimum time would reflect the change. If the course is flat and fast then the speed will be set higher and the optimum time will be shorter.

To me using the phrase "optimum time" means that is the time/speed you should aim for on the course. If the course is such that the time is unattainable, then it is not very "optimum," now is it?

Mary in Area 1

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:12 PM

The problem with the current calculation of Optimum Time is that speed becomes a HUGE factor at certain events. If the land is flat and the time is easy to make, people will not push so fast and the 3 phases are equally counted. If the land is hilly and the time is tough to make (like GMHA) then the crazy people who go for the time risk life and limb (and scare us to death) and are REWARDED for it. If most people are getting 10-20 time penalities, and someone else makes the time, then they can easily wipe out a pretty darn bad dressage score and win the event!

Now, these days, around here it is usually a couple of scary YR's, who do this. But still, if the OT is that unhelpful, then it really can change the scoring of an event.

grayarabpony

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:17 PM

lstevenson

Mar. 28, 2008, 12:42 PM

If the land is hilly and the time is tough to make (like GMHA) then the crazy people who go for the time risk life and limb (and scare us to death) and are REWARDED for it. If most people are getting 10-20 time penalities, and someone else makes the time, then they can easily wipe out a pretty darn bad dressage score and win the event!

Now, these days, around here it is usually a couple of scary YR's, who do this. But still, if the OT is that unhelpful, then it really can change the scoring of an event.

Yes, exactly. Riders should NOT be rewarded for riding recklessly in either x-c or stadium just because the time is hard to make.

hey101

Mar. 28, 2008, 01:52 PM

I think everyone here believes in rider responsibility. But still, our sport has to be designed so that careless riders are eliminated or go to the bottom of the pack, not that they pay with their lives. And the fact is that from what I recall, around half of the accidents over the last decade have been with experienced riders well within their ability. That must mean something is wrong. In any case, even if all the deaths were caused by irresponsible yahoos, every one of us still pays a small price for each one, because it reflects on the sport as a whole.

WRT the rider responsibility issue, I think Poltroon has the best post I"ve read on this topic! Thank you for summing up my own thoughts on rider responsibility much better than I could have!

I agree with much of what has been posted here. BD continues to show why he is a true role-model and ambassador for the sport (he and mark Todd are THE icons of Eventing, IMO).

I wanted to add that I do not believe CMP or for that matter any one individual or organization is the reason Eventing as a sport in the US has arrived at its present cross-roads. To a large extent, we are ALL accountable- because up to now, we as a community (ULR, LLR, officials, TD's, CD's, parents, owners, etc) have either not spoken up loudly enough or with enough unity. If the collective "we" have spoken up in the past- at an event over a fence, in a meeting or national convention, etc- and got shot down, "we" went away. NOT THIS TIME.

Maybe it as as Snoopy says and we as a community did not really realize the cumulative changes that have been occurring over the past 5 years.

But now we realize where we have ended up, and it's time for a strong leader to head the sea-change- I hope that Kevin continues to be that strong leader, especially if 90% of the membership is behind him. If CMP can't see that change needs to happen, and even more so that change CAN occur even while keeping true to the challenging and comprehensive nature of the sport that it was meant to be, he needs to go- and go NOW. He reminds me of W who took a 50/50 election and proceeded to lead this country like he'd won by a landslide- and has now alienated most of his own party to boot- but has his fingers in his ears and eyes closed shut and repeats to himself "No I'm right and every single one of you who disagrees with me is all wrong!"

Heather Young, USEA # 71853.

jhodkin

Mar. 28, 2008, 04:33 PM

The idea is that the speed set should be adjusted for the track, and not be just a random parameter. If the course is hilly and it is unsafe to go 570 mpm, then the s course speed should be 520 mpm and the optimum time would reflect the change. If the course is flat and fast then the speed will be set higher and the optimum time will be shorter.

To me using the phrase "optimum time" means that is the time/speed you should aim for on the course. If the course is such that the time is unattainable, then it is not very "optimum," now is it?

A couple more points to back up what I was trying to say in my original post:

1. Let's not get pedantic about the term 'Optimum'. It could just as easily be called 'Guide' or 'Target'. Optimum merely indicates that the time should not ideally be exceeded or that the course should be completed in a significantly shorter amount of time. It doesn't imply that time penalties are unacceptable.
2. An optimum time that is difficult to get is not the same as impossible to get. I can't think of any courses I've been to recently where no-one got the time or very close to it. An event where no-one gets the time is extremely rare.
3. Having an optimum time that is difficult to get is not a crime. It's actually an integral part of the test that is Horse Trials. If everyone can get the time, that element of skill has been negated.
4. The riders who do get the time are not the ones who look like they're going the fastest. Take Mark Todd for example. He NEVER looks hurried, but low and behold he is always one of the fastest. Getting the time is not about going flat out, it's about getting your horse into a balanced gallop and not having to hook at it before fences, then kick the hell out of it after you land. It's about being a skilled rider and having your horse well trained and obedient enough that you can see a stride 15 out from the fence not 3 out and have to do last minute checking, take the direct options, can jump fences safely on an angle or take tight lines that save precious seconds. The great riders get the time or close to because they did ride the track the OPTIMUM way. Others didn't ride the track the optimum way, which is why they didn't achieve the optimum time.

By changing the optimum time to something that always ensures a large percentage of the field get the time without having to have demonstrated any of the skills I have eluded to in point 4 above, is just IMHO, a dumming down of the sport.

I hark back to my original post where I said that they key to the problem is education of riders to help them understand the risks of going cross country and therefore how to do in the safest possible way. I don't believe the answer is to lower the challenge to the lowest common denominator.

I am quite happy for certain courses to have times that are tougher to get than others. If you find getting the time difficult to get at certain tracks and can't handle not coming home with a ribbon, don't go to that event. If winning is all that matters go find a soft track that suits the standard of your riding. I have to add though, that the tracks where the time is difficult to get, are often the ones that have the most to teach both horse and rider, and therefore should perhaps be viewed as much as an educational outing as a competitive one. At the end of the day the time is the same for everyone and as I have already said the quick times are not generally achieved by those going hell for leather, but by the skilled, experienced riders. Therefore I would again suggest a warning system of flags, backed up with a penalty/suspension as a punitive measure, coupled with an educational and awareness programme for riders who don't know their limits.

There should be no unaccompanied minors at these events, so let's be adult about this and take responsibility for ourselves and the way we or our riders/children/pupils choose to tackle a course.

From a personal perspective if one of my riders rode one of my horses round a cross country course like a scalded cat, I'd be having very serious words with them.

subk

Mar. 28, 2008, 05:10 PM

I understand jhodkin's point. But here's my question: If the Optimum has no reflection of a particular course other than a mathematical process that is applied, what has been the point of years worth of tinkering with the weighting of the importance to the total score of the differnt elements? The difference now from one track to another is so extreme just from a points perspective because of time that we now have defined the "difficult" events solely based on terrain. Terrain is a feature no one has much control over--it is what it is, yet we're happy to have that define our sport?

I'm not sure what to think of the winner of the most difficult tests, in many cases, coming down to how fast they can run XC. And if the OT is "not obtainable" or realistic that's what's we've done. Once upon a time there was a relationship between the speed of the level and the appropriateness of that speed for the jumps but that is no more. Today, you must go as fast as you safely can and hope for the best. I think the speed you gallop should require more intellect than nerve.

From another perspective I think we might be foolish to continue to base the OT on an average speed that has been directly translated from a different type of physical effort. In human training there is a significant difference in the energy/caloric output in a workout that is at a steady heart rate compared to a workout that pushes the heart rate very high then has a working recovery, repeatedly. Both workouts can have the EXACT same AVERAGE heart rate over the same period of time, yet the one that has more variation can be a much more extreme workout. We're holding on to this old average speed as optimum like it is some sort of talisman instead of intellectually examining it.

RunForIt

Mar. 28, 2008, 06:31 PM

I think the speed you gallop should require more intellect than nerve.

I expect that for a long time, it did. Format changed, courses changed, and suddenly, riding "smart" was factoring in new data that didn't match anything in the "smart" system of thinking, riding cross country..."speed kills" is a mantra in more sports than eventing, but most often true in all.

KBG Eventer

Mar. 28, 2008, 10:19 PM

Okay, I can't resist. All ya'll are having a great conversation, but I had to confirm the thinking on here by something my mom said after reading the article (she is a total non rider but loves like learning about this sport and everything so is not clueless, can help tack up the horse, identify movements, recognizes BNT's names etc). We were talking about this over dinner, and my mom said "You know, I don't know the guy, but he seems to covering his hide a little bit. He sounds cold." Then she went on to say that she thought that part of the problem with all this was that CMP doesn't ride anymore. She liked Bruce Davidson's part, and she thought it was interesting how he (and Leslie) ride CMP's courses and have a totally different view.

BarbB

Mar. 28, 2008, 10:52 PM

--or when a horse was recently punished when they were forward.

I believe this is the crux of the matter.

How many times can you punish a bold, honest horse for trying to do his job before he shuts down mentally?
And then what happens when this shut down, mentally backed off horse becomes physically tired......and the finish line is still several tricky combinations away?

This is why trying to figure out which fences are causing problems is fruitless. We seem to have forgotten that it is A COURSE.
Everything is related. This is what the old course designers knew.
Flowing fences to get started and get the horse thinking forward, difficult cominations, galloping fences, galloping stretches with no fences, rider frighteners that were easy for the horses, a few technical, difficult for everyone combinations. It all flowed, up and down, put the pressure on then back off, more pressure, back off again.
Not just a series of weird jumps scattered across the landscape that are designed to confuse the horse.

Gnep

Mar. 28, 2008, 11:16 PM

Rereading CMP, I feel that something got lost on the way.

We used to have a trust and responsebility system.

Trust, that when we enter a event, 6 weeks in advanced, That we would not have to worry about what we get.
Responsebility of the officials hired by the organizer, groundjury, TD, designer and builders, that they would provide us with the courses and jumps that would not endanger us or our horses, or raise the Level so high that it would be unachievebal.
Responsebility of the organizer to hire good officials.
The Designer and the builders have a huge responsebility, Designer has to lay out a course that is with in the achievebal limits of the level and they should never design traps, a Builder should than built jumps that are save, built with the greatest attention to detail and quality.
The officials are the check and balance and should go with the tooth brush through those courses and have the guts to demand changes.

Our part, the trust part, 6 weeks ahead and than especialy in the West hundred of miles on the road.
We got a responsebility, when we enter to enter with the skills according to level, a show is no place to school, once we have walked the course, to judge if it is realy within our skills and if we do not like things we have to raise our voice. If it does not change things we can leave, no body puts a gun to your head to go in the startbox.
Once we are in the Box, we have taken the ultimate responsebility for our horse and for our selfs, by the way thats what organizers and officials expect of us, that is the trust they put into us, it needs two to tango.

The trust and responsebility goes both directions, we trust that we get what we payed for and the organizers trust us to be responsible.

But if one person in that system fails than the whole system fails.
A rider riding like an idiot, making time by all means, or not up to the level, or not pulling out if he/she thinks its not right, abuses the system of trust and reponsebility.
If a course designer knows that his design makes time impossible, than he has breached that network of trust and responsebility and that is what the statement of CMP stands for.

But never the less it does not releave us, riders, coaches trainers and horse owners of our responsebility, we always can say no. We are the final decision.

But I got a feeling that the system of trust and responsebility is failing and coments like CMPs are just confirming it and don't get me wrong we are guilty, too.
Its time that we are geting resposible again.

denny

Mar. 29, 2008, 08:12 AM

Hannahsmom

Mar. 29, 2008, 08:21 AM

But if one person in that system fails than the whole system fails. <snip> Its time that we are geting resposible again.

Excellent post Gnep.

Ann

RAyers

Mar. 29, 2008, 10:47 AM

We used to have a trust and responsebility system.

Trust, that when we enter a event, 6 weeks in advanced, That we would not have to worry about what we get.
Responsebility of the officials hired by the organizer, groundjury, TD, designer and builders, that they would provide us with the courses and jumps that would not endanger us or our horses, or raise the Level so high that it would be unachievebal.
Responsebility of the organizer to hire good officials.
The Designer and the builders have a huge responsebility, Designer has to lay out a course that is with in the achievebal limits of the level and they should never design traps, a Builder should than built jumps that are save, built with the greatest attention to detail and quality.
The officials are the check and balance and should go with the tooth brush through those courses and have the guts to demand changes...

Once we are in the Box, we have taken the ultimate responsebility for our horse and for our selfs, by the way thats what organizers and officials expect of us, that is the trust they put into us, it needs two to tango.

The trust and responsebility goes both directions, we trust that we get what we payed for and the organizers trust us to be responsible.

But if one person in that system fails than the whole system fails.
A rider riding like an idiot, making time by all means, or not up to the level, or not pulling out if he/she thinks its not right, abuses the system of trust and reponsebility.
If a course designer knows that his design makes time impossible, than he has breached that network of trust and responsebility and that is what the statement of CMP stands for.

But never the less it does not releave us, riders, coaches trainers and horse owners of our responsebility, we always can say no. We are the final decision...

Hear! Hear! Exactly!!! I think many riders have lost all trust in officials as well as the governing bodies.

Reed

poopoo

Mar. 29, 2008, 11:17 AM

Just an aside, but I KNEW I wasn't the only one who thought those carved toadstools and frog "jumps" were ridiculous and don't belong on cross-country!!! Horses don't want to be jumping carved renditions of little creatures and neither do I... Keep that stuff in the circus!
Is it even possible to be more arrogant and pompous than CMP????
The way things have become, upper level riders really do need to carry more insurance....

arnika

Mar. 29, 2008, 11:29 AM

You know, I used to take my husband (non-horsey) to the HITS circuit and American Invitational. He watched the showjumping over the years and finally one day he asked me, "Why don't the course designers do something different? Like movable jumps? The courses are basically the same all the time. Verticals, oxers, water jumps, don't they think spectators would like to see something different?"

I believe he was thinking of the James Bond movie where the villain has a steeplechase course with fences that raise and lower mechanically. I explained to him that riders are constantly having to start over with new horses every few years and the new horses haven't seen these jumps before and need to be trained to go over them.

It would be like have a brand new racetrack for NASCAR for the Daytona 500 that has different terrain, curves, allowable speeds and, just for the heck of it, on and off ramps that are movable during the race that you have to follow. Oh, and the pit crew would never have the same area to work in twice during the race, they would have to follow popup signs.:winkgrin:

I find it sad that certain course designers don't understand the concept any better than my nonrider husband.

Eventer4life28

Mar. 30, 2008, 08:25 AM

CMP - He needs to go.

Agreed!

gully's pilot

Mar. 30, 2008, 01:48 PM

Wow. I've thought our sport has had trouble since we started messing with the short format. I know I'll never event above Prelim--but my daughter and a few of my friends might, or do. I don't personally know Darren at all--never spoke a word to him--but when the first rumors of his death (fortunately greatly exaggerated!) reached us at a pony club quiz rally on the day of Red Hills, I felt gut-punched. A few of my friends were competing there too.

Years ago I worked for HorsePlay magazine and was privledged to interview Bruce several times. I loved his willingness to speak his mind, his incredible and individual love for his horses, and his concern for the sport as a whole. Sometimes he would digress a bit in interviews just to teach me something about eventing--he was one of a very few BNRs whom I interviewed who ever did. He treated his interview as though it was an honor and an obligation, not an annoyance--again, a rare occurance! I absolutely have always believed him trustworthy. I love what he had to say here.

Contrast that to CMP's issue-dodging. Yikes.

Bensmom, I'm sorry; I know you and other Red Hills people tried hard to make a safe, fun, and appropriate event, and I don't think this is all Red Hills' fault. I loved the suggestion made elsewhere on this board that we should all plan to attend Red Hills next year. I do think that it may have been the straw that finally snapped for us all--Kevin Baumgartner's letter gave me great hope.

But here is what I see as the worst problem: CMP was both the course designer at an Olympic team selection event, and also the person who would choose the team. If you were an advanced rider with Olympic hopes, would you complain to CMP, knowing what his attitude was likely to be?

Kim Bradley USEA 81117

flyingchange

Mar. 30, 2008, 07:15 PM

I agree that there was/is a conflict of interest with the CD also being the team coach. However, I also feel that at this (CIC ***) level, or any level for that matter, we as riders have to walk the course and decide for ourselves whether we and our horses are up for the challenge presented by the course. And if we see problems that concern us, it is our duty to go to the TD and discuss. If they are unwilling to make any modifications, and if without said modifications we feel that the course is unfair and possibly dangerous to us and our horses, then we are obligated to WD, for our horses, ourselves, our families, and our sport. Even if a place on the holiest of holies (the team), is at stake. I personally feel that fully placing the blame on the conflict of interest issue is a copout. There is too much at stake at the ULs to allow anything but the welfare of the horse to dictate these kinds of decisions, which are life/death and therefore quite a bit more important than any participation in the Olympics.

gully's pilot

Mar. 30, 2008, 08:32 PM

Flying Change, in theory I agree with you 100%. And I'm a low-level adult ammy, so I'll never be in this position. But in practice: let's say I'm a good rider without huge personal financial means. I work my a$$ off and finally attract some attention from an owner who has a four-star horse and is willing to let me ride it. I'm trying very hard to make a living at the sport, which is very hard to do, and I'm well aware that if I make an Olympic team my status will go WAY up--I'll be in higher demand as a rider, trainer, clinician, everything. Many more doors will open for me. In addition, my horse's owner is not a rider, but simply a rich person who loves, loves, loves the idea of owning an Olympic horse. Owning a good horse is nice, but owning an Olympic horse is something all said owners' wealthy non-horse-owning friends will understand.

I walk the course and I'm not comfortable with some of the questions. Even though the horse doesn't have any specific issues I can point to as a reason for my ill feelings, even though I desperately want to do well for many reasons, I'm not sure it's right. I begin to express my hesitation to the owner, who is horrified--am I chickening out? Because the owner can get someone else to ride the horse--right this minute if necessary. The owner means it.

If I fall out with this owner I'll start over--it could take me years to get another top horse. It might not happen again.

So what do I do? I shut up and ride.

Don't think it doesn't happen.

Gry2Yng

Mar. 30, 2008, 08:56 PM

RunForIt

Mar. 30, 2008, 09:06 PM

When you are doing this to put food on the table the decision to walk away is a lot tougher than when it is your recreation

and add to that this is a goal that requires a GUT-LOAD of emotional and mental energy to keep the focus, UNLESS...

you really mean the horse's welfare comes first...then you walk away, put your horse on the trailer, cuss all the way home because you've worked your A&$ off and ...you put the horse in its stall, pet him, and live to ride another day, in a better way.

clpony

Mar. 30, 2008, 10:05 PM

runforit, gry2yng, gullyspilot, ya'll have really brought a very important and highly debatable issue into play here.

I am thinking in an entirely different light- one which is scaring me a bit about our sport. It has been in my mind since this debate started but I could never get to it...I think i'm aging!!

I am a low level rider and higher level owner who would take safety over winning any day!!

denny

Mar. 31, 2008, 07:41 AM

There`s another possibility nobody`s mentioned.
Say you go to an event. Say there`s a problem fence, maybe two, and several riders have the Rider Rep ask the TD and the Ground Jury for modifications.
Say those officials are unresponsive.
So you pack up and go home.
DON`T LET IT END THERE!
Write or call the USEA, your Area Chair, the President of the USEA and the USEF.
Speak out about unresponsive officials, don`t just take it, especially if you weren`t the lone ranger about the problem.
One main reason people in power have been unresponsive---TDs, XC Designers, Ground Jury members, etc, is because they aren`t usually held to account.
Don`t you think even CMP is a tiny bit more likely to be careful now, after the Red Hills uproar?
And wouldn`t your average TD, whoever, be less likely to blow off safety concerns if he/she knew there was some follow up mechanism?
I`m not saying the officials should be questioned about every little detail. But if some official/xc designer/judge/etc gets repeatedly questioned, then the organizations he/she works for better know it.

gully's pilot

Mar. 31, 2008, 08:20 AM

Denny, good point. Do you think that a paper trail would be useful? Ie, that the rider rep makes a note of having spoken to a TD, and that note gets turned in to the USEA? It would have to be something not very onerous, or the reps might balk at the time it would take, but the USEA would have a record of how many times the TD or designer in question was asked for a change.

I don't know CMP at all; I hope he's more careful. But his letter to all of us didn't sound very much like he thought he was to blame.

PS Denny, on a personal note--you were always one of my favorite people to interview, too. You said what you thought, and always were willing to take time to speak to me, and you spoke in nice intelligent full sentences. (I swear I became an eventer because I was so sick of talking to mealy-mouthed hunter riders) I like your columns, too, and still quote you on occasion: "Eventing is the only sport in which you can finish 33rd in a competition and be unable to sleep that night for sheer transcendant joy." 'Course, as a Smithie I expect nothing less from a Dartmouth man.

gully's pilot

Mar. 31, 2008, 08:23 AM

Oh, another thought about putting the welfare of the horse first--what if the owner just finds another more compliant rider? One you don't feel will take care of the horse the way you do? As a rider, you know you can pull up mid-course if you have to--you might catch holy hell for it, but nobody can prevent you. If you're replaced, the horse you love won't necessarily have that protection.

In a perfect world, every horse would be ridden and owned by people who put its welfare first.

That world isn't here

frugalannie

Mar. 31, 2008, 08:36 AM

Just want to add a bit more about the decision to withdraw if there are perceived problems with a fence or fences on XC.

As a lower level rider (I've taken several different "home made" horses Prelim over the years, but now decidedly max out at Training), I know that when I walk the course, I'm filled with trepidation. I generally don't think I can jump any of the fences: too big, too airy, too scary! But I trust that the CD has done his or her job, and given me an appropriate challenge for my level. And it has always been so: no real problems jumping anything. However, if I went to the TD with my "walkaround" issues, I'd be deemed (appropriately) an idiot. So that is one reason I, and maybe others, wouldn't go to the TD or Rider Reps after walking the course.

As far as the ULR, there may be another force at work. It takes tremendous confidence in one's abillities to become an ULR. They have to believe in themselves and their horses, and further, that they have the ability to overcome any deficit in the horse. Otherwise they wouldn't be ULR, doing this for a living. So, faced with a tricky fence or two, they mentally proceed to figuring out how they will deal with the challenge, rather then thinking it's an inappropriate challenge. And, as I believe Snoopy said, the overall, drip-drip-drip of course devolution has resulted in acclimitization rather than alarm. Just like the frog in the pot of water brought slowly to the boil...

annikak

Mar. 31, 2008, 09:06 AM

I guess I am someone that has had a great rider rep experience. At Champaign Run, there was a really large table at the top of the hollow- you jumped in over a large table, 90 degree turn, up the hill and boom- Big Honkin' table right there. No flat ground stride before, nothing. And I was very worried about it. So, I went to the RR, she has heard about it, looked at it, hated it too, and commented on it. The TD and GJ person had it moved back a bit- not a lot, but enough to not give me heart failure. As a note, the pro's rode it well, as well as the YR. Me, not as good- we got over it, but I learned a good lesson- it was jumpable, I needed to change how I rode it more then that the jump was difficult.

However, I think I may differ here from many here- When I head out on XC, I always leave the gate thinking...I am going for time. Once I hit the 2nd fence, I hit the reality button- how is he galloping, how am I seeing things? How is it actually riding? Yes, I have lost many events due to time, but the horse that won was better then we were and safely able to negotiate the fences (therefore had better rideability) at an overall safer pace. Maybe my 1/2 halts took 2 strides to that persons one? Then, they deserved the blue and I the Red or yellow.

I honestly believe that it does boil down to rider responsibility. We should go only as fast as we can go...safely. We must must must take responsibility for our horses and our lives. I think Flutie said it before? We will just make a bigger idiot if we keep adjusting to the idiot that makes us (need) to do so.

I sound like a broken record here- but it's the tables that are getting people. I saw some comment somewhere- not here I don't think- that a 2" give in a fence would minimize rotational falls. We keep screaming for studies- a lot of the information is there- we just have to listen to it. We know abt the kind of jumps that are issue with rotational falls. Why hasn't someone done something about that??

subk

Mar. 31, 2008, 02:17 PM

I think Flutie said it before? We will just make a bigger idiot if we keep adjusting to the idiot that makes us (need) to do so.
Sometimes I wonder if in the name of course safety we haven't already done this and that's part of the problem. In the last 30 years there have been a lot of changes to how we build fences to make it safer. More slanting faces, tilted table tops allowing for a better visual, more rounded top fences--basically things that make a fence more forgiving if a mistake is made. These things are probably more prevalent at the lower levels than the upper.

The result is that today if you miss a distance or ride poorly the horse is much more likely to scramble through it. The incident in the riders adrenal altered memory is of a bad moment, but one that was basically successful so move on nothing really to see here. The exact same situation at a less forgiving fence of many years ago would have resulted in a bad day with mud on your breeches. Getting mud on your pants generally leads to a thoughtful consideration of the incident that can clearly lead to the conclusion that you and/or your horse has some work to do. Same mistake, but different responses.

So, while it sounds counter intuitive would it make sense to back off a little on the forgiving nature of some types of lower level fences? Would it make riders better prepared when they move up? I worry that our rules put so much emphasis on "clean rounds" that it has allowed the focus to shift from having good solid perfermances.

fooler

Mar. 31, 2008, 02:42 PM

Sometimes I wonder if in the name of course safety we haven't already done this and that's part of the problem. In the last 30 years there have been a lot of changes to how we build fences to make it safer. More slanting faces, tilted table tops allowing for a better visual, more rounded top fences--basically things that make a fence more forgiving if a mistake is made. These things are probably more prevalent at the lower levels than the upper.

The result is that today if you miss a distance or ride poorly the horse is much more likely to scramble through it. The incident in the riders adrenal altered memory is of a bad moment, but one that was basically successful so move on nothing really to see here. The exact same situation at a less forgiving fence of many years ago would have resulted in a bad day with mud on your breeches. Getting mud on your pants generally leads to a thoughtful consideration of the incident that can clearly lead to the conclusion that you and/or your horse has some work to do. Same mistake, but different responses.

So, while it sounds counter intuitive would it make sense to back off a little on the forgiving nature of some types of lower level fences? Would it make riders better prepared when they move up? I worry that our rules put so much emphasis on "clean rounds" that it has allowed the focus to shift from having good solid perfermances.

Subk you are correct - course designers and course builders have attempted to make, especially, the lower level courses more 'user friendly'. Therefore more folks have gotten around and believe they are event riders, when really they aren't.

Agreed, the mud on the pants is what we all need occasionally. Time for a review of fence design.

RAyers

Mar. 31, 2008, 03:38 PM

I don't think being safe and making a challenging course/fences like yesteryear is mutually exclusive.

Reed

fooler

Mar. 31, 2008, 03:54 PM

Will Rogers wrote, "Things ain`t what they used to be, and probably never was."
I started eventing at the preliminary level in 1962, am still doing so in 2008, and I can tell you flat out that we had to jump lots of terrible jumps, like totally vertical 3 rail post and rails, set downhill, out of mud, in some ways more dangerous than now.
Skinny rails and logs, huge drops, lots of pretty hairy stuff.
Sure, not technical, but hairy.
So when we wax nostalgic about Ledyard in the 70s, remember that some of the jumps were great, some not so great.
I think we can have the best of both worlds, the more flowing xc courses of 20 plus years ago, built and designed by the wonderful designers/builders of today.
Mainly, as Kevin said, we need to lead, not follow, the FEI.
And if you don`t know what I think of those little idiots who won`t even acknowledge who they are, hiding what they`ve done to our sport behind a shield of personal invisibility, that`s another topic!
I don`t think I even know what an FEI looks like.

Agreed - things were not all peaches and cream way back yonder. Neither is everything all perfect or for that matter all bad today. It is foolish to long for the old and even more foolish to continue today's path.
Also I don't think our current society is prepared to return to the 'stiff upper lip', "its only a flesh wound" attitude of yesteryear.
What we do need to do is to dispassionately take apart yesterday's and today's courses. Include riders such as Davidson who rode then and rides now for their opinions. We have a chance to pick the best from both eras and create a new.

poltroon

Mar. 31, 2008, 04:08 PM

The result is that today if you miss a distance or ride poorly the horse is much more likely to scramble through it. The incident in the riders adrenal altered memory is of a bad moment, but one that was basically successful so move on nothing really to see here. The exact same situation at a less forgiving fence of many years ago would have resulted in a bad day with mud on your breeches. Getting mud on your pants generally leads to a thoughtful consideration of the incident that can clearly lead to the conclusion that you and/or your horse has some work to do. Same mistake, but different responses.

subk - very good point, eloquently written.

But I admit, my first thought was to consider if there was a way for the jump judges to squirt mud on the riders with sticky moments. :D

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Mar. 31, 2008, 04:13 PM

subk - very good point, eloquently written.

But I admit, my first thought was to consider if there was a way for the jump judges to squirt mud on the riders with sticky moments. :D

heh - maybe gaspometers around the course which release dye packs in varying intensities depending on the volume of the collective gasp?

subk

Mar. 31, 2008, 04:50 PM

I don't think being safe and making a challenging course/fences like yesteryear is mutually exclusive.
I agree! I'm just wondering if it would be wiser to make a jump "hard" at the lower levels by the way of making some of the "saftey features" less pronounced instead of making a "hard" fence through technicality--which is sort of what we've done now.

EventerAJ

Mar. 31, 2008, 06:40 PM

Ok I only have 5 minutes to type a reply so I'm sorry if I leave a few things out!

There are a LOT of good things posted here. Are rider reps really effective? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, for a host of different reasons.

Part of the problem, I think, is that at the upper levels, you do not have much choice in what you do. Much of your plan, schedule, training, etc, is dictated by what events are out there-- you can't afford to be very "selective" in what you enter. You are stuck with whatever courses are within a reasonable distance (10hrs?). You can't say, "I don't like this course designer, I'll compete somewhere else." It gets harder and harder to justify all the expenses, time, and effort to just pack up, go home, if you don't agree with something. You're trying your guts out to qualify for a three-day, and you must have good, solid experiences and qualifying scores. You might feel "forced" to push yourself, and your horse.

pwynnnorman

Mar. 31, 2008, 07:01 PM

But there is "competing" and there is "getting around the course."

I watched not just Karen, but quite a few ULRs this spring just "get around the course." That's what I was thinking when I read gullys pilot's hypothetical story.

In fact, it's something I'm not quite getting from this discussion.

If the course isn't right for the horse, you don't have to compete over it. You can still give it mileage, take long routes, give it a school, pull up after it has no more value, whatever. Riders have choices. Does that owner insist that the rider get the horse around under the time every time? Because of that owner DOES insist on that, the rider should indeed walk away. It's not the owner's neck on the line, after all.

And I have to think that the ULRs think that way, too. If they bow to owner pressure and take a fall, hurting themselves or the horse, that's just as bad as losing the owner anyway--maybe worse if they get hurt badly enough. Granted, I'm NOT saying ULRs never take chances due to whatever is motivating them to do so. However, I suspect that they don't take that many (and stay ULLs, that is--I'd think that type would get his or her comeuppence eventually).

Now, I can understand the younger, less established ULR giving in to such pressure--hoping they can get away with it.

RunForIt

Mar. 31, 2008, 08:25 PM

snoopy

Mar. 31, 2008, 09:00 PM

I do wish that this kind of discussion had happened on the ULR thread today - compared to what Corrine, Bruce, and Lesley stated, then elaborated, today's "chat" seemed like they hadn't read a thing on the USEA site. what do y'all think? I'm not slamming them - great - they came and responded, but do you think that the comments had the quality of the comments made by the riders named above, or, for that matter, Karen O'C in the article about Red Hills? :confused:

I too am glad they took the time to come on and participate BUT
The whole thing had a rather automated feel to it.

Debbie

Mar. 31, 2008, 09:14 PM

Ditto Runforit. If improving rider qualifications and getting good coaching are the only answers, we weren't talking about the same questions. I appreciate their time very much, but those two factors, while legitimate, don't explain a Ralph or Darren situation. :no: It also doesn't address what appears to be an accelerated burn-out rate for upper level horses.

As Reed constantly says, we need the data, but we can't stick our heads in the sand until we get it. We need actions because we are doing too many auctions for the fallen. (I'm not demeaning the fundraising efforts at all and will support them as much as I can, but I sure hope we can make them a rare need rather than a frequent one.)

blackwly

Mar. 31, 2008, 11:55 PM

But there is "competing" and there is "getting around the course."

If the course isn't right for the horse, you don't have to compete over it. You can still give it mileage, take long routes, give it a school, pull up after it has no more value, whatever. Riders have choices. .

I agree with this statement on many levels, but it just isn't always true. Part of the problem at the UL, which I'd really like to see reversed, is the lack of options. Just 5 yrs ago, you would never see a prelim corner without a long (sometimes very long) time consuming option. These days you see them as part C of an ABC combination with no alternatives (I'm thinking of both of the last 2 prelims I just ran.) If you're just trying to "get around" or you've had a bad fence, or you're on a relatively green horse and trying to work on some miles, there need to be ways for you to safely negotiate the course and take the hit in time penalities. Otherwise people just have to pull up, which as we've all said, is hard in the heat of the battle.

The other issue is that slower isn't always safer. When the jumps get big, they are often designed to be taken from a gallop. Some of the more horrifying rounds I have seen involved overly-collected horses with riders pick-pick-picking down to big fences and then expecting that the horse's scope can see them over that 7 foot wide table. "Just getting around" can't just be equated to going slowly- it means picking a solid speed in a good rhythm, taking the time to prepare for each fence, circling if necessary to get the straightness and obedience, picking some easier options where available, etc.

Vuma

Apr. 1, 2008, 01:06 AM

I've not managed to catch up on all the posts on this thread so apologies if this has been discussed - Optimum Time and people chasing it irresponsibly.

The Optimum time is merely a number which is reached by multiplying the length of the course (as wheeled on the riding line) by the required speed for the class (as per the rules). It does not take into consideration the geography, the date in the calendar, or any other factors. It's not the Optimum time for THAT particular track, it's just the time it should take given the 2 limited parameters used to calculate it - speed and distance.

This naturally means that courses that are built on flatter land, or have less twisty tracks are easier to achieve the optimum time on. In the UK we all know the tracks that are difficult to get the time on - like Gatcombe and Burghley, which are hilly and tiring and are notorious for having very few if any riders achieving the time. This is a KNOWN aspect of the sport. The optimum time for every single track will have a different level of achievability based on the natural topology regardless of other 'man-made' characteristis such as twisty-ness or technicality.

I'm struggling therefore to understand the call for times to tailored to the individual track or 'type' of competitor. Surely it's the resposibility of the rider to assess how quickly they can safely ride after reviewing the course with all it's aspects considered? If that speed is enough to achieve the optimum time, all well and good. If not, then should have the intelligence to accept that they will incur some time penalties. The skill required to go cross country safely is an INTEGRAL part of the sport. It's part of the test. By going faster than they can safely ride, riders are merely demonstrating that they do not have that skill or judgement. If a time is difficult to get, it SHOULD seperate the great from the good and the good from the average, that's the test...
In these instances my view is that the Ground Jury should be able to yellow flag riders to warn them to slow down. If they receive a yellow flag warning, they should be required to see a Ground Jury member (or other appropriate person) after they have completed their round, in order to be spoken to about the issue with the speed they were doing. These warnings should go on the riders record and if they receive 2 warnings in a single season they should be suspended for a month. If they receive 3 warnings they should be suspended for the rest of the season (and if the offence happens in the last 3 months of a season, they should be suspended for the first 3 months of the next season). We also need to explore what opportunities there are for some edicuational programmes on cross country safety. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to gain enough sponsorship from equestrian firms to make a short video or organise some training workshops, explaining the dangers of riding faster than your skill level and how to judge a cross country round sensibly. We don't want to frighten people - just educate them.

This may seem harsh, but I'd rather see a sulky child/adult than a dead one.

Riding dangerously needs to hurt these people by depriving them of participating in their sport until they learn how to ride safely, before riding dangerously deprives them of their health. I've watched some VERY scary riding.

...and let's not also forget, that the irresponsibility of a few is now impacting the many - the negative publicity generated by their acts, impacts our sport and could ultimately reduce sponsorship, eventing membership, and potentially Olympic status. Let's hope that parents and coaches heed the words of the likes of Leslie and take some responsibility for educating and disciplining their dependents, so that dangerous speeds cross country are seen rarely, not regularly as is currently the case.

(Please, please do not take this as specific criticism of any particular person who has had a fall, especially Darren, as many of them had nothing to do with riding too quickly)

I couldn't agree with you more.

I also agree with Wynn and Kim Severson re: the "cutesy" fences not being the problem here. From the horses' perspective the "boogy" fences are still the ditches, banks and water and these are generally constructed to be natural obstacles. (You even find horses advertised as being compitent over these three types of fences.)

Dangerous riding "should" be reprimanded more than it is. The last fall I witnessed in Feb. was from a rider who's "dangerous" riding began 6 fences before she hit slammed into solid logs on the last fence of the course. It was obvious what was going to happen....like watching a train slowly derail....yet no one halted the rider.

There is a fine line between a fall and a fatality! Some just get seriouly lucky.

gully's pilot

Apr. 1, 2008, 07:44 AM

Wynn, I totally completely agree that many professionals "get around" rather than "compete" in certain situations. My problem with Red Hills is that it was designed to force everyone to compete: it was an Olympic selection trials where the course designer was also the team selector. And while the truly big names--all those eventers we can identify by first name alone--may still decide they've done enough in their careers not to throw everything on the line in that sort of situtation, a lot of aspiring ULRs may decide they can't afford to back off.

I'm not in any of my posts referring to any specific riders or situations. I don't have that kind of knowledge.

I firmly believe that no one involved with selecting a team should have a hand in creating the courses for the selection trials. Choosing which events become selection trials, sure. But not creating the courses.

flutie1

Apr. 1, 2008, 11:41 AM

"In so far as no one speaking up, what ever their reason, could it just be that these courses have been getting more and more unfair...in such a way that over time one begins to become complacant...meaning it is like watching hair grow...you do not see it but one day you wake up and realize that you are in desperate need for a haircut."

If you lift an elephant every day, you don't realize how big it's gotten!

snoopy

Apr. 1, 2008, 12:00 PM

pwynnnorman

Apr. 1, 2008, 02:14 PM

colliemom

Apr. 1, 2008, 03:18 PM

I do wish that this kind of discussion had happened on the ULR thread today - compared to what Corrine, Bruce, and Lesley stated, then elaborated, today's "chat" seemed like they hadn't read a thing on the USEA site. what do y'all think? I'm not slamming them - great - they came and responded, but do you think that the comments had the quality of the comments made by the riders named above, or, for that matter, Karen O'C in the article about Red Hills? :confused:

I agree.... it sounded like they had all drunk the Kool-Aid :(

I am really hoping this "discussion" moves beyond the relatively easy issues of rider qualification and proper training. This is NOT just about ill-prepared lower levels competitors. They are not the ones making headlines.

arnika

Apr. 1, 2008, 03:34 PM

by blackwly
I agree with this statement on many levels, but it just isn't always true. Part of the problem at the UL, which I'd really like to see reversed, is the lack of options. Just 5 yrs ago, you would never see a prelim corner without a long (sometimes very long) time consuming option. These days you see them as part C of an ABC combination with no alternatives (I'm thinking of both of the last 2 prelims I just ran.) If you're just trying to "get around" or you've had a bad fence, or you're on a relatively green horse and trying to work on some miles, there need to be ways for you to safely negotiate the course and take the hit in time penalities.

I've commented on this before but I believe it bears repeating. WHY is it that options are rarely being built into these technical, trappy courses? Is it due to expense? Do CDs just think they are no longer necessary with the short format? Are they just not thinking at all? I realize not all the scary falls occur at these but perhaps it has a bearing on the horse's concentration or mental/physical fatigue and their ability to continue to focus on the rest of the course.

You almost never see options given anymore, at least down here where all the courses are new.

EventerAJ

Apr. 1, 2008, 07:34 PM

I've commented on this before but I believe it bears repeating. WHY is it that options are rarely being built into these technical, trappy courses? Is it due to expense? Do CDs just think they are no longer necessary with the short format? Are they just not thinking at all? I realize not all the scary falls occur at these but perhaps it has a bearing on the horse's concentration or mental/physical fatigue and their ability to continue to focus on the rest of the course.

You almost never see options given anymore, at least down here where all the courses are new.

That is a very good point, worth repeating again. Where are the options? If you're lucky, a good course designer (JW) will at least prepare a "whoops" alternative; as in, you missed a skinny one stride from a drop and there is NO possible way to negotiate said skinny without re-taking the entire complex. But, these are not "planned" alternate routes...it's merely a safety-net to let you take your 20 faults and continue on course. But some places, even these back-up options are not presented.

Better still, would be a bona fide "Route #2" option (in some cases). It seems some CDs just feel that options are a cop-out and "anybody capable of going X level should be able to do ABCD. Period." (I'm thinking of Radnor '06, but others come to mind as well). By NO means do I want a maze of black-flags all over the place, so that you essentially can qualify for a 3-day without jumping necessary elements (like corners, or tough stuff). But say you just lost a little confidence early on, or your horse feels a little tired, or the weather (footing, humidity, whatever) is causing problems... it would be nice to have an alternate option available to let you revv back up and finish strongly. (And afterwards, you go home and try to improve whatever caused you to take the long way)

I do NOT avoid the rider responsibility issue. It should ALWAYS be our FIRST priority to ensure the safety of ourselves, and our horses. I have retired on course when things weren't going well; I know when to pack up and go home. But should it be necessary to just quit, if an alternate can help you finish, safely? It's still the rider's responsibility to decide short vs. long route, but that's probably an easier decision than "do it or go home."

TB or not TB?

Apr. 1, 2008, 07:37 PM

I too am glad they took the time to come on and participate BUT
The whole thing had a rather automated feel to it.

And they didn't have time to tell me what the best show name for my Slaughter Nag was :cry:

I am still really thrilled that they came, because the more discussion, the better!!!!!

JER

Apr. 1, 2008, 08:23 PM

You almost never see options given anymore, at least down here where all the courses are new.

Options require (1) land and (2) money. Neither of which is plentiful these days.

bornfreenowexpensive

Apr. 1, 2008, 08:36 PM

Good points, gully's pilot and blackwly. I for one will be keeping that in mind as we watch what changes take place. I don't see any reason whatsoever why 1.) more options can't be built into courses, regardless of their intended use or level of difficulty and ?

I don't disagree with you and I'm not seeing those options even on courses that once had them and have the land and money to put them in. Often, an option can easliy be created just by flagging an option as consecutive numbers instead of abcd. I believe one person explained it to me in terms of safety for qualifiers. It was at one point that everyone took the options to get "qualifying" scores. And then when those riders showed up at the CCI or moved up the next level...they had problems.

I understand that argument...but not sure I buy it. It again speaks to lack of rider responsibility. I also think you could easily build in a scoring feature so that if a rider took the options...it wouldn't be a clean score for qualifying purposes if that truly was an issue.

I would like to see courses have a nice balance...and I would like to understand why the questions have to change every year...is there some reason why people think that xc needs to be made harder? I don't seem to remember the vast majority of horses and rides crusing around all the courses with ease every year (and xc not being a significant deciding factor in most major competitions) that would warrant a call to "up" the difficulty on xc. Maybe I'm blind.