Started Out As Gina Miles @ Rolex, but now . . . .

[SmallHerd]

Does anyone know why she isn't competing this year?

[mjrtango93]

I believe Mac fractured something at Hong Kong, it was in one of the press releases. He will be fine but just taking it easy is what I read. I think it was even in COTH.

[GreyDun]

Pretty sure he had a bone chip removed from his hind ankle - last I heard surgery went well a few months ago and he's slowly being started back... I think they're looking ahead to WEG next year :)

[wanderlust]

Huh, I thought she was going to retire him after Hong Kong. Must have misread/misheard.

[mjrtango93]

Huh, I thought she was going to retire him after Hong Kong. Must have misread/misheard.

He's only turning 15 this year, so I would think she would try WEG next year and assess where he is at when the London Olympics roll around. Short format horses are lasting longer nowadays with careful campaigning, and he had an easy couple years when they did the wind surgery and she broke her leg and had her daughter.

[Eventfan4LIFE]

Unfortunately when they went to take the chip out they discovered quite a bit of cartilage damage...and he barely passed the final jog in Beijing (granted he has always had a funny way of going behind anyway). I know the owners said they never wanted to see him held again. Fingers crossed he makes it back.

[LAZ]

Short format horses are lasting longer nowadays with careful campaigning, and he had an easy couple years when they did the wind surgery and

Sorry, I don't buy that--can you cite your sources?

[SevenDogs]

Sorry, I don't buy that--can you cite your sources?

Um...yeah... me either!

Although most of it is friendly, I find this whole thread a bit loose in its fact based, first hand knowledge.

I'm sure EVERY owner, not to mention rider, groom, parent, or interested party would say "I never want to see my horse held for reinspection". It's kind of a given that NO ONE wants to see their horse held in a trot up situation.

[Thames Pirate]

The owners' granddaughter rides with me. She said they want to retire him. While she is not always 100% in the loop, I'd say she does have some inside knowledge. Based on what I've heard it sounds like Tom wants to retire him but Laura isn't sold yet, but I could have that wrong. My friend (the granddaughter) is pretty sure that he will not be doing another 3-day, but as far as I know that could change.

[purplnurpl]

I bet they are in the, "lets bring him back slowly and then see where we are", boat. That's a good boat to be in. : )

[LAZ]

Sorry-to clarify my query was to the short format leading to longer competition careers for the horses than the long format, not Gina or Mac.

[mjrtango93]

Sorry-to clarify my query was to the short format leading to longer competition careers for the horses than the long format, not Gina or Mac.

With the style of horse that the sport has gone to, i.e. the bigger heavier warmbloods and warmblood crosses, and getting away from the lighter TB's and Irish crosses, the short format is suiting them better. Mac is no small horse, and not sure he'd have held up had it not changed to short format. That being said I ride one of those little almost all TB guys and would love for long format to come back, it would suit him better. I'm just saying 15 is not that old to keep going, if they want to retire him thats great that they are thinking about Mac's best interest, but its not out of reach at his age (with having a light past few years) to keep going either if he returns 100%.

[SevenDogs]

With the style of horse that the sport has gone to, i.e. the bigger heavier warmbloods and warmblood crosses, and getting away from the lighter TB's and Irish crosses, the short format is suiting them better. Mac is no small horse, and not sure he'd have held up had it not changed to short format.

I think you are making some HUGE assumptions that many, including me, would disagree with about the short and long format. There is a lot of talk out there but not much data to support it.

I also find it inappropriate to speculate whether or not Mac or any other horse would "hold up" under the long format unless there is specific data to support your thoughts. There was a lot of Pre-Olympic chatter on this board that Mac and other heavier horses were not appropriate for Hong Kong because of the weather, etc. Some very hurtful comments like "they shouldn't be on the team" and other unfortunate comments were made (and seem to be continuing with meventer's last post on this thread), but we all know what happened.

I'm not trying to be mean, and I think most of the posts here are well-meaning, but unsupported statements can be hurtful. Let me be clear that I do not know Ms. Miles personally nor the horse's owners. I just think unproductive speculation and, yes, sometimes malicious information, is not helpful.

LAZ: I'm sorry -- I think my post in response to yours was unclear. I was agreeing with your inquiry regarding the long vs short format and then went on to a new subject without a clear break.

[purplnurpl]

I think you are making some HUGE assumptions that many, including me, would disagree with about the short and long format.



Another opinion. ; )
I think they are fairly accurate assumptions. And I don't know why that particular statement would be hurtful, it's no secret. He was bred perfectly for the short format. Maybe he would have held up just fine with the LF but in theory the odds would have been against him. What is so bad about that? I would look at people with my medal and say, "Ain't you jealous that I have a phenom short format horse. neaner neaner!"

But there is always a freak. ; )

[LAZ]

Another opinion. ; )
I think they are fairly accurate assumptions. And I don't know why that particular statement would be hurtful, it's no secret. He was bred perfectly for the short format. Maybe he would have held up just fine with the LF but in theory the odds would have been against him. What is so bad about that? I would look at people with my medal and say, "Ain't you jealous that I have a phenom short format horse. neaner neaner!"

But there is always a freak. ; )


My argument on this (once again, nothing to do with the particular horse/rider pair here) was the assumption that short format horses hold up for longer competitive careers than long format horses. I think this really probably deserves its own topic and its own research, but I do not buy that the short format is leading to longer careers than the long did.

[SevenDogs]

Short format horses are lasting longer nowadays with careful campaigning

This was the original statement that I took exception with because there is no data to support it and there are an awful lot of people who feel the exact opposite. In fact, there was early research that showed the short format was actually MORE taxing on the horses and, I believe, some changes came out of that data. To my knowledge, there is no data to show the short format is contributing to horses lasting longer.

In regard to the statements about Mac's lack of suitability for the long format, I think it is inappropriate and opens the door for diminishing his accomplishments. I agree that being a success at the short format is huge, but then someone says "yeah, but he couldn't have done it if we still had the long format". Maybe true, maybe not.

I think labeling horses (without substantiating data) is wrong, even if it is not meant in a malicious way. Again, using the pre-Olympic threads as an example -- there was A LOT of this labeling about who was appropriate and who was not. It turned very nasty and was also very wrong when the medals were distributed.

That's my reasoning.

[poltroon]

My argument on this (once again, nothing to do with the particular horse/rider pair here) was the assumption that short format horses hold up for longer competitive careers than long format horses. I think this really probably deserves its own topic and its own research, but I do not buy that the short format is leading to longer careers than the long did.

17 year old eventers have been going strong for the last two decades. Custom Made, Giltedge, Spinning Rhombus, King William ... there are many examples of horses who spent their career doing the long format and still going around (and winning) 4* at 16 and 17.

[mjrtango93]

17 year old eventers have been going strong for the last two decades. Custom Made, Giltedge, Spinning Rhombus, King William ... there are many examples of horses who spent their career doing the long format and still going around (and winning) 4* at 16 and 17.

All those horses listed were also not what is more prevelant today, even King William who was big is still lighter bred then what is out now. Did the heavier horses come into play because of the short format or the other way. Thats hard to say. Didn't mean to turn this into a long vs short debate. If they are retiring Mac, kudos to them for thinking of him, if they keep him going its not out of his realm to do it at 15. Even Gina supports the short format for the older horses: http://useventing.com/resources/files/upload/Conditioning%20for%20Short%20Format%20-%202006.pdf

While she doesn’t think the steeplechase
benefits older horses, Gina still thinks that
it’s important for young horses and riders
both to learn how to prepare a horse for
the long format.

ETA: Laz and Sevendogs you are correct I should have used the words can last longer with careful campaigning then are lasting longer. With anything horses you have to pick and choose what you do, and saving that caliber horse for what is important.

[purplnurpl]

My argument on this (once again, nothing to do with the particular horse/rider pair here) was the assumption that short format horses hold up for longer competitive careers than long format horses. I think this really probably deserves its own topic and its own research, but I do not buy that the short format is leading to longer careers than the long did.

lol. no, no, no.
It's not that short format horses hold up for longer, it's that short format horses can compete.
If the only FEI was long format there would be far less Advanced FEI horses today. The short format allows those really nice big movers and jumpers (that would not make a 16 miles hike on XC day) to compete competitively.
Whether Mac is one or not who knows--but the point is given.
; )

[Fitte]

I saw McKinleigh on valentines day this year. He had a really puffy leg and was being tack walked by a working student. That's all I know.

[KSevnter]

If the only FEI was long format there would be far less Advanced FEI horses today. The short format allows those really nice big movers and jumpers (that would not make a 16 miles hike on XC day) to compete competitively.
Whether Mac is one or not who knows--but the point is given.
; )

Early on in his career he was a "long format" horse just like every other eventer out there. He has done 3 LF 4stars, including the WEG in 2002. Grant you it was early in his career and his dressage wasn't as polished as today, but he was bought with every intention of being a long format horse because that was all there was back then.

I bet in time the Short Format horses won't hold up as long simply because people seem to think they can run them in so many CCI's, CIC's back to back to back.

Instead of letting a horse down for a full month, people pick right back up and run another event a couple weeks later. Those guys will be the ones who break down the quickest whether they are fine boned TB's or big WBs.

[Bobthehorse]

I bet in time the Short Format horses won't hold up as long simply because people seem to think they can run them in so many CCI's, CIC's back to back to back.

Instead of letting a horse down for a full month, people pick right back up and run another event a couple weeks later. Those guys will be the ones who break down the quickest whether they are fine boned TB's or big WBs.

Totally.

[SevenDogs]

I bet in time the Short Format horses won't hold up as long simply because people seem to think they can run them in so many CCI's, CIC's back to back to back.

Instead of letting a horse down for a full month, people pick right back up and run another event a couple weeks later. Those guys will be the ones who break down the quickest whether they are fine boned TB's or big WBs.

I am continually stunned by the number of riders that run back to back to back BIG events. Look at a lot of the horse/rider schedules leading up to Rolex. It is like it is almost expected now. I believe some of it comes from our team leadership philosophy.

[GotSpots]

I am continually stunned by the number of riders that run back to back to back BIG events. Look at a lot of the horse/rider schedules leading up to Rolex. It is like it is almost expected now. I believe some of it comes from our team leadership philosophy. Hold on a minute. Most CIC xc courses aren't all that different (if at all) from their respective horse trials courses. At the Fork this past weekend, for example, I think there was only one combination (maybe two) that was changed? At the CIC at Plantation last fall, the Preliminary ran exactly the same course (Preliminary had one fairly stupid option that I don't think anyone actually took). And there's nothing new about running horse trials every two or three weeks heading up to a major three day. Thus, I'm not really all that surprised that many horses/riders ran at Pine Top or Ocala, then Southern Pines and the Fork heading into Rolex - doesn't seem unreasonable at all, particularly given the good footing at SP and the Fork.

[SevenDogs]

Hold on a minute. Most CIC xc courses aren't all that different (if at all) from their respective horse trials courses. At the Fork this past weekend, for example, I think there was only one combination (maybe two) that was changed? At the CIC at Plantation last fall, the Preliminary ran exactly the same course (Preliminary had one fairly stupid option that I don't think anyone actually took). And there's nothing new about running horse trials every two or three weeks heading up to a major three day. Thus, I'm not really all that surprised that many horses/riders ran at Pine Top or Ocala, then Southern Pines and the Fork heading into Rolex - doesn't seem unreasonable at all, particularly given the good footing at SP and the Fork.

Different times, different philosophies for you and I. Perhaps I was just taught by an old schooler.

Yes, I am equally amazed at people running Advanced Horse Trials as frequently as some do (not all.... some). It is "new" in that the last ten years has seen a marked increase in this type of scheduling, IMO. Perhaps it is because of more availability of Advanced Level Horse Trials and starred events across the United States. Perhaps it is because the short format does, as you described, turn starred events into somewhat glorified horse trials with a harder dressage test. I don't know why.... but I do not believe it has benefitted the horses.

By the way, I was not referring to any specific horse/rider combination's preparation for Rolex and did not look at any of the results from the events you mentioned. I am referring to what I view as a general philosophical change in the way some riders schedule their time prior to this big event.

[gchildean]

[QUOTE=SevenDogs;4007787

Perhaps it is because the short format does, as you described, turn starred events into somewhat glorified horse trials with a harder dressage test. [/QUOTE]

A short format CCI is quite different from a horse trials and a CIC. Its much more than a harder dressage test.

[SevenDogs]

A short format CCI is quite different from a horse trials and a CIC. Its much more than a harder dressage test.

I agree but didn't do a very good job of sounding sarcastic at Got Spots point that CIC was no more difficult than a horse trials.

[JAM]

You may be right that horses in the old days did a similar amount of preparation leading up to a *** or **** (though we don't have any data on that, at least I haven't seen any). The big difference in my mind, though, is what happens afterward. In the LF days, the horses got a substantial break after doing a 3 or 4 (or even 2) star. Now they're back out in 2-3 weeks, it seems. I would be very curious to see the data on the number of times per year the Rolex horses in the SF days compete compared to the number of times per year the Rolex horses in the LF days of yore competed. Then multiply that difference (I'm guessing there's a difference but, again, we don't seem to have the data) by the number of years of active competing, and you probably have a lot more wear and tear as a result of the changeover to SF.

Hold on a minute. Most CIC xc courses aren't all that different (if at all) from their respective horse trials courses. At the Fork this past weekend, for example, I think there was only one combination (maybe two) that was changed? At the CIC at Plantation last fall, the Preliminary ran exactly the same course (Preliminary had one fairly stupid option that I don't think anyone actually took). And there's nothing new about running horse trials every two or three weeks heading up to a major three day. Thus, I'm not really all that surprised that many horses/riders ran at Pine Top or Ocala, then Southern Pines and the Fork heading into Rolex - doesn't seem unreasonable at all, particularly given the good footing at SP and the Fork.

[subk]

The big difference in my mind, though, is what happens afterward. In the LF days, the horses got a substantial break after doing a 3 or 4 (or even 2) star. Now they're back out in 2-3 weeks, it seems.
I would say it was standard for at least a month of for ANY level of LF event.

[shade]

Forgive me for my ignorance on the subject. I started out as an eventer but moved to H/J many moons ago.

Are there any true 3-day events with roads/tracks and steeplechase any longer in the US? I'm assuming that is what is the Long Format now.
Please don't bash me for not knowing...

[mjrtango93]

Forgive me for my ignorance on the subject. I started out as an eventer but moved to H/J many moons ago.

Are there any true 3-day events with roads/tracks and steeplechase any longer in the US? I'm assuming that is what is the Long Format now.
Please don't bash me for not knowing...

You can still find one-stars that are long format, but most offer short format even if they do the long. We don't have anything higher then that though at least on the west coast that does a long format two star or higher.

[CookiePony]

Forgive me for my ignorance on the subject. I started out as an eventer but moved to H/J many moons ago.

Are there any true 3-day events with roads/tracks and steeplechase any longer in the US? I'm assuming that is what is the Long Format now.
Please don't bash me for not knowing...

They are called "Classic Format" now and are much more rare. Here is information about them:
http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?id=1860

And some Training Level events run with r/t and steeplechase:
http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?section=training3day

[NeverTime]

The big difference in my mind, though, is what happens afterward. In the LF days, the horses got a substantial break after doing a 3 or 4 (or even 2) star. Now they're back out in 2-3 weeks, it seems.

I hear this statement over and over again, about short-format horses getting no break and coming right back out. But, frankly, I've not actually SEEN it. Maybe I'm naive. Can you or anyone else look in the USEA records and give 5 or 10 examples of horses who are competing within 2-3 weeks of completing a two-, three- or four-star CCI? If this practice is really happening all the time, it should be easy to come up with a bunch of examples, right?

[SevenDogs]

I hear this statement over and over again, about short-format horses getting no break and coming right back out. But, frankly, I've not actually SEEN it. Maybe I'm naive. Can you or anyone else look in the USEA records and give 5 or 10 examples of horses who are competing within 2-3 weeks of completing a two-, three- or four-star CCI? If this practice is really happening all the time, it should be easy to come up with a bunch of examples, right?

Um....no need to even go back into the USEA archives. Just go to the results from The Fork Three Star last weekend and look at all of the horse/rider combinations that competed and are also listed as entrants at Rolex Four Start three weeks later. The West Coast has the same thing with the Galway three star the week before -- filled with riders also entered at Rolex.

Granted, both events prior to Rolex were CIC's vs CCI's, but they are still three star events 3-4 weeks prior to Rolex four star, which creates an awful lot of stress on these horses in a short amount of time (and that doesn't even account for travel in between). Nevertime, you made a specific point of stating CCI's. Was that purposely? I don't think that just because these events leading up to Rolex were CIC instead of CCI's makes it any better.

[JAM]

Glad you mentioned it. I looked at McKinlaigh's record and saw that in 2007, he competed at Badminton (after having done a 3* one month earlier) and came back 3 weeks later to compete in the U.S. I didn't put this in the original post lest it be considered too inflammatory, but since you asked ....

I took a look at Laine Ashker's record, and saw that in both 2007 and 2008, she ran two of her horses (Anthony Patch and Frodo Baggin) two weeks after having completed 2* or 3* with them.

Then there's Darren Chiacchia in 2007 (I didn't look at 2008 given his near-fatal fall in 2008). He ran the following spring schedule for Better I Do It: Feb. 2 (Int. HT), Feb. 20 (Adv. HT), March 9 (3* CIC), March 23 (Adv. HT), April 5 (3* CIC), April 26 (Rolex 4*). He had the generosity to give the horse 28 days off before competing him again at a 2* CIC, then competed him the very next weekend at Jersey Fresh. During the same general period, he competed a horse called Traqumna at a 2* on March 9, ran him 2 weekends after that, then again two weeks later, and then again two weeks later at another 2*.

I also remember a big flap last year over Amy Tryon running one of her horses (Poggio?, I really can't remember) back to back weekends, once on the west coast, the next weekend on the east coast, just so she could qualify for something.

Make of these names and statistics what you will.

These are the only ones I looked at. If you want to pay me for my time, I'll be glad to comb through the USEA records, and I doubt I will have much trouble coming up with many more examples. But I don't come cheap. And, more to the point, this is precisely the kind of exercise the USEA, USEF, or FEI should be doing to determine whether, as most of the modern-day ULRs assert, the short format is easier on the horses (and the riders).

I hear this statement over and over again, about short-format horses getting no break and coming right back out. But, frankly, I've not actually SEEN it. Maybe I'm naive. Can you or anyone else look in the USEA records and give 5 or 10 examples of horses who are competing within 2-3 weeks of completing a two-, three- or four-star CCI? If this practice is really happening all the time, it should be easy to come up with a bunch of examples, right?

[NeverTime]

But SevenDogs, as people keep saying, these CICs are just overpriced horse trials. The cross-country portion is no longer than a horse trial XC course at the corresponding level. The CIC*** XC at The Fork was 6:30 - almost half a minute shorter than the XC course at the Southern Pines advanced horse trials and far shorter than the 10-12 minutes these horses will be on XC at a CCI*** or ****.
The CIC at The Fork serves as those horses' last horse trial before Rolex, and I certainly don't think it is unheard-of, either now or in the LF days, for horses to do a horse trial three weeks out as the final preparation before their three-day event. I wish I had my Jimmy Wofford or Ginny Leng books handy to check the conditioning schedules in them, but I'm fairly sure even those books - written in the glory days of the LF, by highly respected riders - plan a horse trials two or three weeks out from the actual three-day as part of the final fitness work and preparation.

If you could show me an instance of someone completing two CCIs (three-days) within two or three weeks, I'd be right there with you. If you could show me an instance of someone completing a horse trials 2-3 weeks AFTER completing a CCI (three-day), I'd be right there with you.

But doing a horse trials - whether it's a good old-fashioned horse trials or a high-dollar FEI-sanctioned CIC (horse trials) - several weeks BEFORE a CCI (three-day) is, IMO, a long-accepted and long-proven part of the fitting-up process for a three-day harkening back to the LF days and continued on into the current SF model.

[JAM]

Flying across the Atlantic (and then some) to compete three weeks after doing Badminton doesn't count in your book?

...

If you could show me an instance of someone completing two CCIs (three-days) within two or three weeks, I'd be right there with you. If you could show me an instance of someone completing a horse trials 2-3 weeks AFTER completing a CCI (three-day), I'd be right there with you. ...

[SevenDogs]

I wish we could change the name of this thread because it isn't about Gina and Rolex anymore.

But SevenDogs, as people keep saying, these CICs are just overpriced horse trials. The cross-country portion is no longer than a horse trial XC course at the corresponding level. The CIC*** XC at The Fork was 6:30 - almost half a minute shorter than the XC course at the Southern Pines advanced horse trials and far shorter than the 10-12 minutes these horses will be on XC at a CCI*** or ****

Do we all think that CIC are just overpriced horse trials? I don't think that everyone agrees on that. Further, just comparing distances is not enough. Were the number, size, and types of obstacles the same? A CIC may share a similar track and some obstacles to a horse trials at that level, but they are rarely exact. Further, there was research done at the very outset of the short format that showed it was more taxing on the horses because the ratio of obstacles to distance increased, thereby leaving less recovery time between fences.

The CIC at The Fork serves as those horses' last horse trial before Rolex, and I certainly don't think it is unheard-of, either now or in the LF days, for horses to do a horse trial three weeks out as the final preparation before their three-day event.

Maybe, maybe not but one thing is for sure... we aren't talking about "a" horse trials three weeks out (as in singular). These horses are being consistently competed at the Advanced Level (Horse Trials, CIC, CCI's) much more frequently than in past years, often every 2-3 weeks. The "density" of the competition schedule is significantly different.

If you could show me an instance of someone completing two CCIs (three-days) within two or three weeks, I'd be right there with you. If you could show me an instance of someone completing a horse trials 2-3 weeks AFTER completing a CCI (three-day), I'd be right there with you.

You seem a bit fixated on the idea that a horse could only be overtaxed by running two CCI's together and that a CIC doesn't count. With the elimination of Phases A-C in the CCI, l I'm not sure that the CCI is that much more or less of a "three day" than a CIC.

The point in all of this is that the short format has resulted in horses being run at the Advanced Level (horse trials, CIC's, and CCI's) much, much more frequently, with less down time in between. Wasn't that even one of the "selling points" of the short format.... horses could compete more often. The question is does it benefit or hurt the horse. I think an awful lot of us think the latter.

[tuppysmom]

Flying across the Atlantic takes less time than it takes for those of us in area 9 to haul by trailer to an event. We have done both and the air travel is much easier on our horse than trailer travel.

[Kanga]

This has nothing to do with Gina......BUT...

Horses are "Over Competed" now days. What is the point at ANY level of running every 2 weeks???

There is no point!

[GotSpots]

Jump up and down all you want about people competing too much (I don't agree that running a horse every 2-3 weeks in the ramp up to a three day is necessarily bad, depending on the horse, his program, his soundness, etc), but at least let's get the basic facts correct. A CIC*** and a CCI*** are substantially different beasts in terms of number of efforts and endurance - even without phases A-C. I walked most of the Advanced and the CIC courses at the Fork this past weekend. The XC components of each were not significantly or materially different in length, endurance, or number of efforts. This tracks what I saw at Plantation and Maui Jim last year: strong similarities (near parallels) between the XC and the HT courses. In my personal experience, I have not seen material differences in the XC between the CIC and their respective horse trials course: there may be one or two more jumps or a combination that is mandatory for the CIC and black flag for the horse trials, but they tend to be substantially the same track, length, and number of efforts (I don't view one or two extra jumps as being a material difference at this level).

[NeverTime]

Glad you mentioned it. I looked at McKinlaigh's record and saw that in 2007, he competed at Badminton (after having done a 3* one month earlier) and came back 3 weeks later to compete in the U.S. I didn't put this in the original post lest it be considered too inflammatory, but since you asked ....

I took a look at Laine Ashker's record, and saw that in both 2007 and 2008, she ran two of her horses (Anthony Patch and Frodo Baggin) two weeks after having completed 2* or 3* with them.

Then there's Darren Chiacchia in 2007 (I didn't look at 2008 given his near-fatal fall in 2008). He ran Better I Do It at Rolex 4* three weeks after competing him at The Fork 3*. During the same period, he competed a horse called Traqumna at a 2* on March 9, ran him 2 weekends after that, then again two weeks later, and then again two weeks later at another 2*.

I also remember a big flap last year over Amy Tryon running one of her horses (Poggio?, I really can't remember) back to back weekends, once on the west coast, the next weekend on the east coast, just so she could qualify for something.

Make of these names and statistics what you will.

These are the only ones I looked at. Frankly, I If you want to pay me for my time, I'll be glad to comb through the USEA records, and I doubt I will have much trouble coming up with many more examples. But I don't come cheap. And, more to the point, this is precisely the kind of exercise the USEA, USEF, or FEI should be doing to determine whether, as most of the modern-day ULRs assert, the short format is easier on the horses (and the riders).

I looked at the horses you mentioned, and it seems that maybe you and SevenDogs have the same confusion about CICs vs. CCIs (the Fork 3* is a horse trial, Rolex is a three-day), and perhaps you didn't look quite closely enough at the results. (Good thing I'm not paying for your time, otherwise I might be disappointed!:cool:)

In the competitions McKinlaigh did on either side of Badminton, for example, Gina did the dressage test and withdrew without ever setting hoof on the XC course. I'm hard-pressed to associate doing a dressage test with pounding a horse to death, though I admit to not understanding why owners will pay the entry fee instead of just going to a dressage schooling show. Now, fair enough, she did go to the Pan Ams none too long after Badminton. That seems like a (not new) issue with the way we select teams for - and the timing of - international competitions, which usually fall midyear and not into the spring or fall three-day seasons: You pretty much won't get picked for a team without doing a three-day, but the time between the regular spring three-day and the team competition - whether that be the Olympics, Pan Ams, WEG or even NAYRC - is usually just a few months, very tough on the horses. Yuck.

Many of the competitions Darren did on Traugumna, too, were CIC**s, though I freely admit he did a hell of a lot of them. If you allow that a "typical" season involves four horse trials leading up to a three-day competition, he did five (between CICs and intermediate horse trials) leading up to a three-day in which the horse retired XC, not completing the entire endurance test. He then did another horse trial (CIC) and tried again (successfully this time) to complete a three-day. So that adds up to SIX horse trials and 1.5 three days in one, four-month season. Way too much for my taste.

But I still disagree about equating CICs to CCIs, even short-format CCIs. As I said before, CICs run over courses that are the same length as horse trials coursese. The differences between the number and type of jumping efforts between a CIC course and a horse-trial course at the same level and venue are MINIMAL at best. At The Fork, for example, the advanced and CIC*** ran over the same length course with the same number of jumping efforts. The only difference was one combination in which the advanced jumped two tables while the CIC*** jumped a table to a skinny, and a corner where the advanced jumped the one side while the CIC*** jumped the other. The optimum time for both was 6:30 -- shorter than plenty of other advanced horse-trial courses.
At Rolex, the optimum time will be close to 12 minutes; at the CCI***s, it will be about 10 minutes - both substantially longer than any CIC.
In my experience (and sadly I have walked a LOT of courses shared by a horse trial and CIC) this is always the case. The difference is a jump or two, or something that is numbered as a combination for the CIC and separate fences for the equivalent horse trials level.
If you have had different experiences in your CIC competitions, I'd love to know where and who the organizer is who is motivated enough to actually come up with substantially different courses for the CIC and horse trial of the same level! :lol:

I may be re-writing history to suit my argument, but I don't think running a horse every 2 or 3 weeks, as part of a well-planned and progressive fitness schedule leading up to a three-day, is either too much to ask nor anything new. Some seasons, the best footing you'll find is the aerovated stuff you gallop over at a horse trials, and it's a welcome repreive from the hard-as-cement field you might otherwise use for fitness work at home.

Yes, there are some people who compete all year long and far too much -- Darren would be one of those people. But I don't even see the much-reviled Mr. Chiacchia competing his horse 2-3 weeks after completing a three-day. So, back to my original point, where are "all" these people who allegedly are running their horses 2-3 weeks after doing a three-day?

Maybe it's because I do compete at these things, and being in the midst of it I think most of the riders I see there still are excellent horsemen and still do take excellent, reverent care of their equine partners. Whatever it is, the sweeping generalizations about "riders these days" sometimes bother me when I don't see the evidence to back them up.

K, rant over.

[SevenDogs]

I don't think running a horse every 2 or 3 weeks, as part of a well-planned and progressive fitness schedule leading up to a three-day, is either too much to ask nor anything new

I think you have clearly identified the issue. Many of us do think it is too much to ask, particularly when that schedule extends through a significant portion of the competitive year. I appreciate and respect your opinion, and think we may just have agree to disagree.

[KMErickson]

The definition of a CIC is "international horse trial."

The definition of a CCI is "international three day event."

These definitions are listed in the guide to qualifying for FEI events given on the USEA website (http://www.useventing.com/resources/files/docs/2009_explanation_of_qualifiers.pdf), and in Europe most CICs are run on one or two days and are much more obviously internationally- sanctioned (and more expensive) versions of regular horse trials. So, I would agree with people like Nevertime in saying that using a CIC as a prep for a major three day is not unlike using a horse trial to do so.

The idea of using a horse trial as a prep for a three day is pretty well- established. Jim Wofford's Training the Three-Day Event Horse and Rider lists some of his training schedules for various horses before (long format) three days. On p. 218, when listing his prep schedule for Bright Idea before the '92 Essex CCI*, he indicates that he competed the horse at Fair Hill 5 days before the three day. His CCI*** and CCI**** prep schedules BOTH also list taking the horse to a horse trial 19 days before the '80 Chesterland CCI*** and '79 Badminton CCI****, respectively.

[piaffeprincess98]

If you could show me an instance of someone completing two CCIs (three-days) within two or three weeks, I'd be right there with you. If you could show me an instance of someone completing a horse trials 2-3 weeks AFTER completing a CCI (three-day), I'd be right there with you.

Not that this is relevant to today, but looking back at my guy's old record, in 2003, he did the VA CCI* LF on May 16 and then did the Bromont CCI** LF on June 4. Then mysteriously he didn't compete again until March 20 of 2004....It's interesting to look at your horse's records before you bought them. He also did three nearly back to back intermediates and then two back to back Advanceds in a 6 week period.

I wish I could find his old records online. Isn't there a separate site for records before 2005? I have it printed.

[riderboy]

I think you have clearly identified the issue. Many of us do think it is too much to ask, particularly when that schedule extends through a significant portion of the competitive year. I appreciate and respect your opinion, and think we may just have agree to disagree.
Now THAT is how to have an intelligent, discussion about an important issue that reasonable people can have an honest disagreement about. Well said.

[Blugal]

Off the top of my head, I can name several combinations in the "new short format" era who have run 3 CCIs in a year; who have run the full XC and been spun at the jog, and entered a CCI of a different star level 3 weeks later; who have run the Olympics (with the associated stress of travel) and then 5 weeks later, the World Cup Final.

I do not recall this sort of thing being prevalent at all in the long-format days.

[NeverTime]

But check out Piaffe's post - that example is from the long-format days, and under the guidance of a very successful long-format rider/trainer. So maybe it's not just a product of the short format?

[purplnurpl]

But check out Piaffe's post - that example is from the long-format days, and under the guidance of a very successful long-format rider/trainer. So maybe it's not just a product of the short format?

I like how the thread is still about Gina and Rolex. snork snicker.
****
It's a product of money, sponsors, the pressure to keep the money and sponsors.
****
Lets take someone that most everyone likes, respects, and follows/ed with interest.

****
start season with out at intermediate
two weeks later advanced
two weeks later ***advanced
two weeks later ***advanced
4 weeks later Badminton
****

Here is another:
Start season with an out at Intermediate
2 weeks later Advanced
2 weeks later Advanced
2 weeks later another Advanced (CIC)

how bout last year?
9 outs at the Intermediate and Advanced levels with two CCI**s
A CCI** and an Intermediate HT 4 weeks later

2007
11 outs at the training/prelim/and intermediate levels.

Most of the HT/CCIs 1st place. The program seems to be working quite well at the moment!
I jealous. ; )
****

And I know of someone in our Area that ran 14 prelims last year.


My question. Dang! Where do they get the money? lol.

[JAM]

And then the horse was off for 9 months. Wonder why. More generally, I suspect there are more examples of that from the SF days than the LF days.

(PS -- the answer is "I don't know." But I don't think anyone does. And that is sort of the point -- everyone here, including both of us, are making assertions without any solid info. to back it up. Why isn't one of the organizations developing this information.)

But check out Piaffe's post - that example is from the long-format days, and under the guidance of a very successful long-format rider/trainer. So maybe it's not just a product of the short format?

[SevenDogs]

But check out Piaffe's post - that example is from the long-format days, and under the guidance of a very successful long-format rider/trainer. So maybe it's not just a product of the short format?

...Maybe the horse was mysteriously missing after Bromont because he/she was injured. Will you be able to find instances of horses aggressively competed during the years of the LF? ...Yup. Do I believe it was as often or as aggressively as it is today? ...Nope... not even close.

It's not about whether or not you can find an example of riders competing aggessively during the LF era. It is about the sheer numbers doing it now -- cycle, after cycle, after cycle. Many of us believe it has increased exponentially over the past ten years. It has increased so much, that many riders entering the sport think it is totally normal to compete every 2-3 weeks for most of the competitive season. I have a feeling that some of our COTHers are on that exact schedule.

I think Blugal got one of the major differences exactly right -- instead of one major event cycle per year, we are now looking at MULTIPLE cycles with several upper level competitions, in close proximity, leading up to each major event. No longer is Rolex the "destination" for the year. Often times, it is just the beginning. Not only is the work leading up to the major event being questioned, so is the lack of downtime before yet another cycle begins.

Not all of this is a result of the introduction of the short format, although it has been a major catalyst. There have been other major changes, that when combined with the introduction of the short format, have created a "Perfect Storm" situation. First, the availability of upper level events in the U.S. has increased dramatically. It wasn't all that long ago that Rolex was the ONLY CCI*** in the U.S. and there were absolutely no Advanced Level Horse Trials on the West Coast. Now, Rolex is a CCI**** and there are many CCI*** across the country. Venues offering CIC*** and Advanced Level Horse Trials have also dramatically increased in number. I think for some riders, availability equals a reason to run.

It is also about the increase of "professionals" in the sport who make their living selling horses and/or bringing home ribbons, awards, and titles for their owners. The number of upper level horses owned by someone, other than the rider, has increased significantly over this period of time and they often expect a "return on investment". Similarly, a sale horse with a "number" of upper level events on their record brings a higher price and the faster you can get that done, the less money you invest into board, care, etc. and the bigger your profit margin becomes (or the fewer your losses become, depending upon how successful you are).

I also think our "Team" Leadership is a BIG part of this philosophical shift, not only encouraging more aggessive competition schedules, but actually demanding it. Over the years, it has become the "norm" for upper level competitors and now, just about all levels.

Is it right? .... Is it wrong?..... I know what I think, but I also know I am not going to be able to convert those that think it is absolutely fine.

[tx3dayeventer]

I can't post about anyone's horse but my own. In my experience this is what I have done with my mare during the year ( I also did a comparable schedule with my CCI* gelding). The ONLY 3-Day's offered were the LONG FORMAT.

Year 1: Training/Prelim HTs

Year 2: 4 Prelims (Area 5)
a May CCI*
Champagne Run (July) @ Prelim
NAYRC CCI* (August)
no more shows (had a fall @YRs and broke collar bone)

Year 3: 4 Prelims, 1 CIC* (Area 3)
a May CCI*
Groton House & Champagne Run (summer)
Kentucky Classic (August)
2 Prelims
November CCI*

Year 4: 1 Prelim, 4 Intermediates (1 was a CIC**)
May CCI**
Champagne Run-YOI
NAYRC- CH** (August)
2 Intermediates in the Fall

Year 5: 1 A/I, 3 A's, 1 CIC-W***, developing riders
Foxhall CCI***
......you get the idea of how we scheduled our year. Must go back to work, my boss is lurking behind me :eek:

[fooler]

My .02

Back in the 80's there were 2 destination 3Days - Rolex in the Spring and Chesterland in the Fall - both Advance ***. Rolex was later in the year and AREA 3 was not the hot spot it is now. So folks started in late February, early March to prepare for Rolex. Then the Rolex horses were let down for awhile and brought back up for Chesterland which was held late September or early October. Then another let down until the following Spring.

As someone noted there were fewer competitions to attend and fewer competitors. Most back2back competitions were over a few months and you did something else because there weren't any more HT to attend. Each area had their own competition season, based on their weather season. In Area3 we could run from Fed/March thru May stop for the summer pick up in September until early Nov. Area2 overlapped our season some once folks started going in mass to Southern Pine. But it was unusal for someone to travel much unless they were making a run for the team.

Back in the 1980's in Area3 it was odd to have more than 150 competitors at a Pre-Training (novice) thru Prelim HT. We were lucky to have 10 riders in Prelim! If you had 'that horse' who showed promise you had plan to travel to Areas 1 & 2 to compete at Prelim & up. And the UL competitons in Area 2 were in No Va & Maryland northward so it was very expensive and many did not have the disposable income. That is why so many folks cross-trained at other types of competition closer to home.

My problem with the increased number of annual competitions with less breaks is not only the physical wear & tear on our horses but the emotional stress. Anyone who has ever been on the road for a period of time will tell you how hard it is on you and how good it is to be back in your own bed, kitchen, tub/shower, couch, etc. Horses have to feel something similiar to that as well. Otherwise there would be less of a need for all of the ulcer and calming potions we have today.

[piaffeprincess98]

And then the horse was off for 9 months. Wonder why. More generally, I suspect there are more examples of that from the SF days than the LF days.

(PS -- the answer is "I don't know." But I don't think anyone does. And that is sort of the point -- everyone here, including both of us, are making assertions without any solid info. to back it up. Why isn't one of the organizations developing this information.)

I didn't mean to "stir the pot" or anything, but when I bought him, I didn't even look at his record, so I didn't even think to ask. He's a tough old bird. He's slowing down a little bit now because of arthritis in his hock, but if he didn't have that, I think he'd still be going prelim or above. He was definitely bred to be a LF horse. He's a Babamist, and he just loves his job. He also competed in probably 60 events before I bought him with OCDs in his hocks, which never bothered him until I bought him. Anyways, back to the topic...I just thought his record was an interesting example. When I first saw that on his record, I thought "wow, I thought you were only supposed to do two three days a year, if that".

[SevenDogs]

I didn't mean to "stir the pot" or anything, but when I bought him, I didn't even look at his record, so I didn't even think to ask. He's a tough old bird. He's slowing down a little bit now because of arthritis in his hock, but if he didn't have that, I think he'd still be going prelim or above. He was definitely bred to be a LF horse. He's a Babamist, and he just loves his job. He also competed in probably 60 events before I bought him with OCDs in his hocks, which never bothered him until I bought him. Anyways, back to the topic...I just thought his record was an interesting example. When I first saw that on his record, I thought "wow, I thought you were only supposed to do two three days a year, if that".

He sounds like a really cool horse. :)

[basil's mom]

wow quite the train wreck

[frugalannie]

FWIW, I'm actually interested in the various points of view that are being presented directly, courteously and many with concrete examples to back them up. Yes, this thread has morphed (thanks for changing the title, BTW), but that's part of the fun. :yes:

[NeverTime]

It's not about whether or not you can find an example of riders competing aggessively during the LF era. It is about the sheer numbers doing it now -- cycle, after cycle, after cycle. Many of us believe it has increased exponentially over the past ten years. It has increased so much, that many riders entering the sport think it is totally normal to compete every 2-3 weeks for most of the competitive season. I have a feeling that some of our COTHers are on that exact schedule.


I appreciate your well-thought out post and certainly don't expect to "convert" you to my way of thinking, but I would like to correct the way you are portraying my stance on this, and correct what I believe are a few factual inaccuracies in your post.

I have not, anywhere during this thread, defended horses being competed all year long, or with little to no break after major competitions. I agree that is happening more and more, as events are offered across more of the year and as eventers take more to traveling, rather than competing only in their area and whatever season(s) it offers. I actually wonder if that happens more to horse-trial campaigners, who might do 1 or 2 HT/month for six, seven or eight months straight, requiring them to maintain fitness all year long, than it does to three-day horses, because (as was my initial point in entering this thread) the three-day horses work around a fairly strict schedule with a set goal - a CCI - and then get a good, long vacation after it.

A widely accepted schedule, handed down from all those old-school folks of the long-format days, is 3-4 horse trials incorporated into the fitness routine leading up to a three-day event. I'm accustomed to 2-3 weeks between those several horse trials, based on the idea that you want to find the balance between gradually building up the horse's fitness but also not being sooo gradual that you drag the process out to the point it adds undue weeks of pounding on the horse's legs. (I'm not talking about walk hacks and LSD, I'm talking about the trot and gallop sets.) After the three-day, you let the horse down for a month or more and bring them slowly back into work. Every old-school trainer I've worked with to this point, and the books on my shelves, go along with spacing those 3-4 horse trials 2-3 weeks apart, when possible and when seeming to suit your horse's mental and physical fitness.

So, if competing every 2-3 weeks over about three months is too much, what is the better alternative? Replacing the competitions with work at home (ie, instead of running a 6-minute XC course with jumps, the horse will do 3 or 4 canter sets of 5 minutes or so) so the horse might just do one or two competitions leading up to a three-day? That certainly would save travel strain for the horse and money for the rider, but I'm honestly not sure which of those fitness options is actually harder on the horse. Or is the alternative to do the same number of pre-three-day competitions, but spread them out over more time? (This option, IMO, would rob Peter to pay Paul, by extending the weeks and months during which the horse is doing trot sets and cantering every 5 days/twice a week/whatever fitness regimen you subscribe to. Not only does it mean he gets pounded on for more weeks or months, it also requires you to shorten his vacation to make time for the longer run-up.) Or ... ?


I think Blugal got one of the major differences exactly right -- instead of one major event cycle per year, we are now looking at MULTIPLE cycles with several upper level competitions, in close proximity, leading up to each major event. No longer is Rolex the "destination" for the year. Often times, it is just the beginning. Not only is the work leading up to the major event being questioned, so is the lack of downtime before yet another cycle begins.

Not all of this is a result of the introduction of the short format, although it has been a major catalyst. There have been other major changes, that when combined with the introduction of the short format, have created a "Perfect Storm" situation. First, the availability of upper level events in the U.S. has increased dramatically. It wasn't all that long ago that Rolex was the ONLY CCI*** in the U.S. and there were absolutely no Advanced Level Horse Trials on the West Coast. Now, Rolex is a CCI**** and there are many CCI*** across the country. Venues offering CIC*** and Advanced Level Horse Trials have also dramatically increased in number. I think for some riders, availability equals a reason to run.


Just a little fact-checking here: The spring Rolex CCI*** started in 1978. The fall Chesterland CCI*** (now Fair Hill) was running by 1981. So the time in this country that Rolex was the only CCI*** was three years, tops, in the late '70s. And today, 30 years later, we still have only two CCI*** in this country, both on the East Coast: Jersey Fresh in the spring and Fair Hill in the fall. So this two-season system of spring and fall is very well established, and horses doing two three-days a year is not a recent development.

But is Rolex no longer a destination? Is it just the beginning with no or little downtime afterward? I was curious about that, so I looked at the finishers of last year's Rolex, and here's what I found.
Of the 27 horses who completed Rolex in April 2008 (excluding the Australian horse and Teddy, who died soon after):
7 did nothing else that year
8 did the Olympics or Olympic trials and nothing else
6 did a fall three-day (Fair Hill CCI***) in October with 2-4 horse trials/CICs beforehand, most starting in late August or September**
4 did 2-3 horse trials/CICs, no three-day, later in the year.

Of those who did a fall three-day, competing again in late August would mean the horse could have, at minimum, the months of May and June off or in light work before gradually coming back to prep for a fall three-day. Is that a long enough break? If not, what is? 4 months? 6 months? Can anyone specifically say or does that vary from horse to horse?
((** I did find two that were back in competition in late June, one doing a prelim HT and the other an intermediate HT.))


It is also about the increase of "professionals" in the sport who make their living selling horses and/or bringing home ribbons, awards, and titles for their owners. The number of upper level horses owned by someone, other than the rider, has increased significantly over this period of time and they often expect a "return on investment". Similarly, a sale horse with a "number" of upper level events on their record brings a higher price and the faster you can get that done, the less money you invest into board, care, etc. and the bigger your profit margin becomes (or the fewer your losses become, depending upon how successful you are).

I also think our "Team" Leadership is a BIG part of this philosophical shift, not only encouraging more aggessive competition schedules, but actually demanding it. Over the years, it has become the "norm" for upper level competitors and now, just about all levels.


Agree on these points, especially about the Team. What stands out most to me about the Rolex numbers is the horses who went from a 4* in April to the selection trials and, for some, onto the Olympics in August. Those horses had little to no downtime because they had to be right back in near-top form in July, ready for their shot at Beijing. But for anyone who made the choice to go for the Team, there wasn't really any choosing the schedule after that. If you want to be considered, you need to go to a spring three-day to prove you are on form and on a horse who will pass the jog (ironic, that, considering the back-to-back three-days is the very thing that might push them toward failing that final Olympic jog). And once you've gone to that spring three-day, the Team competition is right behind it. (And, worth noting, the same holds true for NAYRC -- many of those kids do a spring three-day to help make sure they make the team going to a mid-summer NAYRC three-day.)

At the bottom of it all: Despite the loss of the LF three-day, I really don't think the way the average three-day event horse is trained and competed has changed all that much. I don't think most are doing more competitions than they were five, 10 or 15 years ago. It bugs me when people make sweeping generalizations with little proof to back them up, kinda like it bugs me when people wail "all the horsemanship is gone!" with the loss of the LF.
I wish we still ran the long format as much as anyone else, but guess what? It still take a hell of a dedicated, vigilant horseman to prep a horse for a short-format three day and keep it sound and happy for a long competitive career. The fitness work leading up to the three-day is still very much the same as it was (reference the schedule above) and the loss of R&T and steeplechase has, in my mind, made the competition tougher (not more fun, just tougher) because we've lost the wonderful warmup that those phases gave our horses before heading out XC.

[SevenDogs]

Nevertime: I think we may find that we agree on more than we may think.

First of all, let me say that I completely respect your opinions (and others expressed here). It is clear that we all feel passionately about the sport and it makes me wish we could all meet in person and have a constructive discussion about the issues. However, since I am getting kind of sick of myself on this thread, and I assume others are too :lol:, I am going to try to make this my last post.


Ok, let's get rolling because I am kind of old and need to go to bed soon :):

It still take a hell of a dedicated, vigilant horseman to prep a horse for a short-format three day and keep it sound and happy for a long competitive career.

I couldn't agree more.

For the record, I do not believe that horsemanship is a lost art because we don't have the long format anymore. I do think the long format tended to weed out poor horsemen/women a bit more efficiently than the short format does, but I think there are an awful lot of great horsemen and women actively competing today. Sometimes I wish good horsemanship got more recognition, but the rider that pulls up in a major competition because his/her horse doesn't "feel quite right" has never really gotten the glory. Similarly, we haven't done a good job of penalizing those that don't show this kind of good judgement.

I have not, anywhere during this thread, defended horses being competed all year long, or with little to no break after major competitions.

I never thought you were defending this.

I agree that is happening more and more, as events are offered across more of the year and as eventers take more to traveling, rather than competing only in their area and whatever season(s) it offers. I actually wonder if that happens more to horse-trial campaigners, who might do 1 or 2 HT/month for six, seven or eight months straight, requiring them to maintain fitness all year long, than it does to three-day horses, because (as was my initial point in entering this thread) the three-day horses work around a fairly strict schedule with a set goal - a CCI - and then get a good, long vacation after it.

I think you bring up a valid point about Horse Trials campaigners vs CCI riders, particularly since there are so many more Horse Trials riders than CCI competitors. I will say that I believe that any shifts at the most upper levels of our sport (CCI***/****) have a huge impact on the levels below since these riders are often the ones that set the example. They are often the trainers, coaches, and stars of the sport that others look to up to.

As far as CCI riders go, I agree that the schedule you laid out, with a logical progression to the goal of a CCI and a long rest afterward, makes sense and is probably quite similar to what long format riders did to prepare. However, I believe there are an increased number of riders that have upped the ante -- not all, but some. I think you hit the nail on the head when you looked specifically at the CCI riders looking for "team" placements vs other CCI riders.

Let me be blunt. I saw a significant change in what was expected of CCI riders when our "current" leadership came aboard. I remember distinctly our fearless leader discussing his "philosophy" of preparing horses and riders for international competiton, and thinking at the time that it was a "last horse standing" kind of approach. Unfortunately, I think that has played out over the years, and those that want to be considered for the "team" have to play by those rules and that means competing more and more aggressively. In my opinion, this philosophy has not been successful, but that is another thread. Perhaps I am overestimating the number of CCI riders looking for team placement and the trend is not that large, but my gut feeling tells me that it is significant enough.

I also see many (certainly not all) of our CCI riders using more aggressive techniques in bringing along their future CCI horses. Technically, they would be "Horse Trials Campaigners" at that stage and not CCI riders, but it is all part of the same pipeline. I worry when I see younger and younger horses competing aggressively and moving up at a rapid pace. Maybe this was always there, but I don't remember seeing so many 7 year olds at Intermediate and Advanced. It seems a heck of a lot more prevalent over the past ten years.

Bottom line for me (and trying not to overgeneralize because I agree that is annoying): I think the shift in team leadership philosophy has significantly altered the expectations of CCI riders hoping for a slot on a US team. Existing CCI riders that still wanted consideration had no real choice but to "buy in" (and I certainly recognize that a bunch opted out!). I think an awful lot of CCI riders have hopes of riding internationally for the US and this means more aggressive schedules. As new riders come in, they see more and more examples of more aggressive competition practices and think it is the norm so the trend proliferates itself. Since the competition levels form a pyramid, the trend spreads as you get into the lower levels.

In my opinion, this philosophy shift at the top level, the increase in availability of events of every level, the number of professional riders making a living riding and selling horses, and the introduction of the short format all fueled a substantial increase in aggressive competitive practices across the board at every level. This doesn't mean I believe everyone is doing it, only a bigger percentage.

[AppJumpr08]

He sounds like a really cool horse. :)

He's very cool :yes::yes:

[JAM]

I did a similar analysis yesterday as well. What struck me most was the number of horses who haven't competed at all since then. Of all the starters (as opposed to those who completed), 9 (excluding Teddy and the Aus. horse) have not competed again. That struck me as high, but I don't have a comparison to the LF days, 2006, 2007, etc., so I don't know if it is or not. If it is a high number, I'd be curious as to the explanation (if there is one).

I also noticed three who came back within six weeks (you counted two, but I am guessing that one of them didn't complete Rolex). One of your early posts asked for 5-10 examples of this as evidence of competitors generally bringing their horses back too soon after a CCI. That strikes me as at least a noteworthy number (since it is a look at just one CCI in one year in the SF era), though I readily agree that the great majority of competitors who came back to compete later that year waited until the fall -- good for them. Again, beyond anecdotal stories such as piaffeprincess' description of her horse's past before she got him (and I agree he sounds like a great horse), we don't have comparable data for the LF days, so we don't know the real significance of the fact that 2-3 riders came back w/in 6 weeks of doing a CCI (and what was probably a more involved competitive buildup routine to the CCI itself).

This is a very interesting discussion -- not a train wreck at all, IMO.




But is Rolex no longer a destination? Is it just the beginning with no or little downtime afterward? I was curious about that, so I looked at the finishers of last year's Rolex, and here's what I found.
Of the 27 horses who completed Rolex in April 2008 (excluding the Australian horse and Teddy, who died soon after):
7 did nothing else that year
8 did the Olympics or Olympic trials and nothing else
6 did a fall three-day (Fair Hill CCI***) in October with 2-4 horse trials/CICs beforehand, most starting in late August or September**
4 did 2-3 horse trials/CICs, no three-day, later in the year.

Of those who did a fall three-day, competing again in late August would mean the horse could have, at minimum, the months of May and June off or in light work before gradually coming back to prep for a fall three-day. Is that a long enough break? If not, what is? 4 months? 6 months? Can anyone specifically say or does that vary from horse to horse?
((** I did find two that were back in competition in late June, one doing a prelim HT and the other an intermediate HT.))

[Blugal]

NeverTime and JAM, just wondering if you looked at Canadian results for the Rolex horses as well in your research?

[JAM]

I included all horses for which I could look up their competitive records on the USEA's horse record search feature. I now can't remember if that included Canadians. (I suppose it does if the horse is registered with the USEA, but does not if the horse isn't.)

I don't think this would affect the analysis of when horses came back after Rolex, if those horses were registered with USEA in the first instance. When I looked at Gina Miles' record, it showed Badminton, so it appears that USEA captures foreign competitions for registered horses.

NeverTime and JAM, just wondering if you looked at Canadian results for the Rolex horses as well in your research?

[NeverTime]

As you say, SevenDogs, we agree on far more than it may have appeared at first. Excellent post.
Blugal, I looked at the USEA results for the Canadians who completed. Three or four of them went onto the Olympics.
As far as the horses who haven't competed again, just a little bit, anecdotally:
Mazetto was put up for sale and found a new home over the winter. I imagine he'll be back out when he and his new owner are ready.
Livingstone was already 18 or so at Rolex; it wouldn't surprise me if Hawley has decided to retire him? A Canadian BBer might know better.
Dun to a T was W/D after dressage amid rumors about soundness issues. He was put down later last year.
Ying Yang Yo & Neville Bardos, Boyd's horses, I dunno.
Quiet Man and Frodo Baggins, as we all sadly know, died of injuries sustained at Rolex.
I can't remember who the other two were...

Now I'm also sick of myself, so I'll shut up. Thanks for the interesting conversation!

[JAM]

FWIW, the other horses listed as not competing since Rolex 2008 are King's Whisper, Hugh Knows, and From.

As you say, SevenDogs, we agree on far more than it may have appeared at first. Excellent post.
Blugal, I looked at the USEA results for the Canadians who completed. Three or four of them went onto the Olympics.
As far as the horses who haven't competed again, just a little bit, anecdotally:
Mazetto was put up for sale and found a new home over the winter. I imagine he'll be back out when he and his new owner are ready.
Livingstone was already 18 or so at Rolex; it wouldn't surprise me if Hawley has decided to retire him? A Canadian BBer might know better.
Dun to a T was W/D after dressage amid rumors about soundness issues. He was put down later last year.
Ying Yang Yo & Neville Bardos, Boyd's horses, I dunno.
Quiet Man and Frodo Baggins, as we all sadly know, died of injuries sustained at Rolex.
I can't remember who the other two were...

Now I'm also sick of myself, so I'll shut up. Thanks for the interesting conversation!

[NeverTime]

Ah! I think From actually is competing at prelim today at Plantation Field, with an amateur rider! :) And, along with him, it looks another great former four-star horse, Jacob Two Two, is entered at training level with Phillip Dutton's step daughter. Lucky girl :)

[zagafi]

So was there ever an *actual* answer provided about Gina and Mac? Or just conjecture that resulted in a hijack?

[gardenie]

Needs a new name. Enjoyed your analysis both Seven Dogs and Never Time.

[Thames Pirate]

So was there ever an *actual* answer provided about Gina and Mac? Or just conjecture that resulted in a hijack?

Gina wants him to try for WEG 2010, and Laura (one of the owners) would probably be convinced. Tom is pretty against it, thinking the horse doesn't owe anyone anything and that he's struggling in the health department. He's still not quite ridable (he's on a treadmill from what I heard last).

[Ca dreamin]

Thames Pirate, your information is not accurate. McKinlaigh is not on a treadmill. There is none at the barn where he lives. He is under saddle and has been for quite some time.

[Thames Pirate]

As I said, this is what I heard from Tom and Laura's granddaughter. I don't know Gina, and I don't know the facilities of either of the two farms where Gina and Mac train.

[Ca dreamin]

May issue, just out, has an article about Gina and McKinlaigh, complete with photos of a canter exercise.