Another insufferable Mark Phillips editorial [Archive] - Page 2

Ellie K

Aug. 23, 2005, 03:47 PM

I dont' know, subk, in theory that should work. If it's a CCI, the USEF/organiser can invite as many riders from as many countries as they like. By contrast, if it were a nationally-sanctioned event, the FEI has restrictions on foreign participation so that you can't just run high level international events willy nilly without going through the FEI because they "own" that right. You CAN have some participation from border countries in low level national events with minimal prize money. As for whether or not that could be called a "championship" I dont' know.

When you start having teams, that gets a little tricky. It may be that the FEI wouldn't care, it would be just sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" situation and never officially acknowledged. OR the USEF could have some sort of prize category for the best foreign riders and team but be very careful in how they title things so the FEI doesn't get pissy. I dont' know, it's complicated. I know you can't just totally circumvent the FEI.

But the USEF doesn't even allow foreign competitors who are permanent US residents to compete in their championships, even regional ones. Even the FEI allows this for minors (since they have no choice where they live and so as not to penalise them). But for the USEF it is all based on citizenship even though the FEI has long since changed their rules to reflect so many people living abroad now.

Whoever "gets" the NAYRC is subject only to whoever has a willing organiser. I doubt there has ever been a battle between bids for who would get to host it. Whoever steps up to the plate and submits a bid gets to host it. Normally there's only one bid.

When Bromont hosted it, if they wanted, they could have specified only X number of teams from the US. And if the FEI accepted their bid that way, the US would have only been able to send that number. It's at the disretion of whoever is hosting, subject to FEI approval.

subk

Aug. 23, 2005, 03:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazzy Lady:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by subk:
If the Aussies can win the America's Cup, a Brit can win the USGA (Golf) Championsip and a German can win the US Open (Tennis) why couldn't the Canadians win a USEF Championship? We could call it the USEF Young Rider Open Championship.

Ellie I think your idea is right on the mark! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To compare golf and tennis to this sport is ridiculous. They are not governed by ANY of the same rules! It's very simple, for the same reason someone from the US cannot come up here and win the Ontario Championships. Memberships. My horse is qualified for the AEC's but since I am not a member of the USEA I cannot compete. I highly doubt if it is run as a national championships, international riders will be able to come without incurring the costs of several memberships in addition to our own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, golf doesn't have any rules that are similar to tennis and they both do it. Your arguement is basically "we can't do it because it's never been done it that way before." Big deal, do something new.

The USEF can give an award to anybody they want--they set the criteria. If they wanted to give an award to blonde, women riders from a country other than the US they could do that too. If they want to give award to the top YR regardless of nationality at a YR only CCI why can't they?

The US doesn't "get" the NAYRC. They just run a CCI that is schedule around the same time and the Canadians can come or not. If the Canadians want to hold the NAYRC they would be more than welcome to do so. If the Americans don't show up because they have other plans, so be it. I assume you have enough Canadian YRs to run a 3-day?

Ellie would the FEI have a problem with a CCI that only had a YR division?

3dazey

Aug. 23, 2005, 04:09 PM

JazzyLady, your comment about the AECs doesn't hold water. If you & your horse are qualified and you really WANT to enter, just join the USEA. Mike Winter is a Canadian and competed at the AECs last year, so the only thing holding you back is a small matter of $75.

Canada & US have a reciprocal agreement regarding CEF/USEF and EC/USEA memberships, but lots of Canadians who event in the US frequently do go ahead and join the USEA. If I entered the (non-existant) "Canadian Eventing Championships" I would certainly expect to support EC!

Gry2Yng

Aug. 23, 2005, 04:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Entries for Rolex were down a lot, and I don't think that 4-5 riders would have made much of a difference. It's not like 20+ riders shipped over to Europe, it was a select group of developing riders IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, entries for Rolex were down a lot. This is fairly typical of the year after the Olympics. No, twenty riders did not ship over to Europe. You will have to excuse me as it has been a few months since all of this took place, but IIRC, riders were told not to run a long format CCI. Some ran the 3 star short format at Jersey Fresh rather than Rolex and some shipped to Germany. The power(s) that be did not say "Don't run Rolex, run Luhmulen." They said "Don't run a long format CCI. We would prefer you run a three star short format to running a four star long format."

I am IN NO WAY criticizing the riders that chose to run a short format. I am only countering the point that MP can not influence independent minded riders. He CAN and he DOES. As an earlier poster stated, these riders have been sweating blood for years in hopes of representing their country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And with regard to CCNs, my (possibly incorrect!) understanding of the FEI qualifying rules is that they can still be used for qualifying (art. 506.1.12: â€œAll national competitions used for qualification procedure must be certified by their NF to be of at least equivalent standard of difficulty of the relevant international star level of competition.â€). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect, which I say only with the ultimate respect for your ideas. A CCN can be used a qualifer for a CCI, but at the two star level and above "1 further qualifying result must be achieved out of any of the following competitions: CIC, CCI, CCIO or CH" at any given level. A CCN has no more weight than a horse trial in qualifying for a CCI.

In other words, if the NAYRC were a CCN**, it would not count as a qualifier for Fair Hill depending on the level you are talking about.

Ellie K

Aug. 23, 2005, 04:19 PM

What I meant about qualifying is that when you need three qualifying results, only one of the three must be at an FEI event. So two of the three can be at national events, I know you still need the one FEI result to qualify.

Yeah subk, they can definitely have a young riders only CCI. Or a CCIO-Y which would be a non-championship team competition. But I don't know that they would approve that in long format, it's worth asking, Lord knows all they can do is say no and they're good at that. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Whereas a CCI we already know can be long format (at least for today!).

I dont' think they have the official designation "CCA" anymore but the principle is still allowed.

deltawave

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:08 PM

Read Canterlope's quote from Jo Whitehouse a few pages back...the USEA wants to hear rebuttals of MP's column. Write a letter to the USEA, the USEF, the FEI. Please. I'm quite sure that the Infanta is not a lurker here. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The USEA knows about "us" ST3D types. They SUPPORT us. But if they hear from more people, it can only be helpful in terms of trickling UP to people like MP.

Jazzy Lady

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3dazey:
JazzyLady, your comment about the AECs doesn't hold water. If you & your horse are qualified and you really WANT to enter, just join the USEA. Mike Winter is a Canadian and competed at the AECs last year, so the only thing holding you back is a small matter of $75.

Canada & US have a reciprocal agreement regarding CEF/USEF and EC/USEA memberships, but lots of Canadians who event in the US frequently do go ahead and join the USEA. If I entered the (non-existant) "Canadian Eventing Championships" I would certainly expect to support EC! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it does hold water because I was not a member of USEA at the time of the qualification. I could get a membership now but it wouldn't work because I am no longer competing in the states so I cannot get re-qualified... Believe me... I researched this long and hard. But my horse is qualified because I bought him in the states and he's registered with the usea and all that fun stuff.

free

Aug. 24, 2005, 12:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazzy Lady:

The whole argument winds down to money. It makes the world, and consequently, the eventing world go round. Sponsors make it happen and who do you think sponsors are going to support? They still get the sponsorship of a big name event, but less money is being spent. If you people want more long formats then raise the money to run one! It costs SOO much money to build and even to maintain the full format.

If there is a chance for the ULRs to get more horses out at the higher levels, at more events, don't you think the owners are going to be pushing for this? ULR's and the team coach MUST change with the sport. It has to happen. What CMP does or says doesn't necessarily effect the * and ** level besides ruffling a few feathers of people who don't agree with him.

ULR's still have the final say what they do with their horses, and unless you ARE the particular ULR that you are typing about, then I don't think anyone has the right to say whether or not so and so supports this or so and so only went here because so and so said to or didn't go because so and so said to...

I'm sure if CMP or the variety of other ULR's that were mentioned here happened to stumble upon this thread they would have a WHOLE lot to say. It's not fair to these people to assume anything about them and then post it on the internet... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points...especially the latter one.

tle

Aug. 24, 2005, 06:08 AM

Sorry for the coming mish-mash... trying to catch up since my computer at home is in desperate need of a good burial. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ellie K:
tle, my suggestion is to only remove the FEI championship aspect of the NAYRC, so that it can be long format. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Way back when I suggested we even change the name -- NAYRC = North American Young Riders CHALLENGE -- thus doing the exact thing you're talking about without excluding non US young riders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazzy Lady:
ULR's still have the final say what they do with their horses, and unless you ARE the particular ULR that you are typing about, then I don't think anyone has the right to say whether or not so and so supports this or so and so only went here because so and so said to or didn't go because so and so said to... [snip]It's not fair to these people to assume anything about them and then post it on the internet...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. If they have said it and/or been quoted as saying/doing it, then it's fair game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miss Maddie:
My point here is that I don't think CMPs comments about riders that want to make the team should ride in Europe instead of Rolex really means that much in terms of the demise of the long format, it's purely common sense. Entries for Rolex were down a lot, and I don't think that 4-5 riders would have made much of a difference. It's not like 20+ riders shipped over to Europe, it was a select group of developing riders IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
However, how many riders opted for a short format 3* instead of Rolex because MP has basically told them they shouldn't run a classic 3-day?? Not everyone could afford to ship to Germany... I get that. But numbers don't drop like they did for Rolex without a REASON... and I believe being told by the chef of the team not to run is a HUGE reason -- especially when you have 3* short format options and (let's face it) the Olympics aren't 4* anyway.

Gry2Yng

Aug. 24, 2005, 06:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ULR's still have the final say what they do with their horses, and unless you ARE the particular ULR that you are typing about, then I don't think anyone has the right to say whether or not so and so supports this or so and so only went here because so and so said to or didn't go because so and so said to... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I refuse to name riders. I won't drag anyone into a discussion who hasn't asked to be part of it. I am simply trying to make this thread aware that he does influence where and when riders compete. It is a piece of knowledge and I am not judging anyone. If we didn't discuss riders who don't post to this board we wouldn't be able to discuss much of the sport.

And as long as we are getting down to brass tacks, OWNERS generally have the finally say on what happens to their horses, not ULR.

Miss Maddie

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by subk:
The problem is THOSE are the riders many of us go to Rolex to watch! (And I think it was more than 4-5.) .... Not only did we loose riders at Rolex this year the quality of competition did suffered--significantly, because of who was missing. What about they guys below the bubble? Don't they deserve to have the highest quality possible, after all some of them are going to be the riders who will be eyeing the team in a few years--after Phillips is gone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought someone pointed out back in the spring that the number of entries at Rolex was pretty similar this year to any other non-championship year. Were there many fewer spectators and sponsors this year? That I don't know.

I'm seeing a lot of criticism here of ULRs and how often they are running their horses, which events they are running them in etc. Some people posting on this thread have said in other threads that they would never support with clinic or lesson dollars any rider who does not publicly support the long format, which of course is fine.

I'm just saying I believe the riders are acting in their own (and hopefully their horses!!!) best interests and it's hard to blame them for that. They are the ones that have to manage their careers, no matter who the team coach is and what he says, they are ultimately responsible. It's not like they're a bunch of lemmings jumping off a cliff b/c CMP says to. I'm sure those who don't own their horses also have to consider the owner's preferences as well.

I guess I'm just trying to reiterate that I feel the ultimate problem is still the FEI's doing (and all the politics and money that caused the FEI to change the format). If I were in charge of developing and choosing our national team, you bet I would rather select from riders who had competed and done well at the short format against international competitors that they would likely face at championships. We all know the long format is a different animal and the same horses don't often excel at both.

So I can see everyone's side except for the FEI's! I would love to see a national long format championships emerge, but there have to be enough riders interested in doing it to support that if it's going to work, the demand has to be there. Unfortunately we've seen that when organizers have offered both short and long format, there just were not enough entries in the long format to make it work.

The ultimate problem is how do you make the long format attractive enough to the riders to get enough of them to enter that we can even have these competitions? That's where the ideas of how to change the NAYRC and making Rolex 2007 (still long format, right?) as prestigious as possible come in. A national long format championships at * and ** levels with plenty of prize money at the AECs is another great idea of how to attract riders.

Jazzy Lady

Aug. 24, 2005, 08:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ULR's still have the final say what they do with their horses, and unless you ARE the particular ULR that you are typing about, then I don't think anyone has the right to say whether or not so and so supports this or so and so only went here because so and so said to or didn't go because so and so said to... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I refuse to name riders. I won't drag anyone into a discussion who hasn't asked to be part of it. I am simply trying to make this thread aware that he does influence where and when riders compete. It is a piece of knowledge and I am not judging anyone. If we didn't discuss riders who don't post to this board we wouldn't be able to discuss much of the sport.

And as long as we are getting down to brass tacks, OWNERS generally have the finally say on what happens to their horses, not ULR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course they do, but how many owners will really say no to this or that if the rider feels it is best for their particular horse and would result in the best results? When it comes time for entries, the ULR can call up the owner and say that they need to send in entries for this and that and the owner just needs to okay it... JMO though...

free

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:10 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gry2Yng:

but IIRC, riders were told not to run a long format CCI. Some ran the 3 star short format at Jersey Fresh rather than Rolex and some shipped to Germany. The power(s) that be did not say "Don't run Rolex, run Luhmulen." They said "Don't run a long format CCI. We would prefer you run a three star short format to running a four star long format."QUOTE]

But, unlessi am mistaken, a few of the riders chose to do the last long-format at Badminton just a week before Rolex. That is the reason why they were not at Rolex.

I know that is where one of the riders who (I suppose) could be considered "on the bubble" did, and it hasn't seemed to hurt her standing with MP one iota.

free

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:28 PM

Gry...I also heard the rumor about Luhmulen and 'me of little faith' had to question it. After the game-plan was explained to me, it became clear that it had nothing to do with undermining Rolex and was good coaching strategy (if we want to have a winning team). In fairnessto me, it had been entirely blown out of proportion by the time that I heard it and I fell for the rumors.

Let me add that while I will not criticize MP as a coach, as far as what I have experienced, I do not like him as a person and that is why I wanted to believe it.

Gry2Yng

Aug. 24, 2005, 04:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by free:
Gry...I also heard the rumor about Luhmulen and 'me of little faith' had to question it. After the game-plan was explained to me, it became clear that it had nothing to do with undermining Rolex and was good coaching strategy (if we want to have a winning team). In fairnessto me, it had been entirely blown out of proportion by the time that I heard it and I fell for the rumors.

Let me add that while I will not criticize MP as a coach, as far as what I have experienced, I do not like him as a person and that is why I wanted to believe it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it had nothing to do with undermining Rolex. I didn't say that MP wants to see Rolex destroyed. Of course the best way to create a team that can win at the short format is to have riders practice at the short format.

I will say it one more time and then I am done saying it. My only point is that MP influences where and when horses compete. Of course some riders don't listen to him. Some do.

I have said at least three times already that I am not criticising ANY RIDER for their decisions. I am only pointing out that MP can and does influence the decision as to where a horse competes. Owners also influence those decisions and horses get run or don't get run at places the ULR would not choose if the choice were entirely up to them. Some ULR are lucky and the have FULL discretion as to what happens with a particular horse. Some riders have seen horses ripped out from under them.

By the way, (flame suit on), not every rider out there does what is best for the horse. Some do what is best for their career.

I love this sport. I love the horses and I love the riders. It is no secret who I am. I don't say these things to hurt anyone. I say them because this is reality. SOME riders make decisions based on MP, SOME riders make decisions based on what their owners want (which may be influenced by MP or not), SOME riders make decisions that are not based on the best interest of their horses and SOME riders do everything based on their own inner voice with only the best interest of the horse at heart.

You all don't want to hear "talk" about riders that aren't on the BB to defend themselves, which is why I won't name riders. But you won't believe that any rider actually made a decision based on what MP said to them unless you know the name of said rider. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Eventing is not an equestrian world living on a higher plane that show jumping or dressage. It is money and politics and sponsorship and owners and egos.

RunForIt

Aug. 24, 2005, 05:07 PM

Sooo....If we had a coach who was in favor of the long format, do you think that person might persuade some of the "the short format is better for the (expensive) horses and their owners" cohort to reconsider their stance, IF they wanted to ride on a team...hmmm? Yes indeedy, the coach has a GREAT deal of influence - yes, MP has produced winning teams - at what cost? The sport of Eventing in the US has certainly felt his support of the short format. Again, that's the reality now; I don't want to read about his disdain for me, I won't pay one penny of his salary. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Jazzy Lady

Aug. 24, 2005, 06:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RunForIt:
Sooo....If we had a coach who was in favor of the long format, do you think that person might persuade some of the "the short format is better for the (expensive) horses and their owners" cohort to reconsider their stance, IF they wanted to ride on a team...hmmm? Yes indeedy, the coach has a GREAT deal of influence - yes, MP has produced winning teams - at what cost? The sport of Eventing in the US has certainly felt his support of the short format. Again, that's the reality now; I don't want to read about his disdain for me, I won't pay one penny of his salary. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had a coach that supported the long format and got the ULRs and the owners to get their horses to only go to long formats then you would have no upper level horses and riders. Lets face it, the coach can say they support the long format, but what is it going to do? The coach has to train the best to get the best. Training for long format is going to do crap seeing as there are no longer any long format *** or ****. It's the FEI, not the US team coach that decides the format...

RunForIt

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:53 PM

Kinda late, thought that I was being sarcastic enough, but came off a little lame in that regard if anyone thought I assumed the 3*** and 4**** would magically reappear with the DISappearance of MP. In other parts of my life, I've taken stands on issues that I believed strongly enough in that I had to let things that I wanted desperately go...stuff I'd worked for years to achieve. I would cry, I would NOT want to even know who was on the teams, BUT IF I SUPPORTED, BELIEVED THE FEI WAS DEAD-WRONG IN KILLING THE LONG FORMAT, I'D THANK MP FOR HIS HELP, WALK AWAY AND RIDE AT ROLEX AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN - SO VERY PROUDLY. . There's money enough, there's land available, the issue has never been enough volunteers nor riders - we don't have the long format any more because enough of the people who ride - excuse me, RODE - in those events did not care enough to say "we'll stay home".. I'm not just talking about the US ULRs - all of them quit eventing.

Yes, I know that these people have worked a life time to be on "the team", yes, this is how they make their living. I do expect that taking a stand on something that they believed in would not have cost many their livlihood - might've brought them more business...amazing how taking a stand on the hard stuff brings you admirers. There's the rub though, enough of the eventing world's ULRs DIDN'T/DON'T believe enough in the sport to take a stand. It's the team, the hunt for victory, that counts more than the reality of what has happened to eventing. Fine, I'll watch videos of the real stuff - just leave the 1* and 2** alone!

LaddiePony

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:38 AM

Free, you're right about certain riders opting to do Badminton rather than Rolex. My trainer went over to England, and one of his main reasons was (not gonna let myself get choked up here) that it was the last year it would be held long-format and he wanted to be a part of it (not to mention wanting his horse to get the chance to do the same!). I'm not going to say too much as most of you know who I'm talking about here, and I'll try to use my words and not his, but he's probably one of the best examples of team vs. sport. He wants so very much to represent the country in the Olympics, the WEG, etc., so the team is important to him; he doesn't want to see our sport die, but he's so torn about what to do, because he can't just let his dreams die, either.

He has said that there was talk of this years ago, and nobody took it seriously then, so he can't help but feel the long format at the Advanced level has been lost; it's too late to do anything about it, whether or not he likes it. He also feels there is room for both formats, and that it certainly should be left alone at the * and ** level at least. The short format, if we're going to have to accept it at the *** and **** levels, is not good enough as it currently exists, though; changes will have to be made to make it safe (it says something when your horse is sounder and fresher after running long-format **** cross-country than after a short-format *** cross-country...). That just shows how hastily these decisions were made, without taking the time to study how the horses would be affected; so, will other upper level riders start to recognize this and speak out against the short format as it exists? Probably not, as long as they want a spot on the team (and that's too bad). But my trainer's comments along the lines of "something has to change, they have to find a better way to warm us up.." are encouraging to me, because a change in the short format would be a step in the right direction if we are going to HAVE to accept the long format as we know it being lost.

It's the happy medium we need to look for - compromise. (I like to use examples, so here goes). In my riding, I tend to go to the extremes; I'll go from throwing the horse away over the fence to not giving her enough of a release. But if I am made aware that I've done so, I can follow with my hands enough to support her but still allow her to use her neck. And the more I ride like that, the more I get used to it. A modified short format can be the same thing; it will feel weird at first, but once it is established, it may just be the best thing for the sport. OF COURSE I want the long format to stay in the upper levels; but if it simply cannot, wouldn't we rather have something than nothing at all? We'll lose the sport in international competitions if we refuse to accept anything but the long format, because the rest of the world & the FEI have shown that they want little or nothing to do with it; so the best we can do is focus on "fixing" what is so wrong with the short format. Like I said, a happy medium. Not saying this will be easy...but it's something to think about.

In the meantime, I can just keep praying that one long-format CCI**** will still exist in the world - the Rolex (it's already broken my heart to see the Badminton go). But how long can they continue to run it (long format) if they don't have competitor support? I guess we'll see in 2007 if the upper level riders have given up on it; I know that if it was a reasonable goal for me, I'd shoot for it! (Oh well, maybe the next odd-numbered year. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I am a Jr/YR who has wanted to ride in a CCI**** since the day I saw the Badminton on television as a young child, so I can only hope I will have one - a real one - to ride in when I'm ready. But if not, I'll just have to modify my dreams a little bit, because I'm sure as hell not going to give them up.

-Kelsey
*Laddy's girl forever!*

persefne

Aug. 25, 2005, 06:58 AM

Kels -- Thank you for such a lucid and respectful viewpoint on this issue.

I've already left this thread, since it took a turn for the worse, from discussing CMP's article in EVENTING and his place as chef/voice for American eventing, to a downward spiraling arguement <sigh> about long vs. short format (I've already expressed my thoughts on this elsewhere on other similar threads). But, I do have to stop in here to say that although some posters are not "naming" names, that there are several people on here who are incredibly close to major ULRs, who do *in fact* know their stances on this issue and should not be addressed as if they are posting lies and assumptions. How many times do we have to say over and over that we come on here to further enhance our already existing real-world eventing community? It's not as if we're talking about Brad Pitt or Madonna (celebrities about whom most of us could talk and talk, but we -- on the whole -- have never met them in our lives). We're talking (very earnestly and very generally, in most cases) about the people we ride with, train with, party with at events, and stable beside at competitions, people whom we seek out for help and knowledge, and who -- in turn -- admire our persistence, dedication, and love for the sport...no matter what level we ride.

LaddiePony, we've discussed this topic in person several times before, and your post is well-composed, accurate, and respectful. I whole-heartedly believe that _______ would appreciate your care with his perspective on this topic and if it were his intention or his place, I'm sure he'd say exactly the same to anyone else. I particularly love that you make the point of this affecting the life-long dreams of many riders, and it's not always about the money, the owners, the sponsors, the team, CMP, or the bloody FEI. It's about life and pursuing our heart's desires and it's not easy to box that into a nice little "I support" or "I don't support" package. A lovely post, K! <big hug!>

RunForIt

Aug. 25, 2005, 05:49 PM

the intriguing part of conversations is that they can help you grow- that is, I suppose if you listen and are willing to think. The last two posts were compelling, thoughtful, and stopped me in my ruminating long enough to be hopeful that out of this first "draft" of the 3*** and 4**** new format of eventing might, just might emerge something that we can support, and be proud to be a part of again. You're right, both of you - this sport is about a whole lot of people's dreams and hopes and work and guts; thanks for sharing all that you did! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sadsmile.gif

Jazzy Lady

Aug. 25, 2005, 07:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RunForIt:
the intriguing part of conversations is that they can help you grow- that is, I suppose if you listen and are willing to think. The last two posts were compelling, thoughtful, and stopped me in my ruminating long enough to be hopeful that out of this first "draft" of the 3*** and 4**** new format of eventing might, just might emerge something that we can support, and be proud to be a part of again. You're right, both of you - this sport is about a whole lot of people's dreams and hopes and work and guts; thanks for sharing all that you did! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sadsmile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed

LaddiePony

Aug. 26, 2005, 02:46 AM

I'm on my way out to the door the barn (headed out to Tryon HT!), so I can't write much, but I just wanted to tell all three of you - persefne, RunForIt, and Jazzy Lady - how much I appreciate your kind comments regarding my post. Thanks for your support!!!

-Kelsey
*Laddy's girl forever!*

free

Aug. 26, 2005, 09:38 AM

LaddiePony...please let me join in saying that your post was excellent. Your trainer is indeed fortunate to have a student such as you.

redlight

Aug. 27, 2005, 02:13 PM

CMP's salary is paid for by the USEF High Performance department not the USEA. Why can't we find an American to coach our team? Why is David going to Canada and Jimmy to New Zealand? Why does the membership have to pay for him to fly over from England all the time when the High Performance group could save some much needed money by hiring an American? While I don't know CMP personally, what little I've read by him he sounds like a pompous aristocrat!

If the *** and **** US riders had a choice of who to coach them who do you think they would pick?

free

Aug. 27, 2005, 06:10 PM

I thought it was determined that David couldn't coach the Canadian team because it would be in conflict with his position at USEF?

Ellie K

Aug. 27, 2005, 06:30 PM

apparently the USEF president is exempt from any conflict of interest policies, unless something has recently changed... USEA news release (http://www.useventing.com/news/2005/oconnor_train_canada.htm)

Gry2Yng

Aug. 28, 2005, 06:03 AM

I think he is being "retained for high performance clinics" because he cannot be "coach". I also think he is going to Burghley with Kelli M-T and Mike Winter.

RunForIt

Aug. 28, 2005, 08:24 AM

I've kept quiet on the David O'Connor "helping" Canada's Team BECAUSE I am hoping for a trickle down effect http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...Mike and Emma Winter train Mary Bess Horton who helps me with my jumping/ coaches me at horse trials!(at least when I have one going and doing! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif) Jimmy Wofford definitely was a good thing for Mike...lucky to now have David! It was fun watching the Rolex DVD last night - terrific coverage of Emma's ride on Mahagony Chief! But that should be another discussion, huh? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

3dayeventing

Jul. 1, 2006, 08:35 PM

Not sure if its really worth it anymore. Why put on the miles when there are so many CIC's around now. With Rolex having the short format and so many others I feel like saving my horse. Any one have thoughts on this?

Threeday33

Jul. 1, 2006, 08:53 PM

3dayeventing

Jul. 1, 2006, 09:07 PM

I am right there with you on the confusion. I am opting not to run the long format. There are so many short formts offered now!

EventerAJ

Jul. 1, 2006, 09:35 PM

Y'know, I'm just about DONE with the FEI. The FEI is the root of all evil. It is a terrible and ineffiecient association that basically provides us with nothing but headaches (and heartaches). It's impossible for any sane, normal human being to keep up with the every-other-day nonsensical rule changes. And the fees?? For WHAT?

I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I'm honestly starting to believe that the FEI is KILLING OUR SPORT. Killing it DEAD. Pissing us off, making us so frustrated that we eventually give up. Making it so difficult or confusing to qualify, and then yanking the rug out when you finally get there. What does it matter to ride at the Olympics anymore? And the freaking "FEI Games"? What a joke. The FEI is poisoning our sport from the top, like one of those broad-leaf weed killers that makes the whole plant wilt and die. Eventually eventing will be nothing more than an indoor derby, with a brief dressage test, and a sj course with maybe a corner, bank, or skinny thrown in ("ooooh, cross-country!!"). It makes me sick. Maybe in some places they aren't fortunate enough to have land (or $) for R&T, SC, and XC. Well, sorry for them, but some places DO still have land ($). And we want to KEEP OUR SPORT AS IT IS (was).

As far-fetched as it sounds, my proposal is to ditch the FEI. Have a Revolution, overthrow the tyrant, and create our own governing body. If it means screwing us out of the Olympics, I'm really really sorry. But if eventing dies in 5 years, there won't be an Olympics for us anyway. It seems that the FEI is playing cat-and-mouse with eventing, and sooner or later the cat is just going to finish us off for good.

lstevenson

Jul. 1, 2006, 09:46 PM

oreo

Jul. 1, 2006, 10:07 PM

I read the first 5 and then jumped to 13.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything pertinent but I think there are 2 different issues here:

1. Is CMP the right coach for the international team? I would say "no". There are better American coaches here on the ground. I am a Brit and never understood the cache he had going over here. I think he's a pompuss ass (you have to say that with a British accent to get the full effect!) I also think the Canadians are much smarter - heavens they picked some great American coaches!

2. Long vs Short format: While Long is much beloved here, we have to remember that the US is only ONE of many nations that compete. There is a definite tradition here to take OTTBs and turn them into eventers. I think that is because until recently there was no money in breeding horses specifically for eventing here in the US and now all the money that is on breeding eventers is on WBs. The Europeans are much better at breeding eventers that are not necessarily warmbloods. I mean Irish Sport Horses (400+ years of breeding, probably), English Thoroughbreds (still bred for endurance and speed, unlike most US TBS), French Selle Francaise (generally bigger boned than US TBs). My point is that there is an inherant desire here to keep Long format because you can still get a cheap-ish US-bred OTTB and do well. In the rest of the world there are established breeding programs that produce excellent horses specifically for eventing and that can do either format. That's why there isn't the same outcry against Short format. I'm sorry but I think we need to (a) accept that we can't have our own way all the time, we are only one nation in a world of many and (b) wake up and smell the coffee - we need to grow our own better event horses. Period. I drool on a daily basis at the Irish breeders programs - they are breeding quality horses as are the French, English, NZ and Aussies - that are winning against the German and Dutch WBs! We need to do that too.

bigdreamer

Jul. 1, 2006, 10:21 PM

wow, this is an old thread...

everyones pretty much given up on the long. whatever. I'd run one just to run it, see what you think. before the chance is gone. steeplechase really gets the horse out infront of the leg and jumping forward (this has been said to me for ages by any eventer I know- so that is my "proof" to this statement) and is a whole new experience.

why not do a long though? same amount of conditioning/miles on your horses legs involved (oh, minus the few extra from AB &C, but if you really think those few miles make that big a difference in the long run... go for it), the type of horse really won't change- the only difference is the already set up warm up for you that was designed by years of trial and error that sets the horse up for a good XC go vs. warming up over some stadium jumps on your own.

if you do decide later on in life you want to run a long, come to my (future) farm. we're gunna have home-run long formats and drink a lot. it'll be fun. :winkgrin: :) we might also vote on whether to do dressage or not ;)

Caroline Weber

Jul. 1, 2006, 10:26 PM

if you do decide later on in life you want to run a long, come to my (future) farm. we're gunna have home-run long formats and drink a lot. it'll be fun. :winkgrin: :) we might also vote on whether to do dressage or not ;)

Count me in on that!

oreo

Jul. 1, 2006, 10:27 PM

My big concern with short vs long is that people will think short is like a HT and try to do multiples of them, whereas everyone knew long was a once or twice a year thing.

Sorry if this was already stated on the pages 6-12 I skipped.

bigdreamer

Jul. 1, 2006, 10:49 PM

yup, oreo, it's been said. and it is a concern shared by a few upper level riders I've discussed the matter with, as well. so we wee-ones actually have some authority by saying that because some upper level people stand behind us. :rolleyes: *sigh*

caroline- the more the merrier :) all are welcome! bring some dogs, we'll let them run around without leashes on :lol:

p.s. the rolling eyes thing is not to be mean to you, its my sarcasm to note that our genuine concern of horses welfare and our own reasoning ability goes unnoticed unless some people with "proper riding authority" stand behind us.

p.p.s. if anyone wants to know the names of the riders, PT me! I will share them, but hesitate to on a public BB in case CMP is really stalking here and wants to know who he shouldn't let on the team :lol:

Threeday33

Jul. 2, 2006, 07:45 AM

lstevenson-
That was my original thinking as well. When I talked to Lucinda about it (she knows my horse quite well), she said even a CCI* long format is a lot for the horses physically, so why put him through that? I'm not saying I agree with that because like others are saying, haven't we found that the short format still requires almost as much conditioning?

I have done a few CCI*s (long format) on other horses and I completely agree with you that they help horses confidence. The only thing I'm struggling with is that this particular horse doesn't need to learn to be more aggressive XC-he is definitely not a timid horse that needs to learn to jump from speed. I would be doing it more to support the long format and teach my younger students what real 3 day eventing is all about. Believe me, I'm still tossing it around in my head-entries don't go in for a while yet :)

Duramax

Jul. 2, 2006, 11:23 AM

As far-fetched as it sounds, my proposal is to ditch the FEI. Have a Revolution, overthrow the tyrant, and create our own governing body. If it means screwing us out of the Olympics, I'm really really sorry. But if eventing dies in 5 years, there won't be an Olympics for us anyway. It seems that the FEI is playing cat-and-mouse with eventing, and sooner or later the cat is just going to finish us off for good.

I am right there with you... this is how I have felt from the get-go! :yes:

Ellie K

Jul. 2, 2006, 02:31 PM

Unfortunately, such a thing is a logical impossibility. International sport is not a free market. As long as the FEI choose to recognise and govern eventing at international level, no one else can. Look at the recent very misguided announcement at the USEA convention, unfortunately reported by COTH, that a long format "world event horse championship" was being planned at Rolex Kentucky, without FEI sanctioning. No one in the EEI or USEA/USEF, or the COTH, apparently being aware that only the FEI has the right to conduct and title world championships in the disciplines they govern. FEI sanctioning is therefore not a matter of 'choice' but one of rights, both de jure and de facto. Those rights come from the IOC. And of course the FEI immediately made it clear to USEF in somewhat less than cordial terms that they would never permit such an event to take place.

What this means is that if they proceeded, not only would EEI and USEF face legal action from the FEI, but you would have no officials. Any FEI official who agreed to officiate such an event would cease to be an FEI official because to do so would be in violation of FEI Statutes. The FEI would put heat on USEF and then any USEF official who agreed to officiate such an event would lose their license. And they would have no competitors...because any NF (including USEF) who would allow their riders to enter such an event would be in violation of FEI Statutes and in violation of their membership in the FEI, and therefore subject to suspension or expulsion from the FEI.

So what you are talking about is a prospect of the FEI "opting out" and letting someone else take over. This would involve the initiative and decision-making of the FEI's membership. A National Federation would have to put the matter on the agenda for the FEI General Assembly, and the requisite majority of NFs would have to vote to agree with them, to remove eventing as an FEI discipline. That will never happen.

deltawave

Jul. 2, 2006, 04:22 PM

JAGold

Jul. 2, 2006, 04:36 PM

Even though I am a huge supporter of the full format CCIs, I also wonder if it is worth it to run a horse in a full format CCI, when there are so many CICs and short formats. With all of the upper level 3 days becoming short format, why run a full format? I was thinking it would educate my prelim. horse to do a full format, but when I asked Lucinda Green in a clinic what she thought, she said not to bother-find a short format to get the qualifications for a CCI**. What is everyone else's opinion on this?

Chrissy, I share your ambivilance here. I support the full format "real" three day, and the type of horses it favors. However, I also agree that the sport has shifted towards the short format three day, and that change requires rethinking how to bring a horse up through the ranks.

At this point, I think the best thing to do is to take advantage of having different types of competitions as a way to customize the traning progression for each individual horse. There are some horses who stand to learn a LOT by doing a full three day, and for these horses, I think it's worth doing a full format one star even though it's not necessary to qualify for a two star. And then there are other horses who don't need the "lesson" of steeplechase or the effect of A and C. And for these horses, I think the best thing to do is to let the shift in the direction of the sport work in their favor.

You certainly know Harley better than me, but my guess is that he is closer to the second than the first type. I'm not so convinced that he'd benefit from running steeplechase. Neither you nor he needs to learn to be agressive and think forward, but he will benefit from the more complicated, technical questions and the longer course at a CCI (relative to a HT). If full format three days were still where the sport was at, then you'd have to find a way to make them work for Harley, and I'm sure you would! But since they are not, I'm not sure that running the full format one star contributes much to Harley's training. If it were my call, I'd probably do the modified with him.

Is this rolling over and admitting defeat? Perhaps -- but I also think that each decision should first be made with the best interests of the individual horse (and rider) in mind. I think it's ok to say that in general, I prefer the full format three day, but there are some horses for whom the short format is a better option. Now that the short format is an -- sometimes the only -- option, I don't see anything wrong with taking advantage of it when appropriate. --Jess

JER

Jul. 2, 2006, 04:56 PM

IIRC, endurance went through the same FEI hassles some time ago, I think in the late 70s or early 80s. US endurance riders started to invite their international friends to join in races and suddenly the FEI was knocking on the door, saying all the stuff about FEI sanctions.

Ellie K (or anyone here), do you recall any of this and know how it was resolved? I thought there was some compromise reached between the two groups. I know some endurance rides are under FEI rules these days but some rides -- like the Tevis Cup -- have their own rules and are not FEI rides.

(This year I've been dabbling in endurance and I've learned that most endurance people really don't like judges or rules or anyone telling them what to do with their horses. Perhaps we could learn something from them.)

Threeday33

Jul. 2, 2006, 06:31 PM

JAGold

Jul. 2, 2006, 06:37 PM

Jess-
That is EXACTLY what is going through my mind right now...even though I don't exactly know what ambivilance means. :) Even though I support the full format 3 day, the sport is going a different direction and this particular horse and I will not necessarily benefit significantly from doing AB and C. I feel like looking for a short format one-star certainly is admitting defeat, however, and wish there was another option :(

Chris -- well, shockingly, :eek: I didn't quite spell it right (ambivalence) ;)

I do think the best example you can set for your students is letting the horse tell you what he needs, and planning a training and competition program guided by his individual strengths and weaknesses. --Jess

Ellie K

Jul. 2, 2006, 09:07 PM

So the proposed long format at Rolex next year would be a problem only because of the NAME? What's in a name? The QH folks call every competiton "World Championship" and it seems like every 3rd horse is a "World Champion" something or other. :)
The FEI doesn't govern breed shows and thus has no jurisdiction over them, so the quarter horse people can do whatever they like. As long as nobody starts trying to put on a non-breed restricted, 6-year-olds and up reining world championship, they are not in the FEI's turf and thus the FEI has no problem. It was agreed when Reining became an FEI discipline that the NRHA could keep doing its thing with reining for young horses, and FEI reining would be only for older horses, and AQHA can do whatever, since that's a breed thing which the FEI doesn't get involved in anyway. It's a little different since the FEI wanted reining, at the same time it was very much a part of what these other organisations were doing even on an international level. And the FEI had to respect that these orgs created the discipline, with many facets, so it wouldn't really be appropriate for them to try to take it all over, not that they even wanted to do so. So they took their little bit and everything else continues on as it was.

Rolex can have a long format CCI and invite the whole world with a gazillion dollars in prize money. But they can't call it an international championship because a CCI isn't an international championship. And they can't attach the name "world" to it because the rules plainly state that this requires permission of the FEI Bureau. Or they can, with USEF approval, have a long format CCN with a gazillion dollars prize fund, and have all the foreign riders who are domiciled here compete in it, and even limited entries from abroad--I think the limit for a CCN is a total 15 entries, max 4 different countries, not counting the foreign competitors domiciled here. And they can, with USEF approval, have either sanctioned as a USEF championship (as Rolex already is) but they may not refer to it as an international championship and certainly not a world one. The FEI is not going to take issue with retitling it for NBC: "Rolex Equestrian Championships" etc. because 1) they understand this is to help the non-equestrian public and this helps the sport, and 2) it is in fact a championship, a USEF one, so that's technically fine. It's a question of intent. Are you intending to make something understandable to the public...or are you trying to circumvent the authority of the FEI? Two very different things.

Same with Tevis. The FEI only recognised Endurance in 1981 I think. Tevis has been around since the 50s, so the FEI is not going to nitpick them over how many foreign riders are entering and whether or not that makes it 'technically' international by their standards. Despite its prestige and notoriety it's technically *just* an AERC ride, and on top of long-predating the FEI's involvement in the discipline, it doesn't profess to be an international championship, it's not competing directly with any FEI event (as the Rolex plan would, by taking away potential sponsors for the 2010 FEI Games), there's no big prize money incentive for riders to come from abroad. I'm sure they do get a fair number of foreign riders because of the event's prestige, but how many I have no idea.

There's no obligation or even pressure to turn national events into FEI ones, it's a matter of intent. Is their intent to just go along doing their national thing as they have always done long before the FEI even recognised the sport? Or are they really trying to put on a true international event outside of the auspices of the FEI and lure top international competitors away from the FEI's competing product?

Now if the UAE decided to sponsor Tevis and throw in $100,000 prize money and riders from all over the world were bypassing FEI events to compete in it, far exceeding the 4 country/15 rider limit for CNs, then the FEI might have something to say about it and come down on AERC/USEF. But more than likely they would just kindly ask the UAE once again to stop meddling in national affairs and it would go away. It's a little fuzzier with these disciplines that developed outside of the FEI and NF structure, then later came into the FEI. And technically it's USEF's responsibility to supervise what the affiliates such as AERC are doing, but firstly that doesn't go over real well with the endurance crowd :lol:so they all have to ask 'is it worth it', and secondly since the USEF doesn't even follow the FEI rules it's not really in a position to go around telling other organisations that they have to.

Gnep

Jul. 2, 2006, 11:07 PM

It would be a very interesting question where could the FEI go to court and on which legal base, if one gives what ever a name, World what so ever and run it as a 3D.
The World Equine Triatlon ?

What speeks against natinal 3Ds, sanctioned by the useventing, as the NRHA does it.
The NRHA has its world championchips and Euros outside the FEI and they have far more prestige than anything the FEI has to offer.

For organizer and competitor it would be so much better, les expensive to be without hte FEI.
Does one need a judge for Stadium, Vetboxes, Jog outs, X-C. Defenetly not.
Anybody can take time in Stadium and count poles or what ever. Same in XC.
Who says the horse is lame, the vet, what does one need a ground jury of FEI people for, basicly for nothing, except to make things more expensive.
Why do we need 3 judges for dressage, if Advanced has just one and so on and so on.

If people are realy interested in the 3D, just because of it and what it means, not as a steping stone for Young Riders or a Quali for waht ever, than there are a lot of ways to keep it alive.
It does not have to be FEI
It does not have to be directly attached to the USEventing.
It can be attached to USEventing or USEA.
Close bot not close enough.

If there are enough people who are willing to do it ?

Where there is a need, urge, there is always a bush.

belambi

Jul. 3, 2006, 02:34 AM

I notice that Mrs Phillips has been selected for Weg on Uk Dressage team..and Daughter selected for Weg on UK eventing team. .. Interesting.

Sannois

Jul. 3, 2006, 05:00 AM

jhodkin

Jul. 3, 2006, 07:47 AM

Talking of the steeplechase getting the horse in front of your leg....

It strikes me that steeplechase just before a xc does for horses what hunting used to generally do for them - make them bolder and happier.... trouble is they banned that too over here...

Seems like everyone is conspiring to squeeze us into a little safe box that can be controlled, non-threatening and wholly impotent.

I sit on the fence regarding format, but I would say that I am 100% pro-choice. If people want to organise and run long-format and there's a demand for it then do it.

As for the higher levels, so much sponsorship and government funding relies on us being in the Olympics, that unless eventing learns to embrace the 'lesser-nations' we will be out of because we are a European/American dominated sport. Cheaper events (i.e. w/o roads & tracks and steeplechase) was an easy way to cut down costs and make eventing more accessible to other nations. If we can develop a culture of equestrianism, and eventing in particular in asian and african countries, we could use this as a base from which to redevelop the long-format.

I'm afraid stamping our collective feet and spitting our dummies will only speed our exit from the Olympics, which on balance is a bad thing for our sport. We need to learn that to grow we need to put others needs before our own. Bring on board these lesser nations at a cost they can afford and who knows how big the family of eventing could become? The bigger the family the more power it wields... perhaps we just need to think of the wider picture.

Us in our developed 'rich' countries can still organise our own domestic 3 days and indulge our whims without affecting anyone else. If we become stubborn and dig our heels in over the worldwide picture, we could deal our sport a blow it might never recover from.

Just a little food for thought that's all....

fernie fox

Jul. 3, 2006, 08:38 AM

I notice that Mrs Phillips has been selected for Weg on Uk Dressage team..and Daughter selected for Weg on UK eventing team. .. Interesting.

Well ,lets face it.

Daughter is a "naturally super rider".just like her mother.:D

Wifey is also an excellent horsewoman,way more-so than him.;)

jhodkin

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:04 AM

Obviously I'm having a blonde moment here... but isn't Sandy Phillips American?????????

flyingchange

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:07 AM

I believe Zara is out of Princess Anne. :D

jhodkin

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:18 AM

flyingchange - I think I know my Royal family !!

I was talking about Sandy Phillips being selected for the UK dressage squad, not Zara!

fernie fox

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:18 AM

Yes,Zara is the daughter of Princess Anne.

Sandy is his second wife,but she is a much better Horseman than he is.:winkgrin:

fernie fox

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:29 AM

Sandy was an American,she became a Brit in 96.

She trained in UK and Germany for many years.

IMHO she is an excellent horsewoman.

I wAtched her many years ago.

http://www.britishdressage.co.uk/info/documents/SandyPhillips2.pdf

flyingchange

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:31 AM

oh, woops... I think it was just a miscommunication here. now I understand what you were asking. I need to go get some coffee. :P

ksbadger

Jul. 3, 2006, 11:16 AM

Zara was quoted as saying she owed her European Championship to the dressage coaching she got from Sandy - of course having Bettina & Andrew Hoy around as well can't have hurt.

Back to the original thread, hope everyone realises that the Captain is NOT employed to help the sport in the US rather to promote US Eventing on the World stage - which is, as he says, is all Short Format at this time. Maybe with the demonstrated increase in more damaging injuries it will swing back again but I doubt it. As Buck Davidson said at MACTA's AGM last year - it's all about sponsorship & they expect to run about every two months not just 2 or 3 times a year (although I note a much higher preponderance for sitting out significant events than before when there's, say, the WEG coming up). Probably the only good news is that it's still a TB sport - indeed the Warmblood & crosses seem to need the long format, if anything, more.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 3, 2006, 04:11 PM

There are some horses who stand to learn a LOT by doing a full three day, and for these horses, I think it's worth doing a full format one star even though it's not necessary to qualify for a two star.

I've heard this a lot, but I've never actually heard what it is people think the horse learns from ANY one particular event. Horses learn by association. What are they associating with what in any single competition?

The rider, of course, can learn a lot from a long-format event, but the horse? What does he learn upon discovering a steeplechase after the first R&T or an x-c after the second? Does he say "Whoops, I should have conserved some energy"? And then he goes and does an HT next and what's he thinking? "Hey, where's that other stuff?" Or does he tucker himself out the first time he does a long format and thus "learn" how to jump when he's pooped? Or maybe the first R&T takes his edge off so he "learns" how to be efficient on steeplechase? Thats' the closest I can get to any reasoned response to this, but I can still think of better ways than the long-format to "teach" the horse such lessons.

lstevenson

Jul. 3, 2006, 04:59 PM

pwynnnorman

Jul. 3, 2006, 08:38 PM

Many times just doing one steeplechase course gives the horse confidence to jump out of stride at a gallop.

While I can certainly see the logic in that, what I guess I meant was what can they learn in the long format that they can't learn somewhere else? Why not foxhunt them, for example? Or just have some fly fences on your schooling courses? Or just SCHOOL the concept, period (facilities permitting, of course).

I have a feeling it's the rider getting most of the schooling, in reality. What's a horse competing at Prelim for if it isn't willing to gallop down to a jump yet, for example? Isn't that something that should be started earlier and developed and refined as it moves up the levels anyway, regardless of the format?

lstevenson

Jul. 3, 2006, 08:48 PM

lstevenson

Jul. 3, 2006, 09:00 PM

What's a horse competing at Prelim for if it isn't willing to gallop down to a jump yet, for example? Isn't that something that should be started earlier and developed and refined as it moves up the levels anyway, regardless of the format?

Well, of course a Prelim horse needs to be able to gallop down to a jump. But there is a big difference between being ABLE to gallop a jump, and being really comfortable jumping at speed.

Of course, Prelim x-c speed is really not that fast, but by the time the horse moves up to intermediate and especially advanced, he should be really comfortable jumping at speed.

I would love to see a study of horses moving up to advanced, where some of the horses have done long format 3 days and some not. It would be interesting to see, but I bet the ones that did long format 3 days would find the move up to advanced easier, because jumping at speed is not as much of an issue.

Gry2Yng

Jul. 4, 2006, 08:37 AM

While I can certainly see the logic in that, what I guess I meant was what can they learn in the long format that they can't learn somewhere else? Why not foxhunt them, for example? Or just have some fly fences on your schooling courses? Or just SCHOOL the concept, period (facilities permitting, of course).

I have a feeling it's the rider getting most of the schooling, in reality. What's a horse competing at Prelim for if it isn't willing to gallop down to a jump yet, for example? Isn't that something that should be started earlier and developed and refined as it moves up the levels anyway, regardless of the format?

You may "have a feeling" but the people responding to you have been there and done that. The horse has learned something after its first steeplechase. Of course they don't associate it with an event. Ask a question, get an answer.

To further your response, what could a rider be learning if he is competiting at prelim if he isn't willing/able to gallop down to a jump yet. You don't have to like the long format, but please. Go ask KOC if she thinks horses learn something by doing a steeplechase.

Gnep

Jul. 4, 2006, 08:54 AM

Geeeeeeeee folks, learn ? Why so academic.

Do it because of it, because of what it means, because of the fun and because of the acomplishment and because of the feeling of triumph coming across the finish line of D.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 4, 2006, 11:03 AM

It wasn't "asked and answered," Gry2Yng, and avoidance of the answer is exactly why some of your arguments about the long format lack credibility--and it doesn't matter whether you've ridden it or not. If you can't articulate a reason for it, you're not in the class of rider or trainer I'm interested in conversing with anyway...but just for fun, I will take you up on your suggestion, though, since I'm almost certain Karen will indeed say that doing a one-star is indeed far more for to educate the rider than the horse.

The argument (at least those that have been put forth so far--maybe there are others out there, though, and I'd appreciate them if they were presented) that the horse learns something from doing a long format is based on an assumption that doing something ONCE teaches. Since when? And, folks, what you (which isn't ALL of you, mind you!) keep resisting in your (again, not ALL of you!) self-centered ways is that only those who have ridden at each of the various levels can appreciate the nuances of the sport. That's as short-sighted as your willingness to ignore the needs of owners, breeders and other non-riders who support the sport.

If you (againk, not ALL of you, just those who get nasty) cannot articulate what "my" horse would learn by doing a long format three-day, why in heavens name would I pay you to take it to one? Just for YOUR education. Well, then, YES, if I believe in you as a rider, I might be willing to pay for your education--after all, my horse would benefit from that in the long run. But if you insist it's for the HORSE--but can't tell me WHY--not only will I not pay for it, but I might go looking for a rider who actually knows what he or she is doing and can show me so by discussing it with me articulately.

bigdreamer

Jul. 4, 2006, 12:14 PM

pwyn-

disclaimer:I am not being mean and forcing my opinion on you ;) this is discusion, so please do not take it as an attack- I don't want it to come off that way at all :) Please don't hesitate to ask my to clarify anything as i know sometimes I suck at explaining things :)

I'm not in the boat that this one event is going to change how your horse goes on XC forever... It prepares your horse to jump around the longer, more technical and more demanding XC course that you see at a 1* that isn't at a HT. If you want to do a 1*, or any level 3-day for that matter, the course is harder by definition. The A, B, C prep the horse for this more demanding course. Makes them more rateable, opens their wind pipes, etc.

It's not to educate a rider. Perhaps if it's a young rider on an experienced horse, then yes. But no- it's about the competition. It's about the thrill of the 3-day, the thrill of competing at the international level, even if it's not a 4*. By saying doing a 1* is pointless except for education seems to me like it's saying there is no point in doing a 3-day at all unless it's a 4*. If you want to take that argeument- why even do horse trials if its not a championship? It's preping rider and/or horse for the future more difficult 3-days they may tackle later in life. If for some reason a horse can't get around a 1* course well- then maybe this sport isn't for them and they shouldn't try a harder 3-day. Transfer that thinking to other sports- and while I have no right pulling baseball into this since I know nothing about it, i'll still say- imagine if a baseball player never played a game until the world series, and never had any prep? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me... but again, i know nothing about baseball ;) The 3-days *were* the pinnacle of our sport- it's what horse trials were prepping us for. They were something to aim for, something to strive for. Saying you completed a 3-day MEANT something. Just like how other sports have competitions that prepare them for the ones that matter. Now we just have glorified horse trials spread over 3 days. But apparently thats what people want now.

and about schooling galloping fences- well, i just had a splendid clinic this weekend with someone (olympic rider and short listed for weg this year) who insisted that XC schooling is BAD because it just sets the horse up for failure because the adrenaline isn't pumping like it is on competition day. School all you want, but you won't recreate the feeling and atmosphere of a competition.

theres a reason why you have to have a certain number of clean XC rounds before you can go to a 3-day. Obviously a horse competing at prelim can gallop down to jumps- but the prep of ABC gets the horse going, stretches out their legs so they are limber and more physically able to jump around out of a gallop. On a more difficult course there is less room for error. C gives them the time to recoop from the steeplechase so that they aren't going out on course tired or anything (if they are properly conditioned).

those are some of my random thoughts. take them for whatever they are worth.

lstevenson

Jul. 4, 2006, 12:32 PM

The argument (at least those that have been put forth so far--maybe there are others out there, though, and I'd appreciate them if they were presented) that the horse learns something from doing a long format is based on an assumption that doing something ONCE teaches. Since when?

It's very obvious from this question that you have never galloped a jump at speed. After having done one steeplchase, most horses are slightly different to ride on x-c from then on . If they were the behind your leg type, they are easier to get in front of your leg. And if they were the wild, erratic type, they will tend to find their rythm at the gallop a little easier. I guess the horses that are already perfect wouldn't benefit from a steeplechase. It's too bad if you don't believe this, because in my 25 years in this sport, I have seen it and felt it many times.

I have a Preliminary student with a TB that, although generally honest, is hard to keep out in front of your leg on x-c. He's usually fine in stadium, and is not afraid of solid jumps. Because she did lower levels with him for so many years (and has always gone slowly), he never became comfortable going at speed to jumps. So on the type of jump that jumps better with speed (ie - ditch and wall) he would start backpedaling all the way to the jump if approached at speed. And he is not afraid of ditches! Well, she ran a CCI* last fall, and did great. He was a changed horse after running around steeplechase. Dragging her around a little bit (but in a nice way) and much more confident about jumping at speed. You should ask HER if she thinks a horse can learn from one experience. Since this year, after a winter off, he is bolder and more forward then ever on x-c, and she's planning to move him up to Intermediate.

So yes, if you are talking about a new and complicated skill, horses learn by repitition, many times repeating that skill. But one episode can make or break CONFIDENCE. And that's what we are talking about here. You said yourself, the horse should already know how to gallop at speed. So he's not learning any new skills. But he has a (mildly) lifetime changing experince.

So BOTH horse and rider learn to go at speed, in balance and rhythm to jumps on steeplechase. And although it probably gets better and better with more runs, one time changes them both.

Ellie K

Jul. 4, 2006, 04:08 PM

Ellie K

Jul. 4, 2006, 04:17 PM

Why cant we have our own eventing association.
For the reasons stated on p. 15.

The fundamental structure of international sport doesn't allow it.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 4, 2006, 04:52 PM

I follow what you are saying, bigdreamer, and especially appreciate the following angle:

because the adrenaline isn't pumping like it is on competition day

Now I CAN see how the atmosphere is something that can't be reproduced by foxhunting or schooling a steeplechase course (they must be out there, right? Where do steeplechasers school, after all?). Understand my thrust, though, bigdreamer: I'm not discounting the attraction OR the value of the long format for riders. It's the value to horse that I'm questioning. So similarly, when you state that if a horse bombs in a one-star, maybe he should go no further, I'm wondering how relevant, in today's eventing world, that round was since what influenced the horse's failure may have been elements that are no longer relevant (to the short format events populating the upper levels these days).

lstevenson, I am a graduate H-A pony clubber who has done everything from foxhunting to breaking and riding race horses to training horses through GP dressage. Of course, I've jumped at speed. Please don't make assumptions about people or where they are coming from. Do I sound like I'm discussing this from ignorance? [Oh, and wait, I gotta add something! Come to think of it, I've even galloped over UNTRIMMED steeplechase brush on the Glenwood racecourse on a 14.1h pony way back when! Good ol' Princie. They were so tall, we couldn't even begin to see the other side. I was being naughty, I admit, hacking back from having retreived Princie yet again from the vet's broodmare paddock which he'd jumped into. Peter Winants--heck, maybe even John S.--could tell you the likelihood of this story being quite true, since I was interning at COTH and keeping Princie at Peter's barn at the time and was called away several times to retrieve my jump-anything pony...but I digress...]

And I don't even think we are 100% disagreeing here, but merely glancing off a variation of the same point. I didn't say there's no value to what schooling steeplechase-like fences can teach a horse. I'm saying that using a COMPETITION to "teach" such lessons makes little sense and it's genuine value simply lacks plausibility, except as it impacts the rider. Maybe I should say it lacks plausibility "in general." Who knows how the occasional, unique creature might react, but programmatically, I remain skeptical.

Consider this, even in the example you provide, which I don't doubt has occurred, how can you be sure it wasn't THE RIDER's attitude that changed the horse, not the experience itself? (And, taking a lead from bigdreamer, realize I'm not attacking you there--merely enjoying the debate). Even a rider who has galloped at speed on OTHER horses may be holding back a little under an unknown quantity. Finally "doing it" may break the rider's reservations, a new confidence which then gets communicated to the horse. So yet again, did the horse do the learning or the rider?

JAGold

Jul. 4, 2006, 05:34 PM

I've heard this a lot, but I've never actually heard what it is people think the horse learns from ANY one particular event. Horses learn by association. What are they associating with what in any single competition?

The rider, of course, can learn a lot from a long-format event, but the horse? What does he learn upon discovering a steeplechase after the first R&T or an x-c after the second? Does he say "Whoops, I should have conserved some energy"? And then he goes and does an HT next and what's he thinking? "Hey, where's that other stuff?" Or does he tucker himself out the first time he does a long format and thus "learn" how to jump when he's pooped? Or maybe the first R&T takes his edge off so he "learns" how to be efficient on steeplechase? Thats' the closest I can get to any reasoned response to this, but I can still think of better ways than the long-format to "teach" the horse such lessons.

It's not steeplechase ALONE that teaches the horse, but rather how steeplechase sets up phase D that is educational. Horses learn to carry the agressive attitude from steeplechase forward into a situation where they are facing challenging, unfamiliar fences. It helps shift them out of a slightly cautious, check-out-the-new-stuff frame of mind into a go-forward-and-attack, even though it's new and distracting, frame. And that is an essential concept for horses as they move up the levels. It's good for them to learn it at prelim, where they can still slow down and jump, and understand it before they move up to intermediate, where it's more of a problem.

The full-phase three day also teaches a horse about using his body, particularly when he is tired. He learns not to fight the rider and, out of necessity, to conserve energy when galloping. Have you noticed that horses who have run one three day are a lot easier to get fit for the second, and that horses often recover a lot better after their second or third three day than after their first? Of course some of that is attrition (horses that don't handle the first well often are not entered in a full three day again) and some is the rider changing away from a plan that didn't work, but my opinion, based on personal observation, is that the horses also learn how to use their own bodies more efficiently.

As for the argument that "using a COMPETITION to "teach" such lessons makes little sense and it's genuine value simply lacks plausibility," I disagree -- or rather, I think it's an argument you could apply to absolutely anything you teach a horse. What I mean is that you could recreate the learning enviornment by setting up a steeplechase course, running that, and then running a full course over unfamiliar fences, and you'd get a very similar learning experience for the horse (minus the distractions, adrenaline, etc.). But it's implausible -- you couldn't do it at home, since part of the value comes from applying that attack attitude to new situations. And to get permission to set such a course at someone else's facility, where there is well groomed land for steeplechase and a full, challenging prelim XC course available? It would be hard, that's for sure.

That same argument could be used to say that there is no value to competition at all. And in some ways, it's true -- competitions are for people. Horses don't care about ribbons or points. But much of the training we do is to prepare our horses for competitions -- is that training also without value?

And finally -- I thing Gnep also has a point. Riding is fun. It's about forming a partnership between horse and rider, about challenging ourselves, setting goals, and, at least for me, about the adrenaline rush. It is NOT about saving the world. I think there's nothing wrong with supporting the full format three day because it is more fun. If all we wanted was to make our horses safe and happy, we would never ride them at all. The challenge of sport is to figure out how to create the challenges we humans crave while being fair to our equine partners. I don't think that the short format does a better job of balancing those two objectives than the long format. I think the long format does have some advantages in preparing horses to move up the ranks, and that a lot of it IS just plain fun.

Of course, the "just plain fun" part is about the rider, and I agree that it's not an important reason for an owner to consider when deciding whether or not to have her horse run a full-format three day. And that may be part of the issue here. Most of us are thinking about this from the perspective of riders (or potential riders); you are coming at it from the perspective of an owner. (Note: I'm not making this statement based on any assumptions about your riding ability or experience, but rather based on your comment "if you (againk, not ALL of you, just those who get nasty) cannot articulate what "my" horse would learn by doing a long format three-day, why in heavens name would I pay you to take it to one?") --Jess

lstevenson

Jul. 4, 2006, 06:18 PM

lstevenson, I am a graduate H-A pony clubber who has done everything from foxhunting to breaking and riding race horses to training horses through GP dressage. Of course, I've jumped at speed. Please don't make assumptions about people or where they are coming from. Do I sound like I'm discussing this from ignorance? [Oh, and wait, I gotta add something! Come to think of it, I've even galloped over UNTRIMMED steeplechase brush on the Glenwood racecourse on a 14.1h pony way back when! Good ol' Princie. They were so tall, we couldn't even begin to see the other side. I was being naughty, I admit, hacking back from having retreived Princie yet again from the vet's broodmare paddock which he'd jumped into. Peter Winants--heck, maybe even John S.--could tell you the likelihood of this story being quite true, since I was interning at COTH and keeping Princie at Peter's barn at the time and was called away several times to retrieve my jump-anything pony...but I digress...]

The reason I said it seems like you have never galloped a jump at speed (and when I say speed, I'm not talking about Preliminary speed, I'm talking about STEEPLECHASE speed), is that if you have YOU WOULD KNOW that once you do a course at that speed the horse has changed. I can see not believing it if you have never felt it. But it is true.

Yes, it helps the riders learn to ride at speed too, but it also changes the horses.

lstevenson

Jul. 4, 2006, 06:22 PM

Consider this, even in the example you provide, which I don't doubt has occurred, how can you be sure it wasn't THE RIDER's attitude that changed the horse, not the experience itself?

Because this is a horse that didn't grab hold of the bit and run x-c, and after one steeplechase run, he started to. She was shocked and suprised, even though I told her it would probably happen.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 5, 2006, 09:58 AM

I must admit, I found this to be extremely strong reasoning, JAGold:

The full-phase three day also teaches a horse about using his body, particularly when he is tired. He learns not to fight the rider and, out of necessity, to conserve energy when galloping. Have you noticed that horses who have run one three day are a lot easier to get fit for the second, and that horses often recover a lot better after their second or third three day than after their first? Of course some of that is attrition (horses that don't handle the first well often are not entered in a full three day again) and some is the rider changing away from a plan that didn't work, but my opinion, based on personal observation, is that the horses also learn how to use their own bodies more efficiently.

I had wondered, in an earlier post, about learning how to jump when "pooped". I suppose there is value to that and that is indeed hard to recreate elsewhere, like the atmosphere. But, of course, one could counter that by saying the horse shouldn't jump tired, but that's idealism, not reality, probably. So being prepared for that might be useful.

Interesting that this discussion has now made me wonder if anyone DOES school on steeplechase schooling grounds. I know some gallop at training tracks, but I've never actually seen where steeplechasers school. (If I recall correctly, at Glenwood, the course was closed to save the footing for race day.) But chasers have to school somewhere, don't they? Do any eventers go along? Of course, there are quite a few so-called (unjustly) "old-timers" like Bruce Davidson who actually ride/rode in chases, but I'm not hearing much of that going on anymore. That, too, may be why some need the long format so much? The average event rider no longer foxhunts or steeplechases or gallops racehorses any more.

And now THAT I'd find as one of the most compelling reasons to retain the format, in fact! To give riders opportunities to become better rounded as horsemen and riders--because they can no longer avail themselves of the resources that used to make ordinary riders into great ones.

Marley's Ghost

Jul. 5, 2006, 10:33 AM

Most recent edition of Eventing magazine, page 48. Allow me to quote our fearless leader.

"I know the USEA and some of its members are clinging to the long format. I am sorry to say it, but those people are living in yesteryear and not [sic] the modern sport. Yes, at the lower levels, CCI* and below, it will carry on for a while, for as long as people are prepared to pay for the extra expense of staging it...

...As for those who say, "In my day", I would simply say to them, today you would be a participant, not a competitor at the top level of the sport."

While I sympathize with your frustration, Delatawave, we really ought to put Captain Phillips and all his supercilious statements in an appropriate context. He really means well.

Captain Mark Phillips is father to kids who are tenth and eleventh in line to succeed to the British Throne. http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rsucc.html

Not only is his personal history military with the habit of command, he is on a first name basis with every British royal in the deck with the likely exception of the Queen, and divorced by mutual agreement from a woman who arguably, tied both by affection and personal visage, is the most horsey Princess Royal (or royal of any kind) in the world. This guy is used to speaking on and from Mount Olympus, and doesn't have it in him to do otherwise.

Relevantly, by British standards, the choice he and his ex-wife made in refusing to have their two kids formally showered with the usual laundry list of royal titles was radical and egalitarian, bordering on Bolshevik. [As grandchildren of a reigning monarch, even so, whether Mummy and Daddy wish them to be or not, those 2 kids, "Mr." and "Miss" Phillips, respectively, are nevertheless by law a Prince and a Princess of Great Britain, respectively, if anyone really cares.]

What's more, it is a well-established British tradition to have every important public or non-commercial institution in the whole bloody country nominally headed by an absentee royal patron. The actual day-to-day running of each of the things is conducted by some long-suffering deputy, generally a competent but usually no-name commoner or sprig of the aristocracy, who eventually receives as recompense a pension and sprinkling of letters after her or his name, together with some gilded order or decoration. The royal twit up front, however, receives all the ceremonial glory.

So to tone things up for the benighted colonials, Captain Phillips was selected to be a head trainer of the USEA. But by some very non-British quirk, his role actually *is* to take charge of the named responsibility.

And while he is accustomed speak in the supercilious manner of the royals, he does so with his 'neo-Bolshie' bias.

So here's the context:

From a rather sheltered and blindered perspective, Captain Phillips not only is being 'democratic' by taking this job and addressing the colonial troops (USEA's membership), but he is being positively radical [as within the royals he and his ex were wont to be] in exhorting the membership to accept a radical change from past tradition.

Interestingly, his ex's distant cousin, Grand Duke Cyril, nephew of the last Czar, and himself number two in line for the vacant Russian throne, actually cheerfully embraced the Leninist cause after October 1917, but the communists didn't believe a word of it and shot him anyway.

Clearly by Capt. Phillips' lights he is doing absolutely splendid work in the best egalitarian spirit. Noblesse oblige, don't you know?

The Chef de Equipe probably would be as puzzled and dismayed to realize his grand pronouncements win him no friends, as was his counsin by marriage the Grand Duke Cyril when the Soviets, whose side he authentically and enthusiastically embraced, laughed at him and then hauled him off to be shot.

(Of course, to be perfectly fair, Captain Phillips more than creditably can perform the activity to which his organization is dedicated. This gives him a leg up on virtually all the other royals who are titular heads of universities and other organizations.)

PiedPiper

Jul. 5, 2006, 10:36 AM

pwy- Ask xcntrygirl about schooling for steeplechasing especially in the Middleburg area since her boy was schooling here this spring. I do believe from our conversations that the didn't school full courses but some jumps in a row with another horse.

I think a good side discussion would be those that have done the 1/2 star and the impact it had on their horses (since it was a level lower than traditional), especially those that are moving up.

JAGold

Jul. 5, 2006, 10:50 AM

I would be very surprised if KOC doesn't recognise the value of the steeplechase for the reasons already cited, but she still seems to be a big fan of the short format:

From the COTH, May 5: “ ‘I’m a strong believer that you give them their education at the preliminary level. The beauty of the short format is that they can carry on [competing] without a long break,’ said O’Connor.” -- after winning the short format Florida CCI*

I really don't like KOC's reasoning there. I can understand supporting the short format because, for example, you think it is better for horses (saving them unnecessary wear and tear) or a more sustainable form of competition (requires less land). I don't necessary agree with either of those reasons, but I can understand how believing them, or something similar, would cause you to favor the short format.

But to support it because you can compete more?!? :confused: That I just can't get behind. That's not making things better for horse, rider, or sport -- it just enables you to collect more ribbons and more points for less accomplishment. Heck, if we cut our XC courses down to 8 fences, we could go three times a day like the hunters :rolleyes: I don't have the context for the quote and maybe KOC means it differently than I'm interpreting it here, but as it stands, it's not logic I support. --Jess

Avra

Jul. 5, 2006, 11:42 AM

I worked for a trainer who ran a few hurdle horses off the farm, and I know that they started the horses out over logs, and then had a mini steeplechase course (couple of national fences, couple of brush fences, IIRC) that the horses schooled over in small groups, led around by one of the hunters the first few times.

persefne

Jul. 5, 2006, 01:52 PM

So to tone things up for the benighted colonials, Captain Phillips was selected to be a head trainer of the USEA. But by some very non-British quirk, his role actually *is* to take charge of the named responsibility.

And while he is accustomed speak in the supercilious manner of the royals, he does so with his 'neo-Bolshie' bias.

And, I have a subscription to Hello! magazine, so does that make me a good choice as chef d'equip? I am American, so that would give me one thing in my favor, at least. Oh, and the fact that I wouldn't presume to condescend to or overlook 90% of my organization's membership; I wouldn't proselytize to those very individuals upon whom I cast a derisive sneer for having the very gall to compete as mere low-level amateurs; and, I wouldn't attempt to speak for a membership about which I know nothing at all and only care for a smidgeon of the more talented (wealthy?) numbers. Actually, with that being said, I'd vote for me! :lol:

But, we members of the USEA don't get a vote, do we? It's not so much that I mind he is chefing our international teams. It is that he is given so much credence and exposure as the voice of our sport in our country, when he clearly does not care about "eventing in America" at all. He may want to work with American eventers and chef our team, but he also needs to understand the presence of the many, many American eventers out there who comprise the legion of competitors ($$$$) in the sport in our part of the world. His overblown English elitism won't win him many friends around here, if he continues to neglect the growth of the sport or the health of the sport in the U.S. The long vs. short format is one thing, but what about sponsors, advertising, venues, organizers, raising volunteer numbers, new events, land preservation, etc? Those are important issues that desperately need tending to and his voice would be more effective if he used his "history" to help the entire breadth of eventer involvement in America, and not just the few he takes overseas.

I'm not trying to be terribly rude, here, but if the Brits can cry, and gnash their teeth, and blame Sven for travesties on an international playing field, then I can certainly voice my disdain for CMP and his less-than-inspiring feelings towards my sport, in recent years. I don't really care who he is...but what I want to know is, "what's he going to do for us?"

(Oh, and he's not exactly the "head trainer of the USEA." He's the chef d'equip of the American international eventing team.)

Gnep

Jul. 5, 2006, 03:36 PM

JAGold,

Exactly the point droping the 3D because it takes so much time to recup. the horse in which one can not, should not, show, in favour of those HTs because one can do more of them is a traversty, or perverting our sport.

I asked myself the question last year, when I read that B.Hoy had gone the Luhmuehlen 4 star and than 8 weeks later the Euros with the same horse. They had a refusal in the Euros at a not very difficult jump.

8 weeks and 2 extremly difficult X-C. Others had just 6 and 5 weeks between the Euros and 3star competition.
If this is the tendency in the future, poor horses.

deltawave

Jul. 5, 2006, 04:33 PM

Maybe CMP is a heck of a guy and a truly outstanding ex-royal-spouse, but that has nothing to do (IMO) with the fact that he's been extremely condescending to those of us who pay the salaries of "his" riders, even if we don't pay his salary directly.

What difference does it make if he is the father of royals? They didn't get their "royal" blood from him, and what does that have to do with the defense our sport anyway?

I'm not arguing whether he's a successful chef d'equipe or not. My beef with him lies in his NEEDLESS trashing of the long format. There is NO reason why he couldn't publicly support both formats, even though HIS particular job is to groom the upper crust for the CII (concours incomplet internationale) bastardized horse trials.

KOC's comment is sad. Maybe for HER the "beauty" of the short format and the Preliminary levels is that you can get that pesky schooling done before moving your $100,000 horse right on up the levels. But what about those of us (who pay HER salary) for whom the CCI* (the REAL kind) is our pinnacle, our Olympics? Good of her to deign to enter those silly "schooling events" that most of us kill ourselves and compromise our entire lives trying to reach. :mad:

Carol Ames

Jul. 5, 2006, 05:37 PM

I Tried to post earlier, but the post is"gone" darned poltergeist!:D Careful!:eek: I would check withe active riders especially on the International teams, remember Barcelona unfortunately the sport has changed, and,I say that as someone who did their first horse trials , pre training, now novice.in 1976. , first three day * in 1989,the last in 1984, and last horse trials in 1984, prelim at Morven park, and, truly did not know if my horse and Would still be alive after fences 3 , and 4, rather than-kill the messenger,:yes: the,captain, I would contact David , the ''IOC certainly, and, rail against ,I think that's the term, theFEI, and IOC, who seemed to say that unless we change eventing it would be out of the Olympics agree thatthe he short format is definitely NOT a test of a military mount, but , of a fancy moving dressage horse, and, a scopey show jumper who can also cope with a cross country which will NOT be a speed , and endurance but, one in which time e penalties will definitely be a factor so, more a cross country race track with a few cross country "questions " thrown in.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 6, 2006, 07:21 AM

JAGold and Deltawave, I hope you'll comment on my new thread about "making stars" by being able to compete them more often. I think that was Karen's (or someone's--can't remember exactly who) reasoning--it wasn't just for the sake of more ribbons (the assumption being that stars are good for the sport in terms of ownership, sponsorship and media coverage).

Carol, your introduction of the "military" concept behind the sport reminds me, though, of the other concept behind it--the "combined training" concept. The military one does indeed emphasize speed and endurance, but wouldn't you say that--almost in contrast--the combined training concept focuses on the all-round athlete? To my sometimes tediously intellectual mind, I prefer the latter concept over the former. IMO, there was far too much attrition with "the military" and as the sport changed but kept that thrust, there still was too much attrition. When you failed the "test," your horse often suffered for it.

That's not to say that the potential for the horse to suffer doesn't still exist in the new formats, but by emphasizing the all-round athlete (mentally and physically), the degree of control represented by the level of dressage they are doing, the amount of care (and conditioning) required by the more challenging stadium courses we are seeing, and the impact of much tighter times on x-c (compare average time faults today with that average five years ago--huge difference, yes?)...well, I think I can see the combined training concept taking over in a positive way. So far, it appears that the TB still has its role to play, too, so the old argument that the changes were to favor the European horse also haven't proven to be the case...has it?

Again, I haven't run the statistics, but I do read all of the writes ups of events in COTH and online sites, and it sure does seem that time faults x-c are getting to be enormous, and not just at the upper levels, either. Yes? No?

Gnep

Jul. 6, 2006, 08:57 AM

The time faults are part of the evolution of the courses, which some of the FEI rules considerung course design have brought.
The course even at the lower levels are getting more technical and have less room to gallop.
Distances are geting shorter but with the same amount of jumps. There is less and less room for good galloping.

Thats why we have more time penalties.
If 200 to 500 meter would be added to the courses T to A and 1 to what ever without jumps, there would be less time penalties

BarbB

Jul. 6, 2006, 05:47 PM

The long format 3-day is a test to see if you as a horse owner/rider have the savy to prepare a horse without wasting the animal to be at the top of its game on a specific day. That is what I consider horsemanship. You have to understand the management of a high performance athelete and partner, know when to push, when to back off and when to walk away. THAT takes guts and knowledge. The short format diminishes the need for a person to be a horseman.

Reed

Totally agree.
Which is why only the upper levels had the long format. At the lower levels you were supposed to be 'learning' not 'doing'
You graduated to the upper levels as your riding AND your horsemanship became fine tuned.
If the only difference between upper and lower levels is the size of the jumps........what's the point? Let's all just do BN.
Just think how many HTs you could do at that level. You could do like the dog handlers when the year is ending and they are going for the most Best In Show wins, show a one venue in the morning, get on a plane and show in another in the evening. Most points wins !
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Janet

Jul. 6, 2006, 06:06 PM

Carol Ames

Jul. 6, 2006, 09:43 PM

Ok my missing post said : acareful,:eek: I'd check with the active riders first. If the he only way the fEI,and IOC would allow eventing to be in the thr Olympics, it seems me to me that an alternative format needs to be :mad: devised. possibly a "tweaking " of the short format?

Carol Ames

Jul. 6, 2006, 09:46 PM

:teeplechase ALONE that teaches the horse, but rather how steeplechase sets up phase D that is educational. Horses learn to carry the agressive attitude from steeplechase forward into a situation where they are facing challenging, unfamiliar fences. It helps shift them out of a slightly cautious, check-out-the-new-stuff frame of mind

This was definitely lacking at Rolex this year:into a go-forward-and-attack, even though it's new and distracting, frame. And that is an essential concept for horses as they move up the levels. It's good for them to learn it at prelim, where they can still slow down and jump, and understand it before they move up to intermediate, where it's more of a problem.

The full-phase three day also teaches a hor

Freebird!

Jul. 6, 2006, 10:03 PM

.

Yes, it helps the riders learn to ride at speed too, but it also changes the horses.

I used to gallop racehorses for a living, and I agree whole heartedly how a horse can change after one workout - whether over jumps or on the flat. We would have horses who we would literally have to use spurs and a crop to get around the racetrack, but just one good breeze, breaking out of the starting gates, or with company, etc, and they would prance back to the barn, chomping at the bit, a changed horse. I imagine the same holds true for event horses after a Steeplechase phase.

As for schooling Steeplechasers, my husband used to work for THE Janet Elliot, up in Penn, and she had jumps set up all through out the woods, and fields, which they would jump, but mostly they would just gallop every day on sets.

Since I'm already posting here on the eventing board, I just wanted to say how interesting I found this thread. CMP used to ride and show my NZ TB way back when, but when I got him he was a total nutcase, who could barely canter. Anyway....carry on.

Gnep

Jul. 6, 2006, 11:55 PM

BarB,

This now, as it seams, old fashion horsemanship, will get lost.
It takes a little bit more to ride 3Ds succesfully over and over again, especialy with the same horse or even with differant horses.
Even in the now severely watereddown fashion, RT at 220 and slower etc. you have to be able to listen to your horse, especialy after the chase and adjust becuase the real test still lays ahead.
Their is a art to train those horses for this test, to care for them, keep them sound, feed them etc..

It is defenetly differant than for a horse trail.

And one more thing, you will not get a horse that has a minor soundness problem through a full endurance day, but you might get it through a horse trail.

Riders educaion, jup. There is no more humbling moment than the jog outs D box and before stadium. They are out right scary. The one can stop you in the middle of everything, just before the most important part starts and the other one can erase a great effort of the day before.

for the horse, any one that has done HTs and than 3Ds knows the differance in X-C. The horses ride so much easier in X-C. They gallop with ease from the get go, they are not tight over the first jumps.
All the horses I have ridden made a huge jump forward after their first 3D, they got tested, realy tested and learned to overcome the usual moments of weaknes, hitting the wall, they learned something about themself, it makes them very tough competitors, it seasons them.

As a breeder I would always wonder if the horse I bred would stand up to the real test. Do they have the toughnes, endurance, soundnes, do they realy have it to dig deep when it realy hurts to run, can they overcome or are they going to quit

poopoo

Jul. 7, 2006, 12:34 AM

Marley's Ghost,
Can you help me get my middle finger back up and out of my throat - I can't stop vomiting. Do we not all end up 6 feet under in the dirt together? No one person is more valuable than another and certainly doesn't have the right to be a condescending asshole to the rest of the U.S. eventing population, you know, the ones paying his salary. Oh no, I think I'm gagging again, and now yes, I have thrown up a little in my mouth.....

Marley's Ghost

Jul. 7, 2006, 10:08 AM

Do we not all end up 6 feet under in the dirt together?

Indeed we do. :yes: Which, of course, is another rather more straightforward way of making my point. :D

Sandy M

Jul. 7, 2006, 02:02 PM

Ooooh, I love it. T-shirts reading "MUTINY: DOWN WITH THE CAPTAIN!" at the USEA convention! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (where is the evil-grin smiley?)

Always thought it was interesting that he was married all those years to the Princess Royal and never got promoted above the rank of captain.........

Carol Ames

Jul. 7, 2006, 02:07 PM

Subk , I think you've got it talk with david, he can view this from many pers[pectivesIt' us to say "out wih him",and this new format but,lt'see what someone wih experience riding at that level says, in addition tohaving dealt with the e IOC, andFEI, Yes, David needs to be drawninot hises conversation. Wasn't CMP hired by thete USET?

Carol Ames

Jul. 7, 2006, 02:07 PM

Subk , I think you've got it:yes: talk with david, he can view this from many pers[pectivesIt's easy for us to say "out wih him",and this new format but,lts'see what someone wih experience riding at that level says, in addition tohaving dealt with the e IOC, andFEI, Yes, David needs to be drawninto this conversation. Wasn't CMP hired by the USET?

Carol Ames

Jul. 7, 2006, 02:07 PM

Subk , I think you've got it:yes: talk with david, he can view this from many pers[pectivesIt' us to say "out wih him",and this new format but,lt'see what someone wih experience riding at that level says, in addition tohaving dealt with the e IOC, andFEI, Yes, David needs to be drawninot hises conversation. Wasn't CMP hired by the USET?

KSevnter

Jul. 8, 2006, 09:05 AM

Always thought it was interesting that he was married all those years to the Princess Royal and never got promoted above the rank of captain.........

My SI's name is Mark and he was an army capt. before he got out. After he met CMP at a clinic I was doing, he kept insisting that I call him Capt. Mark too. He always thought it was funny that everyone acted like CMP was a General or something by calling him by his rank.

Carol Ames

Jul. 8, 2006, 11:14 AM

How can it be proven that the poor performance , lack of desire to "attack" crosscountry by so many experienced horses and riders at Rolex this year was the result of no Steeplechase?A warning,though, I have heard repetedly from International level riders tat it is thsteeplechase which breaks aownhorse, not phase D:confused:

Carol Ames

Jul. 8, 2006, 11:24 AM

Were the riders "debriefed this year at R?olex? It would bevery interesting it from them , how their horses felt starting out on crosscounty we need to document this; This forum is not going to convince the IOC to go back to the old full;3de; but, if we can come up with statistics to show thathe short format has many, if not more falls, and injuries, then we may be able to "make a case" for the full 3de, ad hominum attacks will do nothing productive, but intensify the opposition. :no:

Carol Ames

Jul. 8, 2006, 11:44 AM

:confused:
If we MUST according to the FEI, and POC stick with the short format how about putting together a committee of riders who have ridden both formats, theOlympic medalists from Athens, and, of course the Brits , especially William Fox Pitt, Andrew Hoy, and, Pippa funnel ( has she ridden the short format?) certainly coaches,Jim Wofford, David OC, and Karen, CMP, is Hjacklegoff still around? Has Bruce ridden n the short format>??) we should include some vets.as well. Also organizers since It is often said that the short format is easier for them. As well. Perhaps this comitee could come up wih suggestions to make the short format work, ie. thecross country ride better.

deltawave

Jul. 8, 2006, 07:12 PM

Not that I would ever clinic with the guy, but if I ever did I always thought I would have to insist he call me "Major" since that was MY military rank. And I outranked him, too, so I probably would have also insisted on a salute. :D :D :D

Captain (unless you're in the Navy) is sort of only one step above a very junior officer. Not sure why he makes such a fuss about it.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 8, 2006, 08:52 PM

if we can come up with statistics to show thathe short format has many, if not more falls, and injuries, then we may be able to "make a case" for the full 3de, ad hominum attacks will do nothing productive, but intensify the oppositio

I can agree with you there, on both points.

I'd think, too, that this last "season" should have provided some interesting data on the new format. Isn't it the first time that riders who using it to qualify for a major competition (WEG)? Rolex's results were somewhat telling, perhaps, but I'm not sure exactly what story they told. I do hope someone somewhere will indeed interview, if not formally "survey" the riders to get a thorough assessment of their impressions.

Anyone know if that's being done--in one format or another? ARE questions being asked or is it just going to have to be the way it is, period?

deltawave

Jul. 8, 2006, 08:57 PM

Yes, first let's change the entire nature of the sport. THEN let's decide that that was done for "safety reasons". THEN let's collect data to see which format is safer. Brilliant. :no:

cyberbay

Jul. 9, 2006, 08:34 AM

bigdreamer

Jul. 9, 2006, 01:12 PM

Anyone know if that's being done--in one format or another? ARE questions being asked or is it just going to have to be the way it is, period?

there was one survey done in england last year, at the 2 star level, where they had a long and short running at the same time. I don't remember if they surveyed the riders, but they did tests on the horses and found no dramatically different physical issues with them- nothing that would cause concern for either format. They presented the info at Rolex.

other than that, no. the only place where you will find riders opinions is scattered randomly through out various articles, or if you go up and ask them yourself. Go harass some clinicians, find out their thoughts. I've taken to that, and have gotten interesting feed back- mostly supporting the long, but simply accepting the short- but i've only asked a few. I should start keeping records of what they say...

Ellie K

Jul. 9, 2006, 05:10 PM

David O'Connor is no friend of the three-day -- he's a friend of whatever advances him politically. If you look at his comments during the time leading up to the demise of the 3de, you'll see he was just waving his hands in the air, "oh, there's nothing we can do about it; the forces of change are bigger than we are...oh, oh, oh" He had long since joined the 'winning side' of killing off the 3de, b/c that's where he likes to be.
i don't disagree that DOC seems to have become quite the political beast in recent years, but I think you are confusing "the time leading up to the demise of the 3de" with what is actually the period of time after the decisions had already been made at international level and the trickle down effect was causing outcry amongst people at lower levels. The subject was on the table for discussion at international level during the period roughly 2000-2003. And during that time, DOC, like CMP and everybody else at the top levels of the US eventing scene were quite vocal and adamant against the changes. And after some years of fighting to maintain a minority position (worldwide)--and losing--eventually they had to concede and move on. that would be indicative of the period roughly mid-late 2003 to present.

If you look back at the comments of these folks during the time period it was actually being discussed, you won't find them speaking out against long format in fact quite the opposite. It's all there in all the meeting minutes, transcripts of forums, and all the proposals and counterproposals sent back and forth between the FEI and NFs during that time, much of which was published by the AHSA and FEI.

As just one example I can remember DOC rather pointedly putting the FEI eventing committee chair on the spot at the open forum held at Rolex in April 2001 (one of 5 or 6 FEI “Future of Eventing” forums held worldwide that year), requesting that the committee remove the phrase “…in the long term future the Eventing Sport would eventually evolve into a CIC-like format” from the FEI's original Future of Eventing Working Statement (published Dec. 2000). The official US statement in response to that idea was unequivocally, and unanimously, "absolutely not." And David, like everyone else at a high level in US eventing, was involved in the development of that response.

It has nothing to do with being on the winning side. It has to do with having fought for years on an international level to represent an opinion that is a very small minority in the world, supported by only a few countries...and consequently losing and having to accept that and make the best of it after the fact. Same with CMP. His job is to win medals, period. He's not paid to encourage riders to do things that are not to that end.

hightech

May. 11, 2007, 12:54 PM

I used to think we needed long format for sure and was very vocal about not going to short format ( and I am an upper level rider and done lots of long formats at all levels). The first time I went to a short format, I was amazed how much better our horses were after the event - it took so much less out of them and didn't put so much wear and tear on them! and also, you don't have to worry about being that one person that forgets a flag on A or C or falls off in steeplechase! I do definately think we need long format in CCI* to teach everyone, but I don't mind short in the upper levels if it keeps my horses sounder and helps them have a longer career. aren't we in this sport for the benefit of the horse???

hightech

May. 11, 2007, 12:56 PM

but having said that,, you still must condition your horse as if its a long format as it is still longer than a hores trial- way longer and harder!

hightech

May. 11, 2007, 01:02 PM

david won't be coach in the USA till this generation is out and the new one in. can you imagine him coaching his wife and friends?? don't think that would work so well.

up&atem

May. 11, 2007, 01:13 PM

well, you know CMP's wife is a dressage trainer... the new short format stresses dressage more, right? so that justifies keeping both of them employed.
:no:

deltawave

May. 11, 2007, 01:20 PM

Jeez, this thread just won't go away! :lol:

aren't we in this sport for the benefit of the horse???

Sort of? We naturally aren't in the sport to HARM horses, but it's not like we do it for the sole reason of making the horse's life better. If that were the goal, we'd have competitive grazing and upper level loafing in the shade competitions, maybe some team halter tag. :)

The purposes of eventing are NUMEROUS but IMO one of the highest and best purposes of this sport is to test one's horsemanship, rapport, and ability to form a "team" with a horse. Of course one can do this at Beginner Novice, but the real PINNACLE of the sport is, and always will be, the LONG format CCI. Yup, you can do easier tests and have a horse that's possibly less tired or a rider that has a lower chance of missing a flag, etc. but watering down the sport means that it is no longer the ultimate test of horsemanship. More's the pity. :no:

One can participate in eventing without EVER intending to do a CCI and have a great time and reach all of their personal competitive and horsemanship goals. But for those who really want to strive to reach that pinnacle....well, if the pinnacle has been lowered by 5,000 feet, it just isn't the same. :no:

Doodle

May. 11, 2007, 01:44 PM

david won't be coach in the USA till this generation is out and the new one in. can you imagine him coaching his wife and friends?? don't think that would work so well.

yeah, but sadly egotistic and narcissistic have already been mentioned as UNdesirable traits....;)

hightech

May. 11, 2007, 02:01 PM

I do believe in long format at the one star level for sure-- it teaches horses and riders to go forward and I will always do one with my young horses and young riders-- but at the upper levels, I would rather save my horses legs than just do another long format for my benefit. I have been on a horse that breaks down from steeplechase, and its the worst feeling in the world.

and on the david as coach thing-- I am not saying I want him or don't want him, just saying he would never be coach right now.

as for CMP- I have watched him teach teams and in training sessions as well as had lessons from him-- he is an exellecent coach. I don't mind someone yelling at me, pushing me, thinking they are better than meetc as long as it produces results. and the man does produce results for sure!

Sandy M

May. 11, 2007, 02:10 PM

Yeh, let's raise money to pay him to coach somebody else. I'll make t-shirts that say "IT'S TIME TO SEND THE CAPTAIN OUT TO SEA." Or should that be "...OUT TO CIC"?

Or as a friend of mine used to say, "He married into the Royal Family and he's still just a CAPTAIN?!?!?!"
They knew something, didn't they?

eqsiu

May. 11, 2007, 02:19 PM

Or as a friend of mine used to say, "He married into the Royal Family and he's still just a CAPTAIN?!?!?!"
They knew something, didn't they?

Princess Anne requested that he NOT be given a peerage upon his marriage to her. Just like their children do not have titles. He was allowed to keep the address of "captain," when generally one must be a major to retain rank address after retirement.

deltawave

May. 11, 2007, 02:27 PM

He's Army, not Navy, I believe...and therefore the rank of Captain is fairly unimpressive, LOL. I outrank him. :D

InVA

May. 11, 2007, 02:56 PM

bean

May. 11, 2007, 03:17 PM

And I believe she was long listed for the Helsinki Olympics...

Janet

May. 11, 2007, 03:30 PM

And I believe she was long listed for the Helsinki Olympics...
Who?

vineyridge

May. 11, 2007, 11:13 PM

Heck, K O'C might be the only person to compete at both London Olympics!

Gnep

May. 11, 2007, 11:31 PM

hightech,
That is the aroganz of the upperlevel rider who want to go International
That is were eventing failed. It is ok with me if the Top cadre of Riders consider it to much for their horses, because they want to do so much more with their horses.
But what about Joe/John for whom a 2 star is absolut max. That have no want to do more, have one be happy.
I can accept, the 3 star and 4 star bastard, I understand it. I would not by all means, want to do a 4 star long. I love my horses to much, considering that I would not want to do a 4 star short and I am getting to old for that crap anyhow.

Eventing is not just for the top Upper Level Riders, it is for Eventers of all Levels and dreams and abilities.
The Moment the sport got shaped to cater to the Top Upper Levels only it got into problems.
Denny got it right

3dazey

May. 12, 2007, 07:30 AM

Amen. My ultimate goal was a CCI** long format. By the time I got there, there wasn't one. Now my horse is retired. Yeah, I'm still crabby about that. :mad:

Glimmerglass

May. 13, 2007, 12:26 AM

"The Captain" appears to be busy as of late trying to make Zara focus on the Olympics (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=454394&in_page_id=1773&in_a_source=) rather then marriage ;) Hopefully she will adhere to that and accomplish the goal she has desired for quite some time rather then just be a rugby player's wife ...

deltawave

May. 13, 2007, 07:57 AM

Dang, William and Kate broke up? I'm so out of the gossip loop. :D

Gnep

May. 13, 2007, 08:47 AM

DW, classic short format

deltawave

May. 13, 2007, 09:55 AM

:lol: Didn't do their conditioning properly, I guess. :D

JER

May. 13, 2007, 10:28 PM

Dang, William and Kate broke up? I'm so out of the gossip loop.

Prince William was at Badminton last weekend watching XC. I noticed him because he stood up and blocked my view. He is quite tall.

ksbadger

May. 13, 2007, 11:33 PM

He's Army, not Navy, I believe...and therefore the rank of Captain is fairly unimpressive, LOL. I outrank him. :D

Deltawave,
If I remember correctly he was a Captain in the Blues & Royals - a division of the Household Cavalry and thus a special unit charged with security of the Royals in peacetime. Their wartime role is armoured reconnaissance - beleive Will & Harry will join the same unit as "Cornets" (Second-Lieutenants as in "Cornet of Horse"). The Blues & Royals are currently deployed to Basrah, Iraq and sadly have been suffering quite high casualties (including a female tank commander who was at Sandhurst with Will). Checked Wikipedia & their Colonel-in-Chief is HM The Queen & their Colonel, the Captain's ex, HRH Princess Anne - a special unit indeed.

Abracadabra

May. 14, 2007, 07:57 AM

Too bad for all the discussion, if you talk to some of the actual athletes, that have competed long & short format - they're all for the changes. Road & tracks, and steeplechase, other than giving your horse an extra chance to "feel" the pace of 600m/min is felt to be (by certain Olympic caliber athletes that were asked the question) just another waste of a horses efforts, wind, safety, and legs, that could well be reserved, and saved for cross country, and stadium. Dont shoot the messenger, i'm just repeating what i've heard said by athletes that actually have run both formats.

deltawave

May. 14, 2007, 07:59 AM

if you talk to some of the actual athletes, that have competed long & short format - they're all for the changes.

NOT ALL OF THEM.

chaotic mind

May. 14, 2007, 09:17 AM

Yeh, let's raise money to pay him to coach somebody else. I'll make t-shirts that say "IT'S TIME TO SEND THE CAPTAIN OUT TO SEA." Or should that be "...OUT TO CIC"?

Uh he's not that kind of Capt but sending him back to britian might be nice

LisaB

May. 14, 2007, 09:32 AM

The Brits don't want him either.

InVA

May. 14, 2007, 10:58 AM

Prince William was at Badminton last weekend watching XC. I noticed him because he stood up and blocked my view. He is quite tall.

Please tell us you grabbed his bum!

PiedPiper

May. 14, 2007, 01:06 PM

RAyers

May. 14, 2007, 01:23 PM

as for CMP- I have watched him teach teams and in training sessions as well as had lessons from him-- he is an exellecent coach. I don't mind someone yelling at me, pushing me, thinking they are better than meetc as long as it produces results. and the man does produce results for sure!

I want to comment on this. Why do you think that no great players in ANY sport ever become great coaches? Look at the NFL, Soccer, Hockey, NBA, MLB, etc. There is a reason players do NOT make great team leaders. Great leaders are students of the game. They may never play well but they study the absolute nuances and can see things from a much higher level than players can. CMP might be able to ride and coach individuals but he is horrible as a team leader and coach. Look at the AT incident and how CMP has handled that. Bumbling incomeptence.

Reed

JER

May. 14, 2007, 07:20 PM

Please tell us you grabbed his bum!

Nope. Prince William is not my demographic. Unfortunately, my friend -- who is gorgeous and age-appropriate for PW -- was off to the loo when I was in the vicinity of the royals. Such as shame as she'd make an excellent queen.

JER

May. 14, 2007, 07:35 PM

Why do you think that no great players in ANY sport ever become great coaches? Look at the NFL, Soccer, Hockey, NBA, MLB, etc. There is a reason players do NOT make great team leaders.

Simply not true. What about Jurgen Klinsmann, Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruijff, Rinus Michels, Marco van Basten, Bobby Robson? In 'real' football, there's a tradition of great players becoming great coaches (or managers as they're called in football).

Larry Bird was a damn fine coach too.

Reed, I get your point but the teams sports analogy doesn't hold, at least not in the sport I care about.:)

Abracadabra

May. 15, 2007, 11:54 AM

... "some of the actual athletes",
..."by certain Olympic caliber athletes that were asked the question"

Do you need help reading?

hightech

May. 15, 2007, 03:29 PM

being an upper level rider and having access to most of their opinions-- I would say the magority vote for short format- while saying keep the 1 star at long format for horse and rider education

hightech

May. 15, 2007, 03:32 PM

I would still use a long format at CCI** level as well. just like it at 3 and 4 star levels to not use up your horse you spent years getting there to with!

lstevenson

May. 15, 2007, 04:19 PM

being an upper level rider and having access to most of their opinions-- I would say the magority vote for short format- while saying keep the 1 star at long format for horse and rider education

I am also an Advanced level rider, and I vote for the long format. And many that I talk to (old school, die hard eventers) feel the same way. But we are all forced to accept the change. I think the riders who say they like it are just accepting the inevitable and moving on.

hightech

May. 15, 2007, 04:57 PM

I am also an Advanced level rider, and I vote for the long format. And many that I talk to (old school, die hard eventers) feel the same way. But we are all forced to accept the change. I think the riders who say they like it are just accepting the inevitable and moving on.

have you done a short format?? i love the fact that I have time to concentrate on really walking a course and planning for it-- not just worrying about learning A and C, wheeling steeplechase, trying to remember a million minute markers and having time to really prepare my horse to do dressage besides the fact I don;'t need an army of workers to get thru endurance day!!!

deltawave

May. 15, 2007, 07:56 PM

I really like an "ultimate" challenge when it's made easier, too. :rolleyes: :lol: When I shoot for that pinnacle, that destination that might take me years to prepare for, I sure want it to be as easy and hassle-free as possible. :p

Heck, I think the Triple Crown should just be ONE race--think how many more winners we'd have! And a PhD? Why is that so HAAAAARD? Anything that worthwhile should be EASY, don't you think? That way more people could do them. ;) ;) ;)

lstevenson

May. 15, 2007, 09:34 PM

i love the fact that I have time to concentrate on really walking a course and planning for it-- not just worrying about learning A and C, wheeling steeplechase, trying to remember a million minute markers and having time to really prepare my horse to do dressage besides the fact I don;'t need an army of workers to get thru endurance day!!!

Then why not just do horse trials? That's what the short format really is anyway.

Taking away A, B, and C has made the 3 day into a different test which we already had - a horse trials. And the classic 3 day event horse type is no longer rewarded. That is what I find the most sad.

pwynnnorman

May. 15, 2007, 09:51 PM

The short format is a necessary compromise, IMO. Times change. Lifestyles change. How many entries would there be if the long format continued? Where would the riders come from now that time, land and other resources are getting increasingly limited?

That's the bottom line of it all, I think. Change, or go the way of the dinosaur.

And where would the horses come from? It's an expensive sport and event horses are incredible athletes who don't HAVE to do eventing. Sure, there's the OTTB, but what about the increasingly purpose-bred eventer? What about that horse's owners? What would they think of having to prove (or find themselves sadly disproving) the "ultimate" stamina of an animal it took them a decade to produce or the equivalent of a second mortgage to purchase and maintain?

If only die-hard, old school owners are left to send horses the long-format route, how many entries do you suppose there would be after a while? Where would the new owners come from? Why would they come?

One must look to the future, I think. Honor the past, be amazed by it, but move on.

deltawave

May. 15, 2007, 10:09 PM

Necessary to whom? Not to me, a bona fide example of the LARGEST demographic in this sport: an adult amateur who pays her own way, owns 2.5 horses (really!) and competes at and below the Preliminary level. I will NEVER enter a "short format" CCI, just on principle. I think they're a bastardization and a needless "change" that was made with no forethought. All of the defenses of the short format came AFTER THE FACT and as such are hollow and meaningless, IMO. But hey, that's just one voice among many. To each their own. Let the ULRs have their shorter, easier three days. Maybe there are good reasons to offer them. But no, I don't think I'd like to "move on", thanks all the same. There is nothing wrong with the old format.

RunForIt

May. 15, 2007, 10:17 PM

Ellie K

May. 15, 2007, 10:43 PM

It is not just a matter of Venue X still having their land. If Rolex is a qualifier/prep for the Olympics or an FEI championship, then it needs to be in the same format, or it would not be doing its "job." If the Olympics are short, then world championships (main Olympic qualifier) must be short. And then on down the line. This is what was not understood/foreseen way back when, at least not on this side of the pond, when everyone with a say (e.g., AHSA/USET) was adamant that the sport be kept in the Olympics "by any means necessary." IF the sport were bigger, you could maybe have both. Just like you could have long format CCNs, and national competitors--the vast majority-- would not be affected, at least not to this degree. Ideally this is how it would be all over the world. But the sport isn't big enough to sustain all that, so everyone gets thrown into the same pool to accommodate the international contingent. And the world at large has clearly preferred the horse trial format, this was apparent basically as soon as the CIC was created in '98. Not fair, but I don't see any way around it, at least not for now. It's not a problem unique to eventing either.

CarrieK

May. 17, 2007, 04:29 AM

we interrupt this interesting on-topic discussion for a shallow off-topic comment
Please tell us you grabbed his bum!

Nope. Prince William is not my demographic.
But did you at least look at it? All adults are fair game for the looking.

we return you to the interesting on-topic discussion already in progress

hightech

May. 17, 2007, 03:58 PM

I totally disagree-- horse trails and CCI short format are NOT the same. Way longer, way harder. I don't see much differnce is HT and CIC's though.

hightech

May. 17, 2007, 04:00 PM

But- I would also say because the goal of most riders prelim and below is a long format CCI* or half star-- I would hope that never changes as everyone should get the thrill of running steeplechase at least once! and it does teach riders and horses to go forward. I would still run my CCI* horses in long format, then switch to short at 2 star and up

May. 17, 2007, 04:40 PM

Here's my question regarding the "there isn't enough land" issue - since when? Did Rolex lose any of its land, did Badminton, did Burghley? Foxhall bit the dust because of money issues on the part of the owners, NOT because of loss of land available for Road and Tracks and Steeplechase. I don't have the info re: the other long formats in the US - someone can either fill in on the plus or negative side of the land issue as to the demise of the long format. :mad: :confused:

Oddly enough, I don't remember Endurance ever having land problems. 1 KM = 0.6214 mile. For a Championship FEI 4* one-day competition, the distance is usually 160 km and the winning riding time about ten to twelve hours:

"The minimum distance for a one day competition is between 40 and 160 km, depending on the type of competition. For competitions of more than one day, the minimum average distance for each day is 40 - 79 km for FEI * rides, 80 km to 119 km for FEI 2* and 120 km or more for FEI 3* events. For a Championship FEI 4* one-day competition, the distance is usually 160 km and the winning riding time about ten to twelve hours. " http://www.horsesport.org/e/about/about.htm

In addition, there are more events/land available in this sport, not less:

"In 1982, there were four international rides. This number slowly increased to an average of 18 rides per year up until 1998 when the World Championships were held in the United Arab Emirates. Thanks to the sponsorship of the UAE National Federation, 47 NFs came from all over the world to compete. This huge attendance proved to be the catalyst for an amazing growth in participation. This tendency was confirmed in 2005, when the 353 international competitions made Endurance second only to Jumping and Eventing. The area with the biggest growth being South America." Same link as above, http://www.horsesport.org/e/about/about.htm

May. 17, 2007, 06:18 PM

Why don't they just make the Olympics a 2* short format and leave the rest of the sport alone?

JER

May. 17, 2007, 06:35 PM

But did you at least look at it? All adults are fair game for the looking.

I did notice his hair was thinning. And he is tall, like 6'2" or 6'3". In other words, over 18hh.

Harry is considerably shorter and can be sighted from great distances due to his hair.

flyingchange

May. 17, 2007, 07:36 PM

Harry is hot. He seems like a cool, fun dude. William seems like a prude.

what was this thread about anyway?

TexasTB

May. 17, 2007, 09:27 PM

Why don't they just make the Olympics a 2* short format and leave the rest of the sport alone?

This is where I run into issues over my view of the Olympics.

On one hand, I feel the Olympics is necessary for our sport, not just for exposure, but for all the younger riders (like me) that dream of an Olympic medal some day. Sure, the Olympics might not be as challenging as, say, the World Games, but theres a certain distinguishment of an Olympic medal that makes it a worthwile goal. For this reason, I can reconcile with the Olympics being run in short format in order to keep eventing in.

However, this is also where I disagree with the Olympics, as having them run short format has a trickle- down effect (First the games, then all FEI events in general). I can somewhat understand the logic behind that process, although thats not to say that I AGREE with it in any shape or form.

Thoughts??

Oh and a random aside,
anyone read the book "Anthem"?
I was reading it just a while ago and came across a line that (sadly) really related to how I feel about the short/ long format issue:

"Perhaps, in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out inprostest and in warning. But men paid no heed to their warning. And they, these few, fought a hopeless battle, and they perished with their banners smeared by their own blood, And they chose to perish, for they knew."

Ok, not the most uplifting. But it really struck me with all the changes going on in our sport recently.

hightech

May. 18, 2007, 12:12 PM

Why don't they just make the Olympics a 2* short format and leave the rest of the sport alone?

why would you want a 2 star at the olympics??? plus this is something EVERY other country wants- short format. we have no choice. and it really is not a bad thing speaking from my experiences with it. I was way against it forever, until I realized how better it was for our horses

May. 18, 2007, 12:38 PM

For many sports the Olympics is not the most difficult or top competition. For example, an olympic distance triathlon is shorter than an iron man triathlon. So the Olympic event doesn't HAVE to be a 4* to be a valid Olympic competition.

If we take away the requirement that the Olympic Eventing competition be held at the highest level of the sport, then if changes are needed to the Olympic Eventing competition to keep it in the Olympics, those changes don't need to affect the rest of the sport. There would be no trickle-down from the Olympics if it's not at the top.

Plus a short format 2* or modified 3* would open the Olympic eventing competition up to countries that don't have 4* riders.

It just doesn't make sense to make changes to the whole sport due to the difficulties of holding one competition at a different venue every four years.

deltawave

May. 18, 2007, 12:43 PM

It's true that the Olympics are not necessarily the pinnacle. Cycling is another example...the Tour De France athletes use the Olympics as a training exercise.

I like the idea of making the Olympics a 2-star event. Let the FEI wreak its havoc on the sport and keep the Olympics. Let the ultra-elite do whatever they want with their horses. But leave the long format for those of us who still want to see eventing as the DEFINITION OF CCI: Concours COMPLET. :yes:

GotSpots

May. 18, 2007, 12:43 PM

hightech

May. 18, 2007, 01:01 PM

Hightech - what is the basis for your statement that the short format is better for your horse? I know "everybody says" that it is, but the only study that was done to compare short to long format (at the two star level) did not support that conclusion. Certainly riders perceive it to be an easier test - you'd never see someone riding back to back long formats a month apart as many did at the two star level last fall (Radnor to VA), and even in combination with HTs and CICs at the three star level). But alot of us gave our horses a month plus off in the fall after a three day long format in the old days in part out of habit and rest after a full season: some horses needed it, others could have gone out and run around an HT a month after a long format. So, I ask, are you aware of any data to support the conclusion?

Also, the Olympics hasn't been a true four star track in years, if ever. I believe several riders commented in the post Olympics discussions that Athens' XC was between a two and three star in difficulty.

me saying it is better for my horses is my own experiences. I have done a lot of long format and short format. for the riders-I like having the time for myself to concentrate on riding the short format- not just running around trying to learn a and c and wheel steeplechase. I have seen riders fall in steeplechase, break horses down, forget flags on a or c and not get to go. it sucks. for the horses- I have been on ones that have careers ended early because of long format- you still have to condition more than a HT- its still harder and longer, but it takes a lot less out of them in my opinion by how they bounce back and is less wear and tear on their legs. anything that gives my partners a longer career is in my favor. and we have proven that doing short format still takes a horse with a lot of TB blood. plus, we have to go the way of the rest of the world. no use fighting it, things changed a long time ago. I do hope it stays long format in CCI*- it teaches riders and horses how to condition and how to go forward for later on.

yes- olympic tracks are easier than they should be, but why dumb it down any further?? your olympic medal should mean something, not be a " middle of the road" medal. you still have to qualify for the olympics by doing harder things

hightech

May. 18, 2007, 01:02 PM

and I have seen people ride in HT 2 weeks after long formats- not that I ever would!

snoopy

May. 18, 2007, 01:17 PM

Plus a short format 2* or modified 3* would open the Olympic eventing competition up to countries that don't have 4* riders.

It just doesn't make sense to make changes to the whole sport due to the difficulties of holding one competition at a different venue every four years.

I see your point about a modified 3*...interesting. The Pan Ams and European championships are run at this level...with alot of success, and you are correct that this level does open up the playing field to many countries...NOT just developing counties either...Look at canada.
3* would suit them better as they do not seem to have the 4* horses when it matters...eg. Olympics or WEG.
And I totally agree with your final sentence.:yes: :yes: :yes:

Jazzy Lady

May. 18, 2007, 02:42 PM

I'm okay with the short format at the higher levels. I hope they always keep around a few long format *.

I have a short format horse. He won his first CCI* which was short format (me owning, NOT riding ;)) and bounced back very sound and ready to do training level with me a few weeks later (and a bit more cocky).

I am aiming him towards midsouth CCI* in the fall as I REALLY want to do the long format at least once before moving on to the short. I also feel that getting him fit and ready for a long format is not only healthy and helpful to him, but to my education as an eventer aswell. I conditioned him for his first CCI* and it was originally supposed to be a long format and then we switched venues to a short, so I know what is involved and I'm ready and excited to do it again (if not more so since I get to ride it this time) and I feel that doing all this will make us stronger as a team and help better prepare us for the step up to Intermediate.

I see merits in both the long and the short. I truly hope that the long doesn't disappear but I'm not one to be concerned about the **** being short format now.