Amy Tryon-My hero...NO THANKS!!! (short-format RANT)

[Foxygrl516]

Wow. Do any of you get Practical Horseman??? I got a subscription as a gift, and I usually find one or two articles interesting every month. I checked my mail and was excited to see that the cover is mostly eventing, and it's sorta the "Rolex issue". Amy Tryon wrote an article about her support for the Short Format CCI that made me want to do something very violent...I don't know what yet...but it will definately be violent! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

"...Upper Level riders are a minority in voicing an opinion. Instead teh loudest reactions have come from veterans...and amateurs who may never ride above training level (and if so may never ride in a recognized Three-Day event)."
This quote made me so mad, and all in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, Miss Perfect, but we can't all be **** riders overnight! Novice has more competitors than Training, Training has more than Prelim, etc. And if us "lower-level nobodies" only competed as often as our opinions counted to Ms Tryon, then there would BE NO EVENTING!!! My opinion counts no matter what level I ride!!! She would be NOTHING without us!!!!!!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Yes, she's an impressive rider, but that doesn't add up to a hill of beans when you don't respect your sport or fellow competitors!

"The horses that did well in the sport 15 years ago were typically big, strong Irish-bred types, brave but not rideable."
Sounds like a personal problem to me! So is she just saying that 'yeah, those horses could do it, but they weren't rideable...'? Riders 15 years ago sure did a he!! of a job riding them! Maybe she needs to step it up a notch!!!!!

"I'm always aware to the potential for catastrophic injuries on Steeplechase, where the horse hurdles along at 690 mpm for four minutes or more, jumping big fences out of stride on footing that tends to be less than perfect."
WOW again!!! Yeah, there's the possibility of getting hurt out there. SHe worries about that, but not about the Sh!t she jumps her horse through on XC????? If she wants a slow canter over pretty fences with PERFECT footing, be a HUNTER for God sakes!!!!!

"(about Poggio II)..the first Roads and Tracks of a long format 3 day get him more tense so he blasts out of the Steeplechase start box all wound up, trying to run as fast as he can and therefore more likely to hurt himself..."

BUT THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY:

"There were comments at recent meetings from riders who thought their horse's strides were shorter for the first few fences on short-format cross country, but I think that goes back to good horsemanship in warm-up. If you've warmed up your horse properly...he won't be uptight and 'spinning on his heels'."
HELLO!!!!! ANYONE ELSE THINK SHE NEEDS TO TAKE HER OWN ADVICE IF SHE'S SO RIGHT????? Her horse is a freak at the beginning of steeplechase b/c long format is the devil. but someone else's horse is choppy at the beginning of short-format XC and it's because they have poor horsemanship?????

BU!! SH!T


I didn't finish my rant about this article. YES, there is more! I know this is getting long winded though. If you're interested, find a copy and read it. It's hanus. Yes, she is a better rider than I am right now. But then again, I am like half her age and don't have millionairs buying my competition horses or sponsorships that pay my way. I'm sure if I had the resources she has, I'd be giving her a run for her money, and someday I'll get there and plan to do just that. But I'm just saying, I know she is better than me, but I think this piece was WAY out of line.

Sorry this is so long.

*deep breath...finish rant.*

[Foxygrl516]

Wow. Do any of you get Practical Horseman??? I got a subscription as a gift, and I usually find one or two articles interesting every month. I checked my mail and was excited to see that the cover is mostly eventing, and it's sorta the "Rolex issue". Amy Tryon wrote an article about her support for the Short Format CCI that made me want to do something very violent...I don't know what yet...but it will definately be violent! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

"...Upper Level riders are a minority in voicing an opinion. Instead teh loudest reactions have come from veterans...and amateurs who may never ride above training level (and if so may never ride in a recognized Three-Day event)."
This quote made me so mad, and all in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, Miss Perfect, but we can't all be **** riders overnight! Novice has more competitors than Training, Training has more than Prelim, etc. And if us "lower-level nobodies" only competed as often as our opinions counted to Ms Tryon, then there would BE NO EVENTING!!! My opinion counts no matter what level I ride!!! She would be NOTHING without us!!!!!!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Yes, she's an impressive rider, but that doesn't add up to a hill of beans when you don't respect your sport or fellow competitors!

"The horses that did well in the sport 15 years ago were typically big, strong Irish-bred types, brave but not rideable."
Sounds like a personal problem to me! So is she just saying that 'yeah, those horses could do it, but they weren't rideable...'? Riders 15 years ago sure did a he!! of a job riding them! Maybe she needs to step it up a notch!!!!!

"I'm always aware to the potential for catastrophic injuries on Steeplechase, where the horse hurdles along at 690 mpm for four minutes or more, jumping big fences out of stride on footing that tends to be less than perfect."
WOW again!!! Yeah, there's the possibility of getting hurt out there. SHe worries about that, but not about the Sh!t she jumps her horse through on XC????? If she wants a slow canter over pretty fences with PERFECT footing, be a HUNTER for God sakes!!!!!

"(about Poggio II)..the first Roads and Tracks of a long format 3 day get him more tense so he blasts out of the Steeplechase start box all wound up, trying to run as fast as he can and therefore more likely to hurt himself..."

BUT THEN SHE GOES ON TO SAY:

"There were comments at recent meetings from riders who thought their horse's strides were shorter for the first few fences on short-format cross country, but I think that goes back to good horsemanship in warm-up. If you've warmed up your horse properly...he won't be uptight and 'spinning on his heels'."
HELLO!!!!! ANYONE ELSE THINK SHE NEEDS TO TAKE HER OWN ADVICE IF SHE'S SO RIGHT????? Her horse is a freak at the beginning of steeplechase b/c long format is the devil. but someone else's horse is choppy at the beginning of short-format XC and it's because they have poor horsemanship?????

BU!! SH!T


I didn't finish my rant about this article. YES, there is more! I know this is getting long winded though. If you're interested, find a copy and read it. It's hanus. Yes, she is a better rider than I am right now. But then again, I am like half her age and don't have millionairs buying my competition horses or sponsorships that pay my way. I'm sure if I had the resources she has, I'd be giving her a run for her money, and someday I'll get there and plan to do just that. But I'm just saying, I know she is better than me, but I think this piece was WAY out of line.

Sorry this is so long.

*deep breath...finish rant.*

[deltawave]

I agree she's not making a very good statement, but Amy Tryon does NOT have "millionaires buying her horses" or mega-bucks sponsors. She works full time as a firefighter. She's as self-made a horsewoman as anyone out there. That has nothing to do with the fact that I think she is flat-out WRONG, of course!

It's a pity that some of the upper-level riders have such a thinly-veiled disdain for us lower level people. Vote with your checkbook--do lessons, clinics and go horse-shopping with riders who support the Classic format! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[Foxygrl516]

I'm sorry deltawave. Most of that last paragraph of my post was pure rant and anger. I'm sure she has worked hard to get to the top. Yay for her. I'm a college student with 3 jobs and a FANTASTIC horse that I bought with my own money, am training with my own money, and have bought every piece of tack I own myself. I certainly have gained a ton of respect for the sport and horses in general and I can't imagine someone working as hard as I do just so they can compete showing such disgust for their very roots. But I digress. we can't understand everyone...

[Miss Maddie]

It's odd because you would think that a rider like Amy, who has her own cheap OTTBs rather than fancy imported horses bought by sponsors, would be one of the ones to stand up for the long format. So I just don't get it. If the long was so bad, why didn't anybody say so for the last 50 years???

[goobs]

Wow! She would be the last person I ever thought would say things like that! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems that she didn't do enough research on the long format since its inception. How many horses have been hurt in the steeplechase as opposed to the xc phase? Offhand I have no idea but I've never really heard of any getting so hurt in that phase as opposed to phase d.

I know she works really hard to get where she is now, etc. but she could have been "softer" and explained her views better instead of making sweeping generalizations!

The people who have been there again and again and again over the years - Emerson, Wofford, etc. those are the opinions I value most on this topic. I am also still waiting to hear a good reason as to WHY the format is being changed as far as it concerns the health of the horse. - Land shrinkage, time and economics seem to be the most major reason why even though short format advocates will argue otherwise (arguing that short format benefits the horse, etc.)

[Reynard Ridge]

Amy supporter here. She is someone who embodies the sport of eventing. She works so hard and has done so well based on her hard work and sweat. Nobody has handed that girl anything.

There are, in my opinion, no "right" and "wrong" here. There are OPINIONS about whether steeplechase should be part of the sport of eventing.

Hey, all sports evolve. You may not agree with how the sport is evolving now, but, it does seem like it is evolving.

So, please go gentle on Amy. She seems to be a good, hard working woman expressing her opinions. She's not "wrong." She's expressing her opinion. Which she has a right to do.

(As does Foxygrl516, by the way - and mine is that Amy deserves better than to be blasted for her opinions).

[vineyridge]

Maybe she now has millionaire owners just waiting to buy her those expensive warmbloods that are supposed to work so much better in short format?

I'm tired of all the PR about her hard working firefighter self. If she wanted to be more of a horse professional than she already is, I'm sure there is a west coast Jacqueline Mars who will sponsor her.

And I bet she'd jump at it, if she hasn't already.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hey, all sports evolve. You may not agree with how the sport is evolving now, but, it does seem like it is evolving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear, hear! In a nutshell.

To which, though, I'd like to add: what ABOUT what she says about steeplechase. It ISN'T "wrong," y'know? Sheer logic says it ain't.

The plain truth of the matter, like it or not (and I'm not saying I "like" or "dislike" here at all--just that I "accept"!), is that the sport IS evolving into a format that many (not just in this country) hope will result in longer careers for top horses. Only time will tell whether they are right or wrong, but why get so mad at them for such reasoning?

[Magnolia]

I think she should have not mentioned the "lower people".... you clearly have 2 sides - the riders who are relieved that the short format will be easier on them and their horses.... and the spectators/supporters who think the short format will be less of a test, and hence less interesting to follow.

Let's move to an analogy - lets say the NFL players union and the NFL decided that the quarterback can no longer be sacked - they'll have fewer injuries and a longer career - a win for the players and teams. But the game is less exciting for the fans. Now let's say that Jake DelHomme was quoted in Sports Illustrated that all the football players wanted it - the only people complaining are the fans, and they never play football anyway...... Fans would be pissed.

But now lets say that Jake just said "well, the idea is good because 15% of quarterbacks get brain injuries from being sacked, but I know our fans would be disappointed by a less exciting game, but I hope they will support and embrace the new rules over time" - viola - jake doesn't look like a jerk....

These riders need some media savvy if they want sponsors and fans..... and they need it fast.

[pwynnnorman]

That's a really good analogy.

Alas, I suspect the day is still a long way off when your typical BNT/ULR rider will actually think PR before opening their mouths--definitely NOT the nature of that particular beastie!

[Foxygrl516]

Reynard~ I honestly am not trying to "Blast" Amy...I know that sounds hard to believe. Anyone with LEGITIMATE arguements and well thought out opinions deserves my attention and I respect their opinions whether I agree or not. BUT Amy contradicted almost EVERY opinion she spit out in that article and offended her base of support in the process. That's just what I read...

Magnolia~ The NFL analogy is EXACTLY the first thing that came to my mind when reading the article, but for the sake of keeping my post within reason, I didn't post it. I agree though!!! It's not the same game if they make NFL "2-hand touch" but keep the lower levels (where 90% play) full contact.

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The horses that did well in the sport 15 years ago were typically big, strong Irish-bred types, brave but not rideable." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amy Tryon is entitled to her opinion. But the above statement is not exactly accurate.

The "horses that did well in the sport 15 years ago" include Ginny Leng's horses (Priceless, Master Craftsman, etc), Mark Todd's horses (like Charisma, who could score in the teens in dressage tests), Mary King's Kings Boris and William. These were also top horses who stayed at top level for a long time even with the long format. Maybe it had something to do with the quality of the riding, training and horsemanship -- and maybe there's a few lessons there for Ms. Tryon.

[goobs]

Yes the sport is evolving which will have to be accepted eventually http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif but to me, personally, it doesn't make sense to take away the warm up phases for a phase that is so demanding!

All I know is that I need proper warm up before my weight lifting - I don't just go right to the heavy weights and start doing burn sets or pyramyding (sp?). I need to warm up my muscles. Same as when I run - it takes me about 2-4 miles (between 9-10 minutes a mile) to really start getting into the zone and start pounding out my miles between 7 and 8 minutes for a good 10 mile run (incorp. lots of hills). I just can't imagine asking a horse to do a **** course without a proper warm up.

[pwynnnorman]

JER, and what about all those wiry, bouncy little TBs Lucinda Prior-Palmer Green rode, too?

[Robby Johnson]

In the shift of the past ten years - requiring a horse to be strong in the dressage and the show-jumping - there are statistically more Thoroughbreds who have excelled than "big unrideable Irish horses."

I have many opinions of her, all based on personal experience and encounters, and I would not call myself a fan either.

But I really like her mother!

Robby

[BAC]

I have always been an admirer of Amy and she is entitled to her opinion re: long vs. short format but I was disappointed in her apparent lack of respect for those who compete at the lower levels. I would never have expected that from her. As Deltawave said, vote with your checkbook.

[KO]

Well you may not be a fan of Amy but she makes a valid point that most people who event WILL never ride a 3-day. And frankly it is a relatively small percentage of all event riders that ever make it above prelim. Let's be honest here.

My opinion is that the only people who are worth listening to on the matter are those that have either ridden a 3-day or run one. The rest of us are just speculating.

I don't agree with everything Amy said but I respect someone who is willing to call it like she sees it. I think it's a nice change from many of the bland, PC type articles that appear in PH and DT.

[deltawave]

And KO, for those of us who are AIMING for a three day event? Are we supposed to just turn over our dreams and aspirations to our "elders and betters" and let THEM decide if the sport is still going to be around in the format we've chosen to aim for? And if they arbitrarily decide that the long format is no longer the wonderful thing it's been for 50+ freakin' years WE are supposed to accept that without a whimper? Sorry, but HELL no. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Given enough time and this crappy attitude of "go belly up and forget it, the train has left the station", the only people who will have EVER ridden in a real three day event will all be retired or dead in the time it takes for today's teenagers to reach my age. That is a scary thought to me. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My opinion is that the only people who are worth listening to on the matter are those that have either ridden a 3-day or run one. The rest of us are just speculating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, but you don't put down/dismiss the opinion of the fans of the sport in a publication mainly read by amateurs. That's just plain unsavvy. She needs a course in diplomacy if she wants sponsors, clients and people willing to pay $50 bucks to see her ride at Rolex. Right now, equestrian needs all the fans it can get. you just don't insult your fan base in their own forums.

[Robby Johnson]

KO,

Then I'm all for the entire three-day event track being absorbed by a group dedicated to managing it between the USEF and the FEI, and I'll just ride at horse trials and put my efforts into making them better.

Like most great three-day horses, Amy's horse is famous for being unconventional. Not because he's a master at all three phases. He jumps well and she works her butt off to improve his dressage.

He's still a two-thirds horse, though, who will probably never win a three-day event (either format), but will most definitely be remembered as one of the modern greats.

Reputation management has been a big buzz word in public relations the past ten years. An article like this is another nail on her coffin of public image, when her only "fans" are going to be her peers.

And we know how wonderfully supportive your closest competitors are, right?

I heard Amy speak in SFO and her ideas on short format are all geared toward "more sponsorship and making our horses heros because they can stay sounder longer."

I find the thoughts on soundness to be the most ridiculous of all. There is no research to prove it either way! No one knows when un-soundness is going to rear its ugly head - but it would certainly seem that a horse who is going to a classic format three-day is getting a helluva lot more attention than one who isn't.

Robby

[Hilary]

Wasn't it Amy who was also quoted saying she thought the short format would allow the horses to become bigger stars and have longer careers?

Isn't Biko one of the biggest horse stars around/ And didn't he compete for a very long time?

I know this just goes back to the same round & round we've been hashing over, but I just don't understand why the short format is so much "better" other than it is perhaps easier.

I have been trying to think about past **** events and reading the results which show who started, and who dropped out at what points along the way. I don't recall large numbers "retiring on phase B" or after phase B. Certainly no more than those retiring on phase D or not presented at final inspection.

Somewhere someone must have all those stats?

[Robby Johnson]

Also, if her horse is a difficult to handle and ride (apparently he is) and is risking injuring himself when he's leaving the box, then why is he going to change when ABC are removed? Obviously he's going to still be boxy for the XC phase? Put some damned boots on him and hope for the best! That's what everyone else does.

You cannot wrap them in bubble wrap for their entire lives. If the horse is self-destructive then, in truth, he's not the most appropriate horse for the sport.

Regardless of the fact that he does 4 in the 5 routinely and draws lots of oohs and ahhhs.

Robby

[Debbie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
My opinion is that the only people who are worth listening to on the matter are those that have either ridden a 3-day or run one. The rest of us are just speculating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. I think it's a real shame that this has broken down into namecalling of the bread and butter of this sport -- the lower level rider. (aka "Smurfs") I realize that you are not doing this perse, but this quote feeds the mentality that has been so gratingly parroted by the most vocal (or at least published) members of the ULR contigent shilling for the short format. "WE know best and you little people need to shut up and get on the train."

While it may be true that I'll never ride at that level. It is not true that I'm not important to the sport at that level. Try to run a 3-day (real or Memorex) without dedicated volunteers. Try to run a Rolex without sponsors who need you to deliver big #s of people with good demographics. Try to make a living as an ULR in this sport without a good base of "smurfs" who lesson and clinic with you. Yes you must have competitors to make all that happen as well, but let's post this in neon folks, we are all in this boat together and if either ULRs or the smurfs exit in serious numbers our beloved sport is up a familiar and rather odiferous creek.

I hope the USEA task force is finding some proactive and useful ground to move this debate toward. I'd love to hear how that's proceeding, but it seems to have fallen off the "public" radar. I'm not in the know, but I feel like we smurfs (I'm not bitter about this word, really! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) were getting organized and energized earlier in the year, but I personally feel we've lost momentum.

Edited to say, I'm not trying to be critical of a process I'm not familiar with/engaged in, but I am frustrated about the lack of information flow. I loved the Eventing magazine article dedications to the classic three day, but the us v. them was certainly showcased as well and that adds to my frustration.

[Meredith Clark]

I usually stay away from this subject b/c I feel i don't know enough about it to add my two cents, but I know when i worked for Fair Hill international helping Mary, it was obvious that the starter trails were the only reason they could hold the FHI Internaional in the fall. Otherwise they would have no where near the money.

So i guess if we don't count enough to have an opinion, then we can stop riding all together, then she won't have anywhere to compete either http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[cyberbay]

It's odd that Amy would use the word 'unride-able' to describe 3de horses of yesteryear (15 years ago). Poggio II (do I have the right horse?) looks pretty out of control to me -- sometimes I think his cattiness at the jumps would be less of a factor if he were more rateable [un, rideable] in general. Although it was a thrill to watch him in Athens in stadium figuring out where to put his legs in the combinations (that he had gotten into so dead wrong). So, did Amy want to be saying that her current horses will not fit the short form?

[backtobasics]

ok, im not really at liberty to talk here simply because im not an eventer, however, it seems to me that "evolving" is not what your sport is doing. Evolving insinuates an improvement, but shortening an event like many are opposed to(myself included) is not elvolving, its selling out. I'm not even a fan of true TB's, im a quarterhorse person, but i think that they are the true horse of eventing. Back off warmbloods, youre awkward at high speeds and youre way too into yourselves(the drag queens of the horse world). the short-format is for wimps and their horses who cant cut long distance. STAY IN THE DRESSAGE RING FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!! Short format supporters, go back to amoeba, or tadpole and leave real eventing to the grown-ups.

[deltawave]

My "warmblood" has done a number of three day events and is a fire-breathing XC MACHINE, so let's not make massive generalizations about breeds, please! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[persefne]

Sounds like Amy doesn't like the Steeplechase because her horse gives her a hard time! Does that make him "rideable" or not "rideable?" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't have many opinions of Amy (good or bad) but as a writing teacher at a university, I'd have to say that the number one no-no is contradicting yourself during the course of your argument. If you're going to open your mouth on a subject so controversial, be smart about it, and anticipate the fact that your readers will probably not necessarily agree with your view. Who did she think would be reading that article and who did she think she was convincing? She is, though, entitled to her opinions, but they should be taken as just that.

She probably has lots of reasons for saying what she said, but from what foxygrl has posted here, it makes me smirk and roll my eyes to hear a reputable equestrian say things like that about the lower levels of her sport. I did find that to be ignorant and disrespectful of our contributions to eventing. I don't subscribe to PH, but I will be finding this issue and reading for more info.

[bambam]

Amy is entitled to her opinion on the format and IMHO should not be bashed simply for that no matter how much I hate the short format (and how much it confuses me given the horses she has).
That being said, I was DEEPLY disappointed (and surprised) when I heard what she said in SF. I am also DEEPLY disappointed that she continues to support the short format. She may be a rider that I can admire in some respects (as an amateur with a full-time job and being able to ride Poggio which does not look that easy http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif), but she is also a rider that I will not support with my clinic money or in any other form. You can have your opinion and I won't hate you for it (well unless you are CMP who just irritates the crappola out of me) but don't expect my support.
A completely separate issue (to me anyway) is to be dismissive of the LLRs. That attitude offends me and is arrogant in the extreme. There is no short or long format without us in the picture honey (that goes for you too CMP) so be careful who you look down on and dismiss.
The ULRs (and their British coach) should think before they start alienating us- for me anyway, there is no quicker way to piss me off than be dismissive of my opinion http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
There is a reason I am not planning on going on the smartpak coursewalk no matter how knowledgeable the leaders because I do not want to support their vision of eventing (now me not going on a free coursewalk http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif does not have any impact, I am sure, but me and others like me not going to clinics might).
Anyway- I don't think we should tear her apart for the fact of her opinion on formats, but if that quote accurately captures a dismissive opinion of LLR, then she needs a lesson in PR and ecnomics (and manners).

BTW- love the football analogy Magnolia

[della]

Ms. Tryon is entitled to her opinion, but I agree that it is counter-productive to belittle thr lower level riders. If she had done her homework, she would know that not only do we make up the majority of the membership-- thus $$$, but many also financially the US ULRs through financial contributions. As it stands-- the classic 3-day is protected at the * and ** level. So, those that strive for that experience will still get their shot. It's looking like the upper levels will change.We all need to accept that- no matter how much we don't like it. Has anyone looked at the piece on eventingetc.com about moving eques. competition to Hong Kong-- 1800 mi. away from the rest of the 2008 games?? Read the comments... things are about to heat up. To be continued...

[Foxygrl516]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KO:
Well you may not be a fan of Amy but she makes a valid point that most people who event WILL never ride a 3-day. And frankly it is a relatively small percentage of all event riders that ever make it above prelim. Let's be honest here.

My opinion is that the only people who are worth listening to on the matter are those that have either ridden a 3-day or run one. The rest of us are just speculating.

I don't agree with everything Amy said but I respect someone who is willing to call it like she sees it. I think it's a nice change from many of the bland, PC type articles that appear in PH and DT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


KO~ if we are to take your quote as truth, then lets spin this the other way. In the same sentance where she bashed lower level riders she also said that Past eventing legends who have faded into teaching or administration are in the same group with us nobodies who talk to much. So if we are to say that only those who do or HAVE ridden in a "real" 3day can voice an opinion, then she blew that for you too! She even discarded the greats (including naming names such as Jimmy Wofford and others...I don't have the article with me right now).

It may be one thing to knock the Novice/Training competitors. That's enough of a slap in the face. But she pointed out LEGENDS of our sport and said they shouldn't count either because they've seen their day and come and gone.

So now we are to disregard our professional greats, don't listen to the mass majority, and listen to the voice of one Mark Phillips and his FIVE olympic riders. I'm sorry, but FIVE people are not going to change my future!!!

[mcm7780]

I do agree with many of you that Amy Tryon deserves her own opinion. However, I did find it offensive and condesending that she thinks that upper level riders should have more of a vote than lower level ones. Maybe it was the way she said it, but it made me feel as if she thought my voice doesn't count because I don't event at the upper levels.

I don't know...she is entitled to her own opinion, I just question how she stated it.

[Tootsie]

I have to agree with Persefne on the subject. I have yet to find an opinion written about the change in format to be based on logic and facts. People on both sides of the issue are just reacting without hard information to back them up.

I am a strong supporter of the traditional format for several reasons. But the biggest fault that I find the the support of the short format is that their arguement boils down to the statement "because that is what everyone else is doing". Since when do we, as Americans, allow Europe to dictate to us how things should be done? It is not in our nature. For some reason, that has yet to be explained to me, the leadership of the sport has rolled over and are eager to follow Europes lead for this new format.

While I agree that the short format has a place in the sport, I appears to me that the change has happened much to quickly. I think the eventing community needs to reconize that once the traditional format is gone it will be hard, if not impossible, to rivive it. And since we know very little of the impact of the short format on the sport and on the horses, we should be very hesitant to disguard the traditional format.

[persefne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tootsie:
Since when do we, as Americans, allow Europe to dictate to us how things should be done? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the Captain took over the reins of our national event team. That bothered me from the very beginning. Can we please be smart about this and get Jimmy Wofford or David O'Connor as our Cd'E??? Let CMP go back to England and buy his daughter a few more expensive horses to compete (maybe even a few that will stay sound!).

[AlexBG]

I also like to keep in mind that the finished article published was "fine-tuned" by PH and may not accurately represent how Amy feels about riders competing at the lower level. I've come across many times when people are horrified by how their opinions or comments have been tweaked by the media.

Just as with this board, read the comments, educate yourselves but don't always take the written word presented as gospel. Yes, it seems that Amy prefers the short format, but I find it doubtful that she's disrespectful of lower level riders

[eventing101]

Foxygrl516--

Thats a little over the top! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I agree that we should have a say in what's going on with this whole short-format debate, but I think the olympic and advanced riders have a little more say.

I so agree with Captain Mark Phillips and David O'Connor when they both said "the train has already left the station", referring to the short-format's new beginning.

I think they should keep the traditional format at CCI*,CCI**, and CCI***, then change the 4 star level ONLY during Championship years (Pan Ams, WEG, and Olympic Games).

People! I am as much for the traditional format as the next person, but if we are ever going to get our horses good and ready, and get the experience of the short format, we will never have success at the higher levels!

I think Amy should have reworded her paragraph when she said "...Upper Level riders are a minority in voicing an opinion. Instead the loudest reactions have come from veterans...and amateurs who may never ride above training level (and if so may never ride in a recognized Three-Day event)."

Many people want to have the opportunity to go to the Olympics or World Championships one day, but we cant do that without the OCCASIONAL opportunity of the short format. That's it in a nutshell.

[nature]

I agreee with all who said "vote with your checkbook." If the short format means horses can compete longer, and become heroes, then they will get sponsors. This makes ULR happy. BUT, if you think economics......... the reasons sponsores invest in big name riders is so their products will be associated with the ULR and increase sales. If the maority of riders ( us LLR) do not patronize the sponsors.guess what! The sponsors will no longer support the ULR. The short format will fade out. No sponsors, no big money to put on bug events and no Big purses!

[RAyers]

There is a BIG problem with the NFL analogy. It implies there is medical proof for the change. In eventing there is no proof that a CIC is better than a CCI. As a matter of fact, right now after Rolex and Athens last year and a study done in the UK it appears that the CICs are NO BETTER for the horse than the CCIs. My observation is based on conversations with the head vet at Rolex and her experience at Athens as well as the published report from the UK. Hmmm... I never knew "evolution" could go sideways.

The "upper" level riders are embracing said "evolution" because that is what the FEI and IOC said. It is the only way they can compete in Europe. I have ridden in a CCI*. I have helped in many aspects of running a CCI* and CCI**. I believe that many of the "upper" level riders are hesitant to speak out about their true feelings due to the politics that infest the upper levels of the horse sports.

We, as amateurs, must keep banging heads and not going quietly. Deltawave, Nevertime, Gnep and others deserve their shots at the CCIs. I want my shot at the CCIs again. I could have entered the CIC* at HP but I voted with my pocket book and went for the OI HT. When we are qualified again I will support the CCI.

Reed

[ishmael]

I know most of you have very strong feelings about this, and I too am sad to see the short format go. I have a small question, though --

I see that often people say they've never heard a reasoned approach. The most rational justification I see is not about horses or riders or history...what about the land issue? Events are so expensive to run, and having a bunch of extra space at many facilities could be prohibitive, especially, for example, for Olympic venues near major metropolitan areas. How much more space does it take to run a long format? Is space a legitimate concern, given the land use problem?

I'm a H/J person who's just curious, having shown at the Atlanta facility and hacked through the remnants of the cross-country course--right behind a big development. Keeping the Olympics long-format may get it dropped from the Olympics altogether, which I feel would be a deep shame. There's just something about the Olympics....

Another point -- if you boycott the sponsors you'll be hurting eventing as a sport, not just the short format. I am completely in support of fertile discussion about this issue, but please don't cut off the nose to spite the face.

[deltawave]

If in fact land use is a predominant issue, there are LOTS of ways to make better use of small tracts of land and still hold R&T and steeplechase. It might be boring, but R&T and SC could easily be held on a racetrack-type course going 'round in a circle.

[bambam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ishmael:
Another point -- if you boycott the sponsors you'll be hurting eventing as a sport, not just the short format. I am completely in support of fertile discussion about this issue, but please don't cut off the nose to spite the face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The point, for me anyway, is not to boycott sponsors but to encourage the sponsors to choose others (in this case long format supporters) to act as their spokespeople and, presumably, for them to sponsor. They pick spokespeople that they think are emulated and riders/owners will follow. That is the whole point of getting any well-known rider to say "I use this product." Well, I will not follow.
I also do not plan to "boycott" smartpak or any other sponsor who supports eventing and don't know that I have heard anyone claiming that they will either. I will however try not to participate in events involving those riders with whom I disagree, I will tell smartpak why (in a very nice way- and yes I know this is a waste of effort- they are not going to drop 2 members of the Olympic team as their sponsored rider), and I will not support those riders with my lesson, clinic or horse purchasing money. Not doing the smartpak walk is, I recognize, a complete act in futility http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, and frankly is, on my part, not really intended as some act of defiance that will mean anything to anyone but me. But it does mean something to me. The acts on my part that may actually have some effect are the direct ones not supporting those riders with my $ and going out of my way to support those sponsors who actively support the long format (Like BoB- John Nunn signed the petition I believe).
Anyway- that is my take- such as it is. If this makes no sense, I plead extreme fatigue as my defense http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I am working on little sleep, killing time waiting for edits to come back http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif.

[RunForIt]

I haven't read page 2 and 3 of this thread - but I spent all day at Foxhall scribing - its like a ghost town to me - no one's there to watch...the big stands and all the tents, the big time XC jumps next to the tents and water, its all gone - along with the real 3*** 3-day event that was so much fun to watch, to be inspired by, to have in our own back yard - all gone. The best part of the day was when the announcer kept saying "horse trial" when speaking of the event - I kept saying AMEN. I have always admired Amy. I absolutely love Kim Severson. I don't understand their thinking; but I am going to ask Kim why, and I won't be posting her answer here. I just want to know why, and I'll believe what she says. I just wish she had the burn in her that kept Lucinda and Kim's idol Ginny Leng in true 3-day events. Yes, Amy is entitled to her opinion, but as a VERY well known ULR, her opinion is being used to draw a line in the sand, heavily weighted on the side of the short format.

[DizzyMagic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Just3Day:
I so agree with Captain Mark Phillips and David O'Connor when they both said "the train has already left the station", referring to the short-format's new beginning.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, that particular comment makes me really angry. Really angry. And I am an easy-going person.

It makes me angry because I was at Radnor several years ago, when the train was still at the station, and there was an impromptu meeting to discuss the future of eventing, Olympics, and formats. DOC and Alan Balch stood up in front of everyone and said how serious the situation was, what direction the FEI was leaning. When I (a Smurf) and some other more small-time upper-level competitors asked what we could do about it, how could we help preserve our sport, how could we have an impact on the FEI, what do you think they said?

They put on their political faces, and they said, ohhhh, don't you worry - pat, pat, pat on the head - we'll handle it through back channels. We'll deal with it on a leadership level. They were living in dreamland! The leadership were not prepared to deal with an all-out assault on the fundamentals of our sport - a sport that I (smurf that I am) seem to be more proud of than they are! In taking the decision to handle it "on a leadership level" they effectively robbed the base of the ability to have a say, to feel like we had fought for our sport.

What makes me the most angry is the sense that the leadership and the "elite" riders, completely sold out, rolled over without a fight. And because it was all "handled" through back-channels, we'll never see whether or not there was a fight at all. Now we have most of the ULR's spouting this flat party line about the evils of steeplechase - and not one of them has answered the question most of us have asked, "If it was so terrible, why did you do it for so many years?"

I'd have a lot more respect for them, even with their apparent collective effort to alienate lower-level riders, if they just publicly said, "Ok, it sucks, we hate it, but it's our reality and we've got to figure out a way to make it work." I mean, these riders have NOT YET experienced a short format in which most of the horses did not come off the course in significantly more distress than the traditional three-day. And yet, they've closed ranks around the unsupportable hypothesis that the short format is "better" for the horses. To me, that makes them look foolish. It would seem to be simple common sense that such a dramatic change to such a complex sport is going to require lots and lots of trial and error to work the bugs out, and lots of data collection and comparison, before anyone can realistically say which that it's "better for the horses". And the part of this whole thing that really bugs me is that all the trial and error is going to take place on the backs and at the expense of some of the bravest and gamest horses the world will ever know - the four-star three-day event horse.

Maybe I'm just bitter, and I know I shouldn't be saying any of this in public, but it seems to me that the "elite" riders should take a hard look at this new landscape and realize that they are, with word and deed, alienating their fan-base. They've sure as heck alienated me.

Emily

[Janet]

As I understand, Amy specifically chose to work in firefighting BECAUSE it gave her the time flexibility to event.

I also understand from a recent article (COTH I think) that most of the barn work when she is on firefighting duty is done by working students, who get lessons/training in return.

So she is not an amateur either in "letter of the rule" or in spirit.

In a very real sense, the decisions about the future of the CCI WILL and MUST be made by the upper level riders and owners. If they do not enter the full format events, the full format events will cease to be, no metter how much we may beat our chests about it.

If we want to preserve the full format, we need to figure out how to get them to ENTER. I can just about guarantee that criticising her for being opposed to the full format is not likely to increase the odds of her entering one.

[IQ3day]

I have NEVER posted on this subject for many reasons. But the main reason is I am torn between both formats. But now I feel its time to share my honest opion about everything that has been discussed here on the topic. I think it is terribly sad that the FEI would take away the long-true-classic- original format. But in some ways I can understand their point. When the decision was first made I was terribly angry. Right now I'm currently competing at the CCI** level. And like any other Young Rider I want so badly to compete at the CCI**** level. And at first I only wanted it to be in the long format. But now after thinking for monthes on this issue, I AM starting to like the short format. I watched and listened to SOO MANY upper level riders- includding Amy. I have been fortunate to talk to them personally and hear their opions. We have sat and talked about their truely personal feelings based from their horses. And the comments are what have turned me to the short format. I had a certin conversation with an unnamed upper level rider who was telling me about her sadness for a horse she owns who is now done competing at the CCI**** level at the age of 13. This was because he has so much wear and tear.

So after hearing several riders talk about those same kind of stories. I decided to look up competion life times of other horses. And yes I found quiet a few that competed at that level till 15 or 16. A couple at 17 and very few at 18 (Prince Pinache, i think. Then I found SOOO MANY more that were done and retiring from that level at 13 and 14. Do we want our heros of the highest level to be done at that age? I sure don't. Or maybe we only spend a few years watching a horse go at that level and then see it drift off. But at the same time Im such a believer in the classic format, and that the horses that are truely made of heart are the only ones that can complete a CCI**** long format.

After thinking about the now-upper level horses I began to think of my own, and my plans for the future. My older horse who is know at the CCI** level is amazing. He's incredibly good at the long format, on endurence day. He is fast and always completes with no time pents. But he is so sore and uncomfortable the next day, and then he has so much time off after. Then I have to spend forever bringing him back into shape. He comes off the short format much sounder. In his general season he is much sounder doing the short vs. long format. But at the same time he is much harder to ride in a short format.

Then I think about my younger horse. He is much sounder from not having many years expirence. He is a great long format horse at the CCI* and CCI** levels. But I would not have ANY horse left at the end of the XC at an advanced level threeday long format. I have been told by many big name riders that this is the horse to win Badminton on. And that is the biggest complement in the world. But they also tell me at the same time he is much more suited to the short format if he plans to be fast XC and alive on Sunday.

So I guess my final opion would be- keep the original format. But offer the short format for upper levels. And if it continues like it has been, then it will only be short format at the upper levels. But I believe for the sake of the up coming young rider and adult amature, the FEI MUST keep the long format at the CCI* and CCI** levels. Not only for these riders to expirence it and ENJOY it. But to get young horses out and thinking foward and become bold, talented competitors.

Sorry this is so long. There is not much point. It is just my honest mixed emotions about the changing of the sport. Every rider, upper and lower levels, is entitiled to their opinion- even if you don't agree. Please don't blast them for their thoughts.

[persefne]

IQ3day -- It's good to hear this perspective from someone who is riding at the ** level (especially a young rider) and I'm glad you decided to articulate your ideas! They are positive and clear.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your overwhelming concern for your horses, as we are also so concerned for the welfare of our own horses, not matter what level we ride. My one problem with the very popular it's-better-for-the-horses-by-cutting-down-on-the-wear-and-tear issue is that no veterinarian in the world has yet confirmed that as true. The other thing is, I've seen pony club horses who truck their little riders around a few days a week and a bit more in the summers, maybe do a few horse shows or novice level horse trials, and those ponies are pretty much done by 15, 16, 17 years old. That is a physiological fact of life...horses have a short-life span, thus a short window for competitive careers at whatever level. I would also add to this that ***/**** horses are professionals...they play at the top of the sport. That's not easy, regardless of long-format, short-format, sideways-format, upside/downside-format, or whatever.

I know the NFL analogy has holes, but here's my take on it: I love Peyton Manning. I have loved Peyton since he first walked onto the field 10 years ago to take the helm of our football team here at Tennessee. There are millions of people out there who also, now, love Peyton Manning. But you don't see Peyton go out there on Sundays and play for 15 minutes and then walk off the field because an entire 4 quarters of professional football is dangerous to him and he might have to retire at 30, rather than 5, 8, even 10 years later. Why does he go out there and play 4 quarters every Sunday, instead of just 1? Because that's the way the sport is run; that is how you play the game. You don't let someone take away 2 or 3 quarters because it's easier to watch or easier to compete that way, or because you want to preserve your heroes.

[rusti]

The difference is that Peyton makes his own decison about how hard and how long he'll play. And he is extremely well compensated, will retire before he reaches middle age, and never have to worry about how he's going to continue to earn his keep with his various aches and pains from playing his heart out on that field. How many of our upper level event horses have that luxury?
We make the decision for our horses and we have to make the choice that we believe in our heart is best and puts their wellbeing above our own wants and needs.
I'll admit to sitting on the fence on exactly what the best choice is, but I think IQ3day did a wonderful job of articulating the plus side of the short format and I find her care and concern for her horses admirable. If YR's like her are the future of our sport than we're in pretty good shape.
IMHO: Sure, there isn't official research about which is better for the horses, but its just common sense that if you take out an element that requires high speed on ground that is not manicured over solid objects your obviously reducing risk. I also don't believe that phases A-C are needed to run D. If that was the case the majority of horses running advanced horse trials would jump like pukes over the first 1/4 of the cross country course.
I think what people see when they talk about horses coming off a short format CCI looking more tired than a full format is improper conditioning. The D phase of a CCI short or traditional is long and demanding. I've seen horses come off both versions, and first, don't think for one minute you can get by with less conditoning for a short format, but when properly prepared, the short format horses are in much better shape at the end of the day and into the next day and beyond. They're not as sore, don't lose as much condition and are eager and ready to come back into work much faster which reduces the pounding they have to take to get fit the next time around.
Fact is the sport changed a long time ago. D is much more technical making it a lot more demanding of the horses and somethings gotta give. Its not fair to ask a tired horse to deal with these new technically challenging courses. Its a lot easier for a tired horse to gallop flat out and fly over the huge fences of 10-15 years ago than to have to set up, and jump like a show jumper then gallop away, and repeat the process over and over in order to successfully answer the questions posed on today's three and four star courses. Even a car takes less fuel and puts less wear and tear on its parts if it gets up to cruising speed and stays there than it does in stop and go traffic.
I have a couple of reasons why I'm fence sitting on this issue. First, I don't think any of the changes have anything at all to do with the welfare of the horses. I think the majority, but not all, ULR's who support the changes are doing so out of concern for their horses and in that case I respect their willingness to go against public sentiment and do what their gut and experience says is the right thing. But I don't think that's the case with the powers that be. Its a money, land, type of horse, dollars issue there. Not to say there isn't valid points to those issues and that they'll need to be addressed at some point, but my concern as an owner of both a horse trial, CIC kind of guy and young one with a good dose of TB blood bred with a tradional CCI in mind, is that if they do away with the majority of the endurance phase, and the horse's welfare isn't the primary objective for that change, will it open the door to make cross country more technical, even trappy, and lead to more frequent and lethal accidents? I don't want either of my horses to be a casualty of the experiment.
Next, will some ULR's think they can do more and more CCI's with less prep work. Cutting corners on fitness and adding more events to a horse's schedule will also lead to accidents and injuries. It will undoubtably lead to a loss of skills and know how to really get a horse fit and keep him sound in the process. As the owner of an upper level warmblood, I can tell you that every bit of that know how is needed because to run a typical warmblood at intermediate and advanced he pretty much has to be three day fit to handle the endurance aspect without breaking down. So, as dressage and show jumping become more influential, more warmbloods enter the sport, and the trainers that really know how to condition a horse move on, again, we have a huge potential for more injuries and horses breaking before they ever reach their potential. As long as the traditional format for one and two stars remain, and it looks like they will, as most are in agreement that they;re needed to establish a base of fitness for the upper levels, at least a core level of understanding of conditioning work should be retained although I think the skill level will be like comparing a PHD to an BA degree and the level of horsemanship in the sport will drop significantly/
The final issue is the lack of support for a short format three day from the majority of participants in the sport. I do think that the most weight should be given to the opinions of the riders, trainers and owners of the horses that actually go out and compete at the upper levels and three and four star events. They're the ones who pour their hearts, souls, sweat and tears, into their animals and will have to deal with the grief and heartbreak if something goes wrong. For those that are supporting the short format because they believe in their gut it's best for their horses than we should respect and support that decison.
But, with that in mind, it's very important to realize that upper level events can't exist without BN, N, T, and to some extent Prelim riders out competing and filling the coffers with their entry, clinic and lesson fees. The fact of the matter is the majority of ULR's and events can't exist without sponsers from the kid taking lessons, individual owners,or at the corperate level. If riders won't show up for clinics, won't send a horse for training or purchase a horse for an ULR most won't be able to continue to participate. Most are not independently wealthy. On a bigger level, If spectators, who are typically made up of lower level riders, are not going to drive across the country to watch what they perceive as a glorified horse trial, weather that perception is right or wrong, well, won't be long before the sponsors get out of the game, and eventing in either form becomes a thing of the past. Not smart to discount and alienate your fans and supports. We all love our horses and want the best for them. I don't think even the strongest supporter of the traditional format would fault a rider for doing what he or she, perceives as best for the horse if its presented the way IQ3day presented her thoughts and feelings. Again that perception may be right or wrong, buy who better to make that call than the riders and trainers who've been there, done that.
IQ, I think you have a future in PR, and sad to say, I think this sport needs someone extremely gifted in that department if its going to survive.

[Robby Johnson]

Again, if conditioning is what puts the wear and tear on the horses - and I think we all agree that it does - the argument that "it's safer on the horses and preserves them" is totally made from straw.

If you want to preserve your horse and make it last forever, don't event it.

If you don't want to strip your vocal cords, don't sing.
If you don't want to do an ACL, don't compete in gymnastics.

Everything carries some risk. Is our society and culture so far gone that we now cannot even embrace the zest of competition for the irrational fear of consequence?

Robby

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rusti:
We make the decision for our horses and we have to make the choice that we believe in our heart is best and puts their wellbeing above our own wants and needs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>rusti, a truer statement has never been spoken. We are entirely responsible for our own horses which is one of the reasons why it is extremely upsetting to me when I hear proponants of the short format use the horse welfare issue to bolster their claims that the short format is the way to go. Basically what they are saying is that we don't trust the riders to take responsibility for their horses, so we are going to do it for them.

Unfortunately, this is an attitude that is infiltrating our sport at every level. Two particular examples come to mind. First, a couple of years ago, the Virginia Horse Trials were unindated with rain. There was a question as to whether or not cross country would be canceled due to the wet going. The organizers decided not to cancel and caught grief because of this. There was even a thread on this BB inwhich several riders who were at the event (and a few who were not) criticized the organizers for not canceling the phase. But, just because the organizers decided not to cancel cross country didn't mean that riders had to run their horses. It was their responsibility to make a decision that was best for their horses, not foist this responsibility onto someone else and then criticise that other person for make a decision they didn't agree with.

My second example has to do with the uproar that resulted when the question of amateur status was discussed by the USEA two years ago. Then, as it is now, the amateur status rule is based upon income earned from equestrian activities. If you teach lessons, train horses, or other similar activities, and you earn a income from this, you are not an amateur in the eyes of our regulating bodies and are classified as a professional.

However, when the USEA was trying to figure out how to be incorporate this rule into our sport, there were many individuals who said this wasn't fair. Most of these people earned a small bit of income from equestrian endeavors, but did not consider themselves to be professionals. So basically what they are saying is that I made a personal decision to earn income from equestrian activities, but I don't want to be held responsible for that decision.

If you examine many of the issues that the sport of Eventing faces, a great number of them come down to who is or should be responsible for making decisions. In my mind, the short vs. long format is one such issue. I don't think that it is proper that this decision is being taken away from or being willingly given by the riders. It is putting "the monkey on the wrong back." For better or worse, the riders have to be the ones with whom the buck stops. If not, then where does it all end?

[deltawave]

The heartfelt desire of ANY rider, no matter what their level, to preserve their horse's health and soundness as long as possible is no reason to go throwing out a sport that has existed for decades. It *is* a reason to become a fantastic horseman or horsewoman, to understand the conditioning process intimately and thoroughly, and to apply what one knows thoughtfully and carefully.

This is called the "art" of horsemanship, rather than the "science".

Find me one shred, one IOTA of data that states the short format is more likely to prolong the careers of horses, and I will accept it.

How on EARTH is the short format going to prolong careers if the conditioning process is widely held to be THE SAME? Are you telling me that 45 minutes of hacking and 4 minutes at the gallop once or twice a year is the difference between a short and a long career for these horses? If it is, then the horse was not meant to be an upper level horse, sorry.

I want my horse to last forever, too, but the reality is that at some point she won't be able to compete any more. I know what SHE would vote--the mare runs to the gate and breaks a sweat when she sees my truck and trailer! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would rather apply everything I know and try to keep her sound and competing than stick her in a paddock or do just Novice HTs to keep her "safe".

[Foxygrl516]

I'm sorry that you think my original post was over the top (don't remember who posted that). I really am. I don't post things on here so that people will hate me or think that I am rude. BUT you will notice that in my original post I QUOTED her and simply pointed out how rediculous it all sounded. I didn't make any character judgements about Amy. I don't know her personally and I'm sure she is a nice person who loves her horses.

Everyone IS entitled to their opinions. That is one thing that everyone can stop saying. We all agree on that here. HOWEVER, when you write an article to be published in a big magazine and it has NO validity whatsoever, it becomes more than your opinion. I am not "Blasting" her for liking short format. We've known which side she was on all along, but I never posted about it before. It's not her opinion that offended me. It's almost offensive that she wrote that article and expected us to not notice that she was chasing her own tail the whole way through the darn thing.

I'm sure you haven't noticed, but this is the first thread I have ever contributed to about the long vs short arguement save the fact that I bought a save the 3 day shirt. I support the long format. But with a silent support. I signed the petition, I wear my shirt, but I dont' make a huge deal about any of it. So it suprised even me how my blood pressure shot up when I read this article. Yes, I'm a supporter, but NO, I usually don't get too passionate about it like some of our other board members. This article was just over the top and even offended ME. That's saying something.

And for those of you who are at those upper levels but don't want to sacrifice your horses on steeplechase, ENTER A HORSE TRIAL OR A CIC!!!!! I know, it's not the same. Neither is the short format. That's all it is is a HT with a jog.

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is a BIG problem with the NFL analogy. It implies there is medical proof for the change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The analogy was more about wording things so as not to insult your fan base. These outspoken eventers need to learn how to acknowledge that their fans are important and have a valid opinion/reasoning that differs from theirs and not look like a bunch of pompous butts. Which a good many of them have made themselves look like. It's like the Mason Phelps "little people" comment that offended all the HJ types a few months ago....

[GotSpots]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The difference is that Peyton makes his own decison about how hard and how long he'll play. And he is extremely well compensated, will retire before he reaches middle age, and never have to worry about how he's going to continue to earn his keep with his various aches and pains from playing his heart out on that field. How many of our upper level event horses have that luxury? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Most of them. Most upper level Advanced and CCI*** and CCI**** horses have the very top end of medical care, feeding, and guaranteed retirement. There's not much expense spared for their well-being, and a tremendous amount of time, dedication, and attention to their needs. When they can no longer run at that level (or decide they're not in the game anymore), the vast majority become amateur or young rider horses where they are similarly doted on.

Because here's the thing: it's a dangerous sport. Bad things happen. They happen in turnout, they happen during conditioning, and they happen on course. And we do everything we can to try to make sure they don't happen, and we cry and mourn and pound our fists in frustration when they do. But I have yet to see any evidence showing that more bad things happen in a long format versus in a short format. I've seen catch phrases, I've seen good marketing, I've seen hysteria on both sides. I've not seen much in the way of proof. Because frankly, if I really wanted to keep my horses completely safe, I wouldn't have horses at all.

And to Amy, and any others who think that I'm a little person and don't get a vote in all of this because I'll never do a 4star? Let's just balance that against my well-documented ability to pay the purchase, vet, board, entry, shoeing, and training bills of an upper level horse. I may not be able to ride my way out of a paper bag, but I write checks good.

[Hannahsmom]

canterlope, very interesting perspective. hmmmm

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Peyton makes his own decison about how hard and how long he'll play. And he is extremely well compensated, will retire before he reaches middle age, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Walter Payton doesn't make comments that his fans opinions don't matter because they don't play at his level.......

[Fence2Fence]

I think the condescending attitude towards lower level riders is more prevalent than what most of us want to believe of the riders we admire. I'm not as likely to write off Amy's remark's as something PH tweaked or twisted. I've heard ammies referred to as the "little people." I can almost understand the "smurf" attitude from CMP because he coaches only upper level riders. After coaching people like that, I bet you get a little spoiled by the talent, dedication, and nice horses the ULR have. But hearing a remark like that from an ULR who's bread and butter are all novice and training level riders...what a surprise....what an insult. (Edited to add: I wasn't aware of the hunter/jumper "little people" comment that Magnolia mentioned.)

We might not like what or how the upper level riders are saying about the short format/long format, but it's nice to see some of them speak up. But I suspect their silence is due to the fact that they approve and welcome the change. What did Denny say a while back--the FEI threw them a bone or something like that?

I agree with the points that canterlope made. Based on Amy's comments of "preserving our heros," it hints at hanging on and wringing out the every last piece of usefulness of the horse. It's a tough sport when it takes until the horse is nine or ten to get him ready for the four star level and then he is only capable for another two or four years before he ages out. And it makes it doubly tough that four star horses are rare--for most people, they are a once in a lifetime find. I'm sure a lot of upper riders are thinking "Wow, I've got this great advanced horse. It'd be great if I could keep him rolling until he was 17 or 18."

But it's not just eventing that has horses age out at 12 and 14... all disciplines have this problem.

[frugalannie]

First: Foxygirl, thank you for starting this topic. I think we needed another discussion of this issue after a bit of time had passed following the petition and all. We needed time to reflect and absorb more info.

Second: I am impressed with the level of discourse, and the quality of posts. Very thoughtful, on the whole, and important reading for all who love the sport. IQ3day, I especially commend you on having the guts to take the "less popular" position. Your post is making me think hard about how I feel and why I feel it.

If someone has the time to do the research (and knows where to find the data) can they figure out the average ages of horses competing in Advanced horse trials? This would be a very rough, surrogate comparison to IQ3day's numbers on horses retiring down from ****s. If there is a statistically significant difference, then I will support the short format. Yes, I know a horse trial isn't exactly what we're talking about when we discuss the short format, but it's the closest thing with which we have had considerable experience.

The other issue is the attitude of ULRs towards the lower level riders. I suppose that arrogance is part of becoming an elite athlete, and these people certainly are. But at least be smart enough to hide it!

[GO-dog-GO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robby Johnson:
Again, if conditioning is what puts the wear and tear on the horses - and I think we all agree that it does - the argument that "it's safer on the horses and preserves them" is totally made from straw.

If you want to preserve your horse and make it last forever, don't event it.

If you don't want to strip your vocal cords, don't sing.
If you don't want to do an ACL, don't compete in gymnastics.

Everything carries some risk. Is our society and culture so far gone that we now cannot even embrace the zest of competition for the irrational fear of consequence?

Robby </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I really like about RJ post is where will or should it stop in the “name of the horses best interest”.

If ABC cause to much wear and tear on a horse how bout they increase the time on XC?

Why not shorten the XC?

Maybe lower XC fences would help?

How bout lower SJ fences?

Hey how about less collected work in dressage, all that training has to shorten a horses career?

What if they just lower the requirements for a **** so it’s more like a prelim, them all the horses will “be fresher” when it’s over and “last” longer?

Lower fences and a slower shortened XC don’t seem like a realistic possibility right now but did eliminating ABC seem possible 5 years ago? If I don’t like a game I don’t play it. But I am aware of many sports where people try to change the sport so it better fits what they want.

If a CCI**** is so hard on the horses that they can only do 1 a year then only run one a year. Just because they’re more doesn’t mean you have to enter them on the same horse. If it’s so important for some people to preserve their horse for the World Championships and Olympics, work your schedule around your goals. It selfish to change a sport for a comparative handful of riders.

[flyingchange]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GotSpots:
And to Amy, and any others who think that I'm a little person and don't get a vote in all of this because I'll never do a 4star? Let's just balance that against my well-documented ability to pay the purchase, vet, board, entry, shoeing, and training bills of an upper level horse. I may not be able to ride my way out of a paper bag, but I write checks good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GS - Well said and thanks for the chuckle this morning! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[dianad]

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


In a very real sense, the decisions about the future of the CCI WILL and MUST be made by the upper level riders and owners. If they do not enter the full format events, the full format events will cease to be, no metter how much we may beat our chests about it.

If we want to preserve the full format, we need to figure out how to get them to ENTER. I can just about guantee that criticising her for being opposed to the full format is not likely to increase the odds of her entering one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is the crux of the matter. It seems to me that bigger purses would be the answer. If it pays highly to win a traditional 3Day, perhaps more entries?

[BAC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Magnolia:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Peyton makes his own decison about how hard and how long he'll play. And he is extremely well compensated, will retire before he reaches middle age, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Walter Payton doesn't make comments that his fans opinions don't matter because they don't play at his level....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI, Walter Payton died fairly recently, within the past year IIRC.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"If it was so terrible, why did you do it for so many years?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the answer is...

I probably shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, but it does seem to me that ULRs have answered this question over and over again in their responses to the issue (well, the ones who have voiced responses, that is). Clearly, they've been "doing it" all these years in spite of not really liking it (that part of it, that is--steeplechase) because it was required.

And now many are glad it is not. Why? Because ALL THESE YEARS they have indeed noticed how much it harms--or leads to harm. Why ignore the logic of that? Taking fences at extreme speed is undeniably more risky and harmful, no matter HOW well you prepare. They very fact that some of the most successful riders around (Severson and Tryon) have indicated that--well, unless you yourself have personally DONE IT, I just don't understand how anyone feels they can criticize or deny what those who HAVE believe.

I have tremendous respect for the old guard, and I hear them speaking of "horsemanship, etc." but I just have a super duper hard time believing that Tryon and Severson and others LACK good horsemanship because they favor dropping steeplechase--not that that is actually what the old guard has said. But some HERE have translated it into that meaning, I think...or just chosen to twist it around or something.

I honestly don't get that part of this debate.

On the other hand, it is GREAT that the discussion has turned finally to the more concrete issue of upper level event horses' longevity. Now THAT can be researched--and compared.

Moreover, I think it is pretty durn callous to just even IMPLY that "if you don't like for your horse to retire at a younger age than others, then don't compete it in this sport."

How arrogant. You dislike the whole "smurf" thing, but such narrowminded, self-centeredness isn't exactly the ladder that will get you out of that particular hole. More like the rope that will hang you with it. I do wish people wouldn't get so snippy with ULRs. It will be so sad if this issue divides the sport further than its nature already illustrates (that sad chasm between the upper and lower levels).

Indeed, would that that particular issue could receive some attention: how can a smoother, more compassionate "transition" arise between the levels? PERHAPS (just perhaps, I have no proof or even rationale for this), the "new" formats will help even out the way horse-rider partnerships progress up the levels such that ULRs will no longer BE a "breed apart" from LLR? Just perhaps?

[persefne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rusti:
The difference is that Peyton makes his own decison about how hard and how long he'll play. And he is extremely well compensated, will retire before he reaches middle age, and never have to worry about how he's going to continue to earn his keep with his various aches and pains from playing his heart out on that field. How many of our upper level event horses have that luxury?
We make the decision for our horses and we have to make the choice that we believe in our heart is best and puts their wellbeing above our own wants and needs.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That's the one drawback to my analogy that, yes, Peyton has a choice. And you are right that we have to make good decisions based on our indiviual horses' wants and needs. But, I sort of think that's a non-issue, as well. It's up to me as an intellectual and conscientious horsewoman to LISTEN TO MY HORSES. If I have a 10 year old who is just not up to training level anymore, then he goes as a seasonal fox hunter. If I were to have a 17 year old that was still excited, energetic, and gung-ho about */**/***, then as long as the physical health is there, I'll listen to the horse. I think that Robby made the good point about if you're worried about your horse's welfare or you think it's not willing/up-to-par, then don't event it. Horses are smart and they are excellent communicators. They are not mechanical machines we can just run and run and run. We have to listen to what they tell us. We all have experienced that horse that has told us "I just can't do it anymore." That is when you give them the luxury of a loving and fulfilling retirement (no matter what level you are competing or how old the horse is).

I also second Rusti's question about the preparation for xc day, if A, B, and C are not longer present. On another thread, it was mentioned that Athens was a disaster, despite a relatively "easy" xc course. Maybe that's becasue riders and horses are currently being flung out of bed/the stall and onto an international level cross-country course, with randomly designed warm-ups. There is a reason it's called "endurance day," not "endurance 7-12 minutes." If it comes down to the horse's welfare, I'd say the short-format may be more damaging mentally, then the long-format is physically. Didn't Kim Severson chuckle at the North Georgia course a bit when she said her horses were like, "that's it?" Even they know there is more to their craft than just jumps!

[Debbie]

Yes GotSpots! You never know which LLR has found a potential **** horse and has the burn to see it go there with someone else in the tack. I've got that little ember of hope right now (even though she's only 2 http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). If that is indeed what the future brings, well, I'm not J. Mars, but I'd support the run at it with this horse and "write checks good!"

I have no desire to take potshots at ULRs who are expressing their preferences and concerns, but I find dismissiveness of the traditional sport by those who have been making a living off of it pretty disconcerting. Without the data to support either side, we really don't have answers -- just opinions. And I don't think enough short formats have been run yet for even the riders themselves to have a good feel for the differences. If the training and conditioning are the same and the difference is r&t&steeplechase versus a self-styled, but similar warm up for D alone then I fail to see how we are "saving" the horses. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but give me facts and details not a "Because I said so" pat on the head.

[LisaB]

Well said, IQ. I wish some of the ULR's were as eloquent and mature as you. I have the UK Eventing mag and some of the ULR have your exact sentiments.
Pwynn, I think we are bashing some the ULR because they need it. They are not as you perceive. Some are true horseman which is what this sport is all about, horsemanship. You ain't got the horse's welfare in mind, get the heck out. And believe me, some of these ULR's are no horseman.

[Debbie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PERHAPS (just perhaps, I have no proof or even rationale for this), the "new" formats will help even out the way horse-rider partnerships progress up the levels such that ULRs will no longer BE a "breed apart" from LLR? Just perhaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for me, this is my greatest fear! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif I think it SHOULD take both a special person and an extremely special horse to make it at the TOP of a sport. Not all riders and horses should be able to get there, that's what makes it special. Nobody wants it to be inhumane, but it must be tough to make it special. It should require the best of the best. That's what sparked my passion for the sport in the first place...

[mcm7780]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And the answer is...

I probably shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, but it does seem to me that ULRs have answered this question over and over again in their responses to the issue (well, the ones who have voiced responses, that is). Clearly, they've been "doing it" all these years in spite of not really liking it (that part of it, that is--steeplechase) because it was required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I understand what you are trying to say, it is only "required" if you do a CCI... If they are so against it, why didn't they stick to horse trials or CICs and not do the CCIs?

[IQ3day]

Thank you everyone for not blasting me. I was a bit nervous about posting on the topic.

After reading the following comments on my after my post, I did some more thinking.

I was thinking more about the part of the "smurfs" having a voice. And in my personal opion came to the thought of- one individual will not have a say (an individual at the lower levels) But a large effort of people might. People like deltawave who are commiting themselves completly to the support of the long format are the type of people we must have if we chose to save the long format.

I ask my self often... why do the upper level riders keep entering the short format over the long format. And based off info I have found, I don't think its because they are totally commited and sworn to the short format. I think its because they are honestly as confused as the lower level riders. I do stick by my original comment that I think the short format my allow UPH's to compete longer at the 3 and 4 star levels. But I do agree there needs to be a large amount of veterinary work and PROOF that this is the case. One thing that I believe contributes to the proof is the amount of competitions entered by the riders. I noticed more competitors entering the upper level horses in more competitions in the "pre- season" events down south. And most of them ran fast XC at every event and went to win. But then I noticed most of those horses that did run fast were aimed at the Foxhall and Jersey CCI*** (all short format).n The horses going to the long format at Rolex were running carefully and at less events. Some of them skipping the XC all together. The other thing that contrivutes to my belief is the number of upper level events run UPL. Some horses are entered in both Foxhall and Jersey. This would not be possible with the long format.

So you have to ask yourself. Are you creating more heros by allowing the horses and ULR's to run more big name competitions in the short format? Or does the hero title only belong to those how compete in the true grit of the long format 3day?

You also have to recognize, wether you like it or not, the ULR have the majority of the say. Atleast at the *** AND **** levels. They are the ones entering, competing and representing our country. The FEI watches them, takes in their opinions (wether they listen or not).

I know Catherine Khon was in England doing a study. As of yet I haven't heard of any found proof or either format. Gotspots is correct. These top of the game horses have the very best vet care in the world. But yet some are still struggling to get through the long format. For those of you who have groomed at Rolex or a major 3day, you know how terrible some horses look Saturday night.

I encourage anyone and everyone to grap an ULR by the arm and ask them for the honest opion. And no matter what they say- to your liking or not- respect it. They are all easy to talk to about this. At Rolex I plan on grabbing Leslie Law and Andrew Hoy and any other "outside of the US" competitor and asking their opion.

One last thing. I think the idea of greater prizes (purses) needs to be seriously taken into consideration. We need large companies to sponser the events. Everyone wants to be part of a winning team. More money to win- more horses to enter.

I just ask that eveyone really think before they start only commiting themselves one way or another. This is a difficult topic. But those of you who will always have their heart set in stone- raise up and BE HEARD! Follow Deltawave, she has great ideas!

***excuse my spelling. I typed this super fast while at school... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[Foxygrl516]

While I understand what you are trying to say, it is only "required" if you do a CCI... If they are so against it, why didn't they stick to horse trials or CICs and not do the CCIs?[/QUOTE]



THANK YOU!!! That is exactly the point I keep trying to make, and you put it very well. None of this is required by anyone!!! Some may argue that it is required if you want to qualify for some of the big-time shows (i.e. olympics, or WEG or something. I don't know qualifying rules, or anything. just playing devils' advocate). BUT, if you want to qualify as one of the best in the world, then BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD!!! If you want the cake, but don't want to bake it, tough! If you want to run at Advanced level but don't want to do ABand C, enter CIC or HT! EASY!!!!

They keep talking about how they deserve options. THEY HAVE HAD OPTIONS FROM DAY ONE!!! CIC's are still there, HT have always been there, and CCI's are there for those who want to do ABCD. Enter what you feel is best for your horse and your riding style. If your horse can't handle it, maybe it shouldn't be trying to qualify for the big show anyway

[GO-dog-GO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or does the hero title only belong to those how compete in the true grit of the long format 3day? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IMO, YES.

Should the winner of the "Indy 300" receive the same respect as a 500 winner. I think not.

[EventerAJ]

OK I too am at school and don't have too long to type, but I wanted to jump in the fray before it gets to 10 pages. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I apologize that I haven't read all 4 pages throughly, but I can't imagine it's all that different from the 100s of topic pages that have already been discussed. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

I am a CCI* level young rider. Aspiring to higher, if the funds and horses ever cooperate. I have been barn manager/ws/groom for a ULR for years. This ULR definitely prefers the long format, and wanted to fight for it years ago when the battle was just beginning (under the surface, before most of us were even aware...).

I'm 110% in favor of long format, but still part of me is torn. My ULR's CCI*** horse ("my" horse, as a groom), bowed a tendon two years ago (note: NOT due to steeplechase, or any effects thereof!). He re-injured it last winter. He's just now jumping again, and is supposed to compete for the first time in a few weeks. It is highly unlikely that he can to the long format ever again, but (according to vet) there is a slim possibility that he *might* make it back to advanced short-format three day. I would LOVE to see him back at that level, otherwise his career options are limited to upper-level horse trials or showjumping. (basically this comes down to showjumping; he isn't suitable for low-level HTs, and no ULR wants a "horse-trial only" horse). This is/was a possible international horse, but now short-format only because of the injury. Could this horse have a longer career because of the short-format? Possibly. But I don't necessarily see the short-format automatically extending the career of most horses; I don't think the short-format would reduce the risk of injury. It *might* allow them to compete post-injury, but even then it is STILL a risk.

You could argue that this would make things worse: horses that have been injured, recovered, may go back into competing when they shouldn't, because "it's only short-format." Whereas with long-format, they wouldn't even try. So, we would have just as many horses breaking down, because some of them (more, in proportion to long-3day) were "weakened" by previous injuries.

I dunno, just my ramblings. I guess my point is, I am strongly in favor of long-format; I know an ULR who does NOT put down "the little people" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and who would prefer the traditional 3-day. Also, in the aforementioned ONE particular case, I could make an exception for the short format. Still, I would never consider this short-format horse to be near as good (at least not PROVEN) as the 24 year-old CCI**** horse retired (at 17, sound) in the back pasture. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[IFG]

I am a LLR. I can tell you that I have gone out of my way to travel to see an advanced three-day, but I not nearly so willing to travel a long time to see an advanced horse trial. They are not the same.

Just the experience of one eventing fan.

[deltawave]

IQ, thank you for your kind comments. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From my "mini poll" of ULRs on my two trips to Southern Pines this winter (I didn't bring the topic up, just kept my ears open) it seems to me that the ULRs are entering the short format events because there is NO CHOICE at this point. Not everyone with an advanced horse has a ROLEX horse, and these riders know the difference. Many are aiming for the WEG and they *need* a CCI*** short format run to qualify. So they're constrained by the rules right now, and many of them don't feel like there's much of a choice, even though personally they enjoy and support the long format.

So for those riders I have nothing but respect...they are riding in the short format events because they HAVE NO CHOICE. That's a far cry from trashing the long format based on nothing but one's own personal gripe or experience, or proclaiming something that's only been around for a little more than a year "superior" to something that's been around for decades because one WANTS it to be superior. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Crikey, if I could do that I'd tell all my patients to go ahead and sit on their butts, smoke and eat at McDonald's because they WANT to...they'll be fine, really they will. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif There's art, there's science, and there's "it sounds good to me"...it takes two of the three to be a good doctor, a good horseman, or a good anything. Wanna guess which ones? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One other point--I did get a little inkling of "ennui" on the part of some ULRs, in that they think the loss of steeplechase is "no big deal", but this was a fairly small number and more of a vague sense from people that seem jaded and bitter anyhow about the sport. You know the type--the ones that do it because it's what they do, who never seem happy and have nothing good to say. Most of the people I heard who seemed to give a damn definitely know that us LLR's need and want a "real" CCI to compete in to "learn the ropes" and support that, even if they're a little hopeless about the reality of the *** and **** right now.

FWIW

[Foxygrl516]

EventerAJ~ Thanks for your input. Your situation puts a different spin on it for sure, and that is what we all need (LLR, ULR alike) in order to make educated decisions.

I think where my mental block comes in is in understanding why. It seems broad, but let me explain. I've said it several times, but let me relate it to your situation. You have a horse that might be able to run short format but not long format. That is legitimate. Nothing wrong with that at all. HOWEVER, I don't understand why he can't be an Advanced HT horse or a CIC horse. You said "no one wants a HT horse". Why not????? If this is all about saving our horses and what is best for them, why can ULR not accept that they have a HT horse (advanced or novice)? It's all about the horse, not the competition, right?

AJ, PLEASE know that I am NOT trying to blast you or pick at you at all!!!!! I hope your horse recovers and does very well!!! I used that as an example, because that is the part that I don't understand. if someone could help me wrap my brain around why ULR won't use the options they already have but instead insist on changing what is there, then I will stop posting basically the same thing over again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just dont' want you to think that I am trying to be ugly to you, AJ. I don't mean that at all. I hope you dont' read it the wrong way!

[EventerAJ]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Foxygrl516:
EventerAJ~ Thanks for your input. Your situation puts a different spin on it for sure, and that is what we all need (LLR, ULR alike) in order to make educated decisions.

I think where my mental block comes in is in understanding why. It seems broad, but let me explain. I've said it several times, but let me relate it to your situation. You have a horse that might be able to run short format but not long format. That is legitimate. Nothing wrong with that at all. HOWEVER, I don't understand why he can't be an Advanced HT horse or a CIC horse. You said "no one wants a HT horse". Why not????? If this is all about saving our horses and what is best for them, why can ULR not accept that they have a HT horse (advanced or novice)? It's all about the horse, not the competition, right?

AJ, PLEASE know that I am NOT trying to blast you or pick at you at all!!!!! I hope your horse recovers and does very well!!! I used that as an example, because that is the part that I don't understand. if someone could help me wrap my brain around why ULR won't use the options they already have but instead insist on changing what is there, then I will stop posting basically the same thing over again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just dont' want you to think that I am trying to be ugly to you, AJ. I don't mean that at all. I hope you dont' read it the wrong way! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense taken Stephanie! I have to be inclass in 4 minutes so excuse the BRIEF and bad response...lol

Why aren't ULRs satisfied with HT and CIC? Well, what's the point of the 3day? What's the point of this whole discussion? If we settle for HT and CIC, there is NO three day, at all, period. And when you get to that level, it is about 3-days. Those who have done a 3-day will understand-- I'm not being snotty here!!-- but there is something you can't describe about a 3-day. That's what this sport is about, that's why we want to save it.

Another point: ULRs have sponsors and owners. Such people also want THE BEST, the TOP, etc, in other words, what's in it for them to have a HT horse?? When another horse could be doing Rolex? Unfortunately it comes down to a money issue. Why support the HT horse when you could be paying (only slightly* more LOL) for a top 3-day horse?

I don't have time to explain further... I will later tonight if someone else hasn't clarified it yet. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[DizzyMagic]

I have several points on this topic...

1) IQ3day - I'm glad no one blasted you on this topic either! Your post was heartfelt and that came through so clearly; it's also good to hear differing perspectives without the edginess that some others of us have in our posts (myself most definitely included!).

2) pwynn - I don't believe that the steeplechase fences themselves, nor the speed at which they are jumped, are inherently dangerous. You have a lot more penalties, falls and injuries at the big complexes on xc, banks, water, sunken roads. At the four-star level, there are almost never penalties on steeplechase, except for occasional time penalties. Injuries on the steeplechase are almost always tendon related, and venues with inadequate footing for galloping and jumping at speed produce more steeplechase-related (tendon) injuries. The act of brushing through those fences, jumping right out of stride, is pretty easy and natural for a horse of that skill level, especially compared to what he's going to do on the xc. I'm not married to steeplechase, by any means, but I do think that the entire traditional three-day comprises a complex system, and abruptly removing any one part of it is going to produce unexpected results.

3) I HAVE asked some of the current ULRs what they think about the new format. Their private response: we hate it, but it's what we've got to deal with. Their public response: it's better for the horses, we can do more three-days and make the horses last longer. It frustrates me that the public response seems to be a knee-jerk political reaction to keep themselves in contention for the team spots. I guess that's their reality, but I still hate it.

Emily

[Sannois]

I have nothing to add to this cause its been hashed over time and time again, I am long format oriented!
But Y'all dont know football! The person I believe was referring to Peyton Manning, QB whos in his thirties. Walter payton was a football player in the 70's for the Chicago Bears. Some say he was the best ever! Walter Payton played for The bears for 13 extrorodinary seasons. He was an American Hero, He was a decent man an incredible inspiration to many people even after he retired from football! And No Walter would have never spoke to High school or college players the way miss Tryon did in that article!
For the record he died November 1st, 1999

[BAC]

Hi Kim, I do know the difference between the two players but somewhere along the line it went from PM to WP. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I think Walter spelled it with an "a".

[Tootsie]

I have to agree with Deltawave on the fact that many of the ULR are not now given a choice between the long and short format. A prime example of this is Jersey Fresh, who was going to put the time and money into running the long format 3 start. The only reason that I have heard for them running it short format is that the national organizations told them to. They had already given up on the long format at the 3 and 4 star levels. So maybe we need to be focusing our questions on the government of the sport, not the riders who are often the spokesmen.

I am really enjoying this tread because this is the types of discussion that we should be having. I would love to hear everyones opinion on this. Whether for, againts, or otherwise.

Here are just a few more thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head that might merit this type of discussion.

On the idea that less time, land, and money is needed to run the short format, I have a few concerns. For what I understand, the horses still need a solid warm-up and to do proper trots and gallops, they need the space to do it. So the land will still have to be available and maintained. How does the arguement that it will save time, land, and money hold water? While I have not run a long format three-day and am not privey to those types of expenses, I would think maintaining the land was a signifigant source of the expence.

I would like the bring up the idea of conflicting logic. First off, they say that the short format is easier on the horses and will prevent injury. Secondly, they claim that the horses must be just as fit to run short as long. Than, then claim is that riders will be able to run more short formats because they take less out of the hores. It is my understanding that it is getting and keeping a horse at the level of fitness that is required for a 3-day, long or short, that causes the most wear and tear on the horses. So why, like Deltawave said, does a 45 minute hack and a 4 minute gallop signifigantly change the nature of the physical stresses on an event horse? On top of that, the implication is that by cutting out that 45 minute hack and 4 minute gallop will give the horses such a longer career that they are able to do twice the number of short formats. I would think that running two CCI*** cross country courses within a two month period would be cause more stress on the horse than by running all four phases of endurance.

I also believe that we need to cut some of the ULR a break. Many of them did enter the long format at Rolex and they might be feeling pressures that we don't even know about. In a way this change in eventing is both no one's and everyone's fault. We can't point to one person or group and say it is there fault, but we all need to work together to find a solution.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was thinking more about the part of the "smurfs" having a voice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is something interesting in this concept, actually--and before this thread, I hadn't given it much thought.

Y'know, there actually ISN'T anything of a "tradition" in what is now USEA (and was USCTA) for the little people to have any say whatsoever. It has never been that kind of organization, come-to-think-of-it.

After all the years I've been harping with (literally) Vikki Siegel over on the h-j board and in other places concerning members' "right to know" and "right to vote" when it comes to USEF/USAE/AHSA, I never turned my thoughts to eventing and the contrasting style of its leadership.

Y'see, in spite of Vikki's long-standing battle in hunter-jumperdom, AT LEAST member's having a "say" has BEEN an issue for many, many years. How intriguing that only now is it coming to the fore in eventing. That "flavor" of organization within this community was truly illustrated by what someone else described as having happened at Radnor where rank-and-file brought up their concerns about the changes in format only to be put down and ignored.

Maybe that would have been a good time to emulate h-j-land's long-standing battle to create the very same thing in their governance. Alas, no one noticed and now...? Well, maybe that WILL be something good to come of this: more member involvement in decisionmaking about the nature of the sport.

Hey, I've still got tons of campaign buttons on "The Right to Know," and "The Right to Vote." Want some? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Hidden]

I am a Long format supporter, but if things change I will deal with it (as you do with the smelly stuff in the back of the fridge). However, I don't appreciate ULR saying us smurfs are nothing. I am just hot about that attitude. I think I was attracted to eventing in the first place because of the attitude.. helping those who are new, not picking on each other. This thread is a case in point.. no sneering and bashing.. but lots of informative discussion. I still am not going to support Amy T with that rotten attitude toward the smurfs! I also found it interesting that in another tread the Brits are actually polling their members and finding they want the longer format.. and they are offering it at the lower levels. Wish our show organizations did anything with the lower levels except make $$ off them. - no I know there is more, but I'm PO'ed.

[IQ3day]

Deltawave, I totally agree with your comments about the riders are being forced to do the short format. I totally agree wiht it. Thats why in my last post I talked about how many of them still seemed "confused" (not really the right word, but I cant pick anything better)about why they are entering the short format. But do the riders have to complete a short format to get their qualifications? Rolex is a qualifier and its long format.--Im not clear on this rule tho!

I think events should offer both formats. But the HAVE to allow times for riders to figure out their preference. I dont think its fair for anyone to jump to a conclusion about the future. These changes have only been in effect for a year or two. Riders need the time to compare and have enough events under their belt to give a proper conclusion.

I agree, Im not going to support upper level riders how make rude comments towards the lower level riders. They were once that level too. How would they feel?? The lower level riders and the future of this support. If ULR dont support them then how do they expect the sport to continue many years down the road? With this said, I don't think its fair to blast them for their comments. If someone knows a rider that makes comments that make you angry, then ask them why they say them. The only way to clear things up is to talk to the people and ask questions.

I'm really enjoying contributing to this discussion! I think its really good for eveyone to be talking about their opinions!

[flutie]

IQ - How about "conflicted" in place of "confused?" The conflict is "I want to be on a Team" versus maybe thinking "The Classic format was - and is - the pinnacle of the sport." I think many of them have been put between a rock and a hard place - and it's painful.

Flutie

[Foxygrl516]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EventerAJ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Foxygrl516:
EventerAJ~ Thanks for your input. Your situation puts a different spin on it for sure, and that is what we all need (LLR, ULR alike) in order to make educated decisions.

I think where my mental block comes in is in understanding why. It seems broad, but let me explain. I've said it several times, but let me relate it to your situation. You have a horse that might be able to run short format but not long format. That is legitimate. Nothing wrong with that at all. HOWEVER, I don't understand why he can't be an Advanced HT horse or a CIC horse. You said "no one wants a HT horse". Why not????? If this is all about saving our horses and what is best for them, why can ULR not accept that they have a HT horse (advanced or novice)? It's all about the horse, not the competition, right?

AJ, PLEASE know that I am NOT trying to blast you or pick at you at all!!!!! I hope your horse recovers and does very well!!! I used that as an example, because that is the part that I don't understand. if someone could help me wrap my brain around why ULR won't use the options they already have but instead insist on changing what is there, then I will stop posting basically the same thing over again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just dont' want you to think that I am trying to be ugly to you, AJ. I don't mean that at all. I hope you dont' read it the wrong way! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense taken Stephanie! I have to be inclass in 4 minutes so excuse the BRIEF and bad response...lol

Why aren't ULRs satisfied with HT and CIC? Well, what's the point of the 3day? What's the point of this whole discussion? If we settle for HT and CIC, there is NO three day, at all, period. And when you get to that level, it is about 3-days. Those who have done a 3-day will understand-- I'm not being snotty here!!-- but there is something you can't describe about a 3-day. That's what this sport is about, that's why we want to save it.

Another point: ULRs have sponsors and owners. Such people also want THE BEST, the TOP, etc, in other words, what's in it for them to have a HT horse?? When another horse could be doing Rolex? Unfortunately it comes down to a money issue. Why support the HT horse when you could be paying (only slightly* more LOL) for a top 3-day horse?

I don't have time to explain further... I will later tonight if someone else hasn't clarified it yet. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I completely agree with you AJ, but I think we're arguing the same point. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Yes, the 3-day IS what we strive for. I didnt' say "Why not run a CIC or a HT" because the full 3-day isn't the main goal. I'm just saying, if your (*not referring to YOUR horse you talked about. Just a "you" in general) horse can't do a full three day, then enter something else, don't modify the three day so that you can say that your horse can do it. You see what I'm saying?

There is no shame is running Adv. HT or CICs. It takes quite a horse to do that!!! But it takes a whole other caliber of horse to run a full format 3-day. If you can't come up with the horse to do it, do what your horse is capable of, not change the sport for everyone else so that your horse can compete. (I don't know if I'm making any sense at this point. Kinda chasing my tail now.)

Anyway, unfortunately I have to leave now for Pine Top and won't have a computer again until Sunday night. So please excuse me if anyone directs any comments my way and I don't answer. I'll check back Sunday night (or monday morning).


AND THANKS EVERYONE FOR THE VERY INTERESTING AND EDUCATIONAL CONVERSATION!!! FROM BOTH SIDES!!! This is how we learn about our sport and each other. Have a great weekend!

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And to Amy, and any others who think that I'm a little person and don't get a vote in all of this because I'll never do a 4star? Let's just balance that against my well-documented ability to pay the purchase, vet, board, entry, shoeing, and training bills of an upper level horse. I may not be able to ride my way out of a paper bag, but I write checks good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. The upper level owners are probably EVEN MORE important decision makers than the Upper Level Riders.

[Janet]

There is one big difference between eventing and American football ("real" football too).

Football is economically dependant on the suport of the fans. If even a small percent of the fans stop coming to the games, or stop watching television, the teams and the league will "feelthe pain".

Eventing in general, and even the CCI events, are not as dependant on the fans' support.

This completely changes the roles.

[PiedPiper]

I probably shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, but it does seem to me that ULRs have answered this question over and over again in their responses to the issue (well, the ones who have voiced responses, that is). Clearly, they've been "doing it" all these years in spite of not really liking it (that part of it, that is--steeplechase) because it was required.

And now many are glad it is not. Why? Because ALL THESE YEARS they have indeed noticed how much it harms--or leads to harm. Why ignore the logic of that? Taking fences at extreme speed is undeniably more risky and harmful, no matter HOW well you prepare. They very fact that some of the most successful riders around (Severson and Tryon) have indicated that--well, unless you yourself have personally DONE IT, I just don't understand how anyone feels they can criticize or deny what those who HAVE believe.

Hogwash!

I may not have done it but as a groom I have been there and seen the decisions and the discussions. I was at Randnor grooming a few years ago when there was record rain. There were plenty of meetings about whether to cancel, change the format around, etc but never was there talk of getting rid of the roads and tracks and steeplechace. There were many BNRs there including a very vocal Karen O'Connor but the final decision, due to many of her concerns, were to rearrange the days, move the stadium, slow down steeplechase and get rid of a few jumps on cross country.

Now, why do you think that was? Well b/c this notion that steeplechase and roads and tracks are inheritely dangerous is a very new "concern". There were no talk of dropping it or especially roads and tracks. I found it very hard to believe that there has been tons of concern that these riders were just going with the flow but very upset about. Please, do you know Karen O'Connor? If it was a concern, trust me, we would have heard! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

What I think everyone is arguing about is the lack of data indicating this was the right idea. It may very well be, but the qualify here is MAY. There is no research done and that is just bad business. Two major no no's in business are radical changes all at once even before a focus group is done, unless you are already scrambling to keep your head afloat,
and bad PR. I think we are now seeing plenty of that.

So for all those supporting this change great, but come back when you actually have proof. The long formatters at least of decades of proof on their side.

I agree with what others have said/seen. There is now a public and personal opinion to these BNR. I have heard it expressed from many of the up and comers as well. Why rock the boat when you are heading for the top? Whatever the "top" may be. And quite frankly it may now be even "easier" to get there. I don't think at this point that is being looked at as a bad thing. I think the impact will be felt a few years down the road when it isn't that special horse that is winning Rolex, Badminton, and Burley.

B/c at the end of the day no matter how you try and spin it, the CIC is in reality a glorified Horse Trial. Yippee, but you won't see me spending big bucks and taking time off of work to go to those.

[none...]

Let me just start out by saying this is the first time Ive "publicly" posted an opinion on the classic 3DE (so be gentle) as I never really thought I had the "authority" to do so. Im a lower level rider, but with big dreams. Since I can first remember riding, it has always been my dream to compete in the Olympics. Now that I am gradually getting more involved in eventing, that dream has become even more deeper.

1. Big accomplishment? I dont think so.

When I first heard about the classic 3DE disappearing, I was heart broken. I have finally purchased a horse that will take me to a * and I have the intentions of taking her around a **. At that time, it was almost as if our sport was being cut in half. What is the purpose of doing a */**/***/**** without the traditional format? Wouldn't it make finishing just the slightest bit less pleasing? If I ever get the opportunity to compare my accomplishments to those who have ridden and succeeded in the traditional format, it could never be the same.

But as I have followed along with this and many other threads, I'm starting to have other opinions. I still strongly believe the */** format should be kept. It allows the horse and rider combinations to gain experience and have that "thrill" of doing an international event.

2. Keeping the horse in mind

I'm not sure I have a say in what goes on above the ** level, but I can understand where people are coming from. By the time you reach the ***s, your horse has run around a */** course and you both have the "feel." But the only logical explanation I can think of is for the horses. Of course every rider always wants their horse's best interests in mind, and running a CCI gives that slightly larger chance of injury. So why waste it when you can run a similar course without the wear & tear?

But then I sit back and think, if these ULR are normally doing 5 HT a year and 2 CCIs, what would they be doing with a short format? 10HTs a year? At the advanced level? That would cause just as much wear and tear AND emotional stress (showing,traveling) on the horses. Honestly, how much longer do they expect to keep a horse in top form by doing more shows?

3. Better Warm up?
Going back to Amy's original problem. Every horse is different, it is the RIDERS job to ensure the horse is properly warmed up and ready to jump XC. If your horse isnt (or is) suited to the steeplechase, then you need to make adjustments. So maybe he isnt thinking forward coming out of the box? How can you fix that next time around? Maybe try some short gallop stretches on the outside of the warm up? Maybe try some transitions to get them listening?

Lastly, I do agree with IQ3D in the fact that larger purses need to be considered. I know it would be difficult, but there has got to be a way to help out. Maybe the larger $$ would encourage more competitors to try the long over the short. The long would become more of that 'pinnacle'

Just my 2 cents...

[Bensmom]

I, too, have been silent on this issue until now. Mostly because though I've worked, and kept the stabling office open late on Saturday night and been up before 4 to open the gates on Sunday morning at a traditional 3-day, I've not been in the "trenches" at one.

But, there are several holes in the logic of the argument for the short format that really bother me.

First, as noted above, if it takes as much conditioning to get to a short format CCI as it does for a long format, how can it really be possible to do two back to back, or to run more in a year? No one has singled out CMP's comment in his column this month that says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> We have an exciting spring coming up with, at the time of writing, the big advanced classes about to start culminating at Foxhall and Jersey Fresh, both without steeplechase at the three star level, and Foxhall without and Jersey Fresh with steeplechase at the two-star level. And yes some horses will do both events. Welcome to the world without steeplechase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is that possible, right, or in any way considering the welfare of the horse as paramount?! I also read into that comment a "get over it" attitude that I don't much care for. But maybe, as a Smurf, I am a little hypersensitive. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I've also been told, quietly, that at the pinnacle of the sport, those fighting for the long format appreciate the support, but that the fight is over. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif I certainly hope that isn't true.

Also, like GotSpots, I may not be able to ride my way out of a paper bag, but boy, do I write checks real good. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif I have in Buzz, (now don't laugh!!) a horse that without his soundness issues, would be a *** or a **** horse. He'd be one that, *if* and this is a BIG *if*, he comes back from his chip removal surgery, would be a good candidate for the short format, as the less pounding on xc day might enable him to get around safely.

I still can't, in good conscience, aim him for that. Why? Because the getting *fit* for either format would break him down. It isn't Saturday of the event that worries me -- I could probably get him through that.

I would still like to see him do a 1/2 star someday -- and will gladly pay the bills to see him do it with someone other than me. But, it would only be with someone who I felt valued both my time and my money that I put in the sport as a perennial lower level competitor. I'll never ride at the upper levels myself, but may very well someday be able to afford to pay the bills on an upper level horse, and if I thought this one would 1) end up sound on the other end of this latest rehab experience, and 2) stay sound through the conditioning, I'd mortgage my house and live in a cardboard box if need be to pay the bills for him to get there with an ULR.

But, not with one that doesn't respect me or my opinions. And, my opinion at this moment, and this is from someone who is trained in making and analyzing logical arguments, is that this whole change in the sport does not make sense and that the arguments in support of it make no sense.

I'll be interested to read about the seminar at Rolex -- DW, since you have a laptop, will you take notes and post for those of us whose damn day jobs won't let us take off enough time to be there? I was supposed to work for the FEI vets this time, and am kicking myself, really hard for having to back out. Dammit.

Libby

[doctormolley]

quote:
_______________________________________________
Originally posted by Just3Day:
I think they should keep the traditional format at CCI*,CCI**, and CCI***, then change the 4 star level ONLY during Championship years (Pan Ams, WEG, and Olympic Games).
_______________________________________________

OK, here goes nothing...(at least I know one person on this topic who won't blast me)

So we're supposed to conform to somebody else's idea of the pinnacle of the sport (Luhmuelen) because they want their horses to be marketable as "successful **** eventers" when they haven't been in the past with the original format? I know I'm not the only one who sees this is an underlying factor in all of the reasoning for the short format.

[free]

To be at all effective...if you are really serious...something has to be done at the FEI level. The energy spent on Amy is not going to accomplish or prevent any changes (and yes, there could be more) that the FEI wishes to impose.

[cyberbay]

Dizzy Magic's comment from yesterday is revealing. Note that we have a 3de president at the USEF now and that somehow, somehow he didn't muster quite enough political support to represent the long-format opinion. He was in the swim for several years and had ample opportunity. I think it says a lot about his political expediency vs. doing the right thing or about horsemanship. But, given his political provenance, it's really not surprising. He got all his long-format opportunities, unlike the next generation of 3de riders...funny how that works.

[As an aside, I hear canterlope's comment about the amateur rule, but there is a big difference between someone being called a professional b/c she does a good job boarding horses, and being competitive in the show ring. These are 2 very different types of skills. A horse show rider needs to be someone in the saddle who can be competitive, who's up on the trends, and can prep a horse for the ring; this is apples and oranges to someone who does a great job running a local boarding operation but who is an average rider (and knows it), and has average horses in her barn. It does not level the playing field to make her ride against those in the business who specialize in producing beautiful hunter rounds.]

[eventing101]

IQ3day--

EXTREMELY well put http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif! You hit this topic right on the money in all of your posts! I agree with every word you had to say!

That is EXACTLY where we are in this situation, and it couldnt have been put any better!!

Well done! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Gry2Yng]

Like IQ, I am still struggling with the classic/short format issue. I just want to share a conversation I had a few years ago with a rider I respect very much.

I hope I am remembering this conversation correctly. At one point I had a conversation with Dorothy Crowell - owner and rider of Molokai - one of the greatest classic format horses ever. Molokai ran his last CCI**** at the age of 15. Dorothy only ran one CCI per year with Mo. That was his limit.

Molokai ran the 1998 Rolex CCI**** at 15 as the only horse to go clean and within the time.

Dorothy made a decision to focus on one three day, not to try and run two every year.

Riders make choices. Horses either benefit or suffer. Maybe the classic format Badminton and Burghley in one year are too much for some horses, maybe not for others. Are we changing our sport because some ULR's just can't say no and leave their horse in the barn for the rest it needs? Is the USET forcing our riders to compete their horses too often? Is the format the problem or the competition schedule?

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[As an aside, I hear canterlope's comment about the amateur rule, but there is a big difference between someone being called a professional b/c she does a good job boarding horses, and being competitive in the show ring... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you are miossing the point. Neither canterlope nor anyone else has suggested that running a boarding barn makes you "not an amateur". The rules SPECIFICALLY say that running a boarding operation is OK.

What ISN'T OK (makes you a pro) is being paid (or appearing to be paid) to
Ride
Show
Teach
Train.

[IQ3day]

Gry- I completly agree with you. Your comments about Dorothy put more and more thoughts into my head. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thinking back on 5-8 years ago. No one seemed to be complaining about the toughness of the sport. Now I may be wrong on that considering I was only about 10 or so. But just from what I was around in the stabling at Rolex, Foxhall and so on. The riders seemed to show total dedication to the grit of the true Three day.

So I have to wonder, why are the riders now changing their plans? Is it because they are really worried about the welfare of their horse? Or is it just because the change of direction we have taken? Gry2Yng makes such good comments. Is the USET forcing the horses to compete too often? What about a short format spring three day and a long format fall three day? This gives all types of super star ponies to go out and show their stuff. The reality is some horses arent cut for the long format of the highest level. Maybe they can do it twice a year, maybe just once or maybe not at all. But I do think we have to offer something for the horses who arent capable of that. Other wise we sit and pass up the oppertunity to watch some truely exceptional characters.

Like Flutie said- these riders are "conflicted". They are being forced to deal with what the FEI said. My bet is if the FEI said "We are going to make all threedays remain long format" Most riders (even the ones supporting the short format) are going to feel some sence of joy. And most likely support with hardly any complaints.--I may be wrong though.

One last veiw I think we should discuse a little more is- is it really the horses the FEI is concerned about. I know I have heard a lot of talk from big name people who have a foot in on the FEI and their views. I have heard points made about it being almost all about money. And the wellfair of the horses is just another way to make riders lean towards the FEI ways. So if it is money, what do we do? Do we sit back and watch and wait? Do we jump in and o somethin, if so, what?

If the sport turns back to the long format- Im there! I will find away to make it work for my horses. And if it doesnt, I will find them a new career at a lower level, with an AA or YR whos Rolex exisits at a lower level. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

These are just a few more of my very "conflicted" thoughts on the future of the sport.

[NRB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Magnolia:
The analogy was more about wording things so as not to insult your fan base.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read and reread the Amy Tryon Article. I see nothing nearly as offensive as the OP indicated. I understand that other people on this BB are insulted by what Amy wrote. I am not, and I am a fan of the 3-day event (long format). I do think everyone is entilted to thier opinion and encourage folks to share their op freely. But I just don't see the Tryon article as THAT insulting.

I do see that folks are using the article as a base for thier own arguments for the long vs short format. Surely Amy knew that this article would get folks going on this topic. I think thats good and healthy. But I don't see why shooting the messanger is needed at all.

I don't see that casting stones and getting all emotional about this issue will help resolve it. Better to argue w/ cold hard facts than emotional turmoil.

I agree that as a fan, the long format is better, b/c that's all I will ever be. a Fan. But since I don't ride at that level I don't feel qualified to say what is or isn't best. I like hearing from folks like Deltawave, Got Spots and the other poster who either hope to one day ride a **** or are funding the asperations of a **** horse or rider. It is true that to me those folks (and ULR) have more qualifications to speak on the subject than fans like myself who, lets face it, aspire to ride at training level and no higher. I do love the traditional 3-day but have to admit I can't tell folks what to do in an area that I know so little about.

So I see the Amy article and her saying I have qualifications to speak about this and this is what I think.... To me that's ok, I think that she is qualified to speak on the subject adn offer her opinions. But I don't see that as insulting to the LLR. It's sort of like, Hi I have a PhD in Environmetal Biology and I am qualified to speak about pesticides and here's what I think yada yada yada.

[deltawave]

I'd say it's pretty hard to have much of an argument WITHOUT emotion, unless one simply doesn't care about the outcome. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think the only thing I find somewhat offensive in Amy Tryon's piece is the fairly dismissive and disdainful attitude towards us lower-level people, as if our opinions don't matter as much as hers. She is so dead wrong on that--without US, SHE would not have a team to ride on nor a sport in which to compete, and although I'm sure she knows it, it somehow didn't get said in "her" piece.

I put "her" in quotes because quibble #2 with Amy's article is that I think it's kind of pitiful to need a "ghost writer" to state one's opinions...if they are indeed so closely held and carefully thought out, state them yourself for Pete's sake! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Part of being a pro and a representative of one's sport (although she doesn't represent ME) is being able to string 2 words together, IMO.

And as you might imagine, I have a reply half cooked up to PH! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I was dictating it in the car on the way to work this morning, LOL.

[ss3777]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't see that casting stones and getting all emotional about this issue will help resolve it. Better to argue w/ cold hard facts than emotional turmoil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, it seems that the emotional stuff is very appealing to people that already support the issue but it alienates the very people that one might be trying to impact. Probably not anyones goal.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please, do you know Karen O'Connor? If it was a concern, trust me, we would have heard! winkgrin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I suppose to interpret this in some particular way, PiedPiper (since Karen not only coaches Christan and Con, but is also trying to help us sell/syndicate him)?

As I stated, I know I shouldn't put words in people's mouths, BUT on the same end, and in response to what you've stated, think this over a bit: Many folks here have stated how many riders "keep quiet" because of politics. What makes you think they haven't "kept quiet" about preferring not to do steeplechase? Imagine how they'd open themselves up for attack, just like this thread illustrates--especially BEFORE all this hullabaloo arose.

Again, I cannot honestly stake that that IS the case, but nor can anyone here state that that IS NOT either. ULRs are not encouraged to go public with ANY issues, period. Thank goodness way back when there was no internet rumormill when whatsername (oh, blanking out now: Erin Go Braugh's rider) campaigned to eliminate the 165 weight minimum.

Now THERE's an eventing milestone to revisit in light of these developments! Hmmm... Are there lessons to be learned there? (I honestly don't know. It just occurred to me. Not using it to make any point other than how rare it has been for ULRs to speak up.)

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are we changing our sport because some ULR's just can't say no and leave their horse in the barn for the rest it needs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a nutshell, YES! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

I hereby stand up and state that, yes, that is probably what is indeed at the heart of allllll of this stuff. Money makes the world go 'round, folks. There's no way to say what percent of those (around the WORLD, mind you--not, again, jsut in this country) are truly motivated by their horse's welfare. But I strongly suspect that the majority are even more motivated by the financial angles.

But we need to be realistic, folks. That's what DOC has been since he landed in office: realistic! Reality is sometimes a very, very sad thing, but you can't escape it, people. You can try to work within it--and I think your efforts to preserve at least SOME original format events illstrate that well. But I think others just don't understand the reality being faced by ULRs, whether they like it or not.

Some of you are criticizing them for having to live in the real world. You yourselves kind of use eventing to LEAVE that world for another, which is fine. But some eventers do indeed have to live in it perpetually. They can't leave it and go back to their 8-5 jobs to put bread on their tables. Please respect them and what they might state on this issue--for that reason if for no other.

[NRB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by deltawave:
I'd say it's pretty hard to have much of an argument WITHOUT emotion, unless one simply doesn't care about the outcome. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

- Yes but my point was that crying and tearing your hair out wile trying to present an argument can get your listener to tune you out asap. My point is that when I read this BB I get really fired up and terribly offended about what I hear that THEY (ULR) think about US (LLR). Then I go and read the actual offending article and realize it's not nearly as offensive as I had been led to believe. It's the spin it gets on the BB, the other peoples interpretation of the situation that seems to catch me up and get me going.

"I think the only thing I find somewhat offensive in Amy Tryon's piece is the fairly dismissive and disdainful attitude towards us lower-level people, as if our opinions don't matter as much as hers. She is so dead wrong on that--without US, SHE would not have a team to ride on nor a sport in which to compete, and although I'm sure she knows it, it somehow didn't get said in "her" piece."

- Again I repectfully agree to disagree with you Deltawave here. I just don't see it as that distainfull. I do understand that you are coming at this from a different POV than me and respect your opinion in that light.

"I put "her" in quotes because quibble #2 with Amy's article is that I think it's kind of pitiful to need a "ghost writer" to state one's opinions...if they are indeed so closely held and carefully thought out, state them yourself for Pete's sake! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Part of being a pro and a representative of one's sport (although she doesn't represent ME) is being able to string 2 words together, IMO."

--The article is article is written "by Amy Tryon, with Sandra Cooke" since Amy's name is first I don't see this as ghost writing.

I'm looking fwd to the replies in PH to this article. I hope they print the good ones (like DW's) and don't whitewash the whole thing.

It's a good debate, but again I just don't see that people drawing a line in the sand and seperating the two different halves of the eventing world as a good thing. Civil war is never a good thing.

[Gry2Yng]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are we changing our sport because some ULR's just can't say no and leave their horse in the barn for the rest it needs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a nutshell, YES! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

I hereby stand up and state that, yes, that is probably what is indeed at the heart of allllll of this stuff. Money makes the world go 'round, folks. There's no way to say what percent of those (around the WORLD, mind you--not, again, jsut in this country) are truly motivated by their horse's welfare. But I strongly suspect that the majority are even more motivated by the financial angles.

But we need to be realistic, folks. That's what DOC has been since he landed in office: realistic! Reality is sometimes a very, very sad thing, but you can't escape it, people. You can try to work within it--and I think your efforts to preserve at least SOME original format events illstrate that well. But I think others just don't understand the reality being faced by ULRs, whether they like it or not.

Some of you are criticizing them for having to live in the real world. You yourselves kind of use eventing to LEAVE that world for another, which is fine. But some eventers do indeed have to live in it perpetually. They can't leave it and go back to their 8-5 jobs to put bread on their tables. Please respect them and what they might state on this issue--for that reason if for no other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some professionals manage to live in the real world without pounding their horses into the ground.

Here's another example...Bruce Mandeville and Larissa. At the end of her career, one that included at least two Olympics and a Pan Am Games, he only ran her in when absolutely necessary. No Rolex in 2004, just the Olympics. I am not blind to the fact that making the Canadian Team is very different from making the American Team, which is exactly my point.

The FEI forced Kim S to run Rolex long format because she was not qualified for the Olympics. Was there ANYONE involved in the sport who questioned Kim's ability to be successful at the Olympics without running Rolex in 2004 - other than the FEI of course? Was that in the best interest of the horse?

Sorry pwyn, but I think it is quite possible to be a successful eventing professional without running your best horses into the ground. Maybe it is not currently possible to make an Olympic Team that way, but is the answer to change the sport? Seems one of the pilars the short format supporters rest upon is the idea that they can compete more frequently under a short format. My opinion is that this is a move in the wrong direction for our horses.

Edited to add the following:
Not only did the FEI's qualifications force Kim S to run Rolex, but let's also think about all of the */**/*** riders who jump around clean xc but are forced to continue running HT's or CCI's because they blow a dressage score or take 5 rails in stadium.

[deltawave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
Here's another example...Bruce Mandeville and Larissa. At the end of her career, one that included at least two Olympics and a Pan Am Games, he only ran her in when absolutely necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't leave out Badminton! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Larissa's **** career is over, but because of the thoughtful planning of her career she is still competing successfully. And yes, THAT is the kind of trainer I'll send (and have sent) my horse to. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

NRB, do ya think "Sandra Cooke, with Amy Tryon" sounds like much of a byline? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One last veiw I think we should discuse a little more is- is it really the horses the FEI is concerned about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I think the FEI is concerned at some level with horse welfare, they often have a funny way of showing it. How about those two showjumping rounds (at greater heights) at the end of a three-day? Not exactly kind to the horse. And then there's the ever-changing qualifications, which someone else mentioned already.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The article is article is written "by Amy Tryon, with Sandra Cooke" since Amy's name is first I don't see this as ghost writing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NRB, this IS ghostwriting. The ghost is credited after the nominal 'author'. If you look at the best-sellers by Tim Russert (with Bill Novak) or Hillary Clinton's sprawling opus (with one of her speechwriters), you'll see that this is how ghosts are credited in the writing profession. Not everyone is articulate on papers and/or wants to take the time to properly organize their thoughts.

[doctormolley]

quote:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
Seems one of the pilars the short format supporters rest upon is the idea that they can compete more frequently under a short format. My opinion is that this is a move in the wrong direction for our horses.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

Exactly! The more your horse has accomplished the more $$$ it's worth. Therefore, if the ****'s are all run in the short format, you can compete without a major rest (which I agree could result in the horses being overworked). Since ULRs can't compete the same horse at Rolex and Badminton in the same year because of the time frame, why not keep them long format and let them have their short format elsewhere? Are the top horses of the sport going to get there based on quantity of competitions rather than quality? I remember when Badminton was the epitomy of the eventing world and to finish in the top 10 now THAT was an accomplishment. IMHO Great Britain already has enough horse trials.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry pwyn, but I think it is quite possible to be a successful eventing professional without running your best horses into the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, for heavens sake, Gry2Yng, excuse me for getting royally annoyed, but gosh darn, your statement illustrates exactly what NRB is implying about the "spin" folks are willing to put on what other people say!

*I* was commenting on "leaving the horse in the barn" instead of being able to compete it on a schedule that would allow it to become a "star" of whatever would be most rewarding for owners and sponsors--the argument that some ULRs are making. Who in their right mind runs their horses into the ground intentionally in a sport where doing such is of no advantage whatsoever? You make it sound like the ULRs who are OK with the changes are such an ignorant, self-centered lot, while those who are against it are all saints.

Indeed, one ULR recently commented to me about how he saw more LLRs "running their horses into the ground" competing three to four times a month, hauling all over the countryside, fpr little more than bragging rights. Sheesh, look at the points some LLRs rack up with a single horse before proceeding to call the kettle black (and/or presenting a gross generalization that obscures the original point)!

[Heinz 57]

Ok, I have two things to say.

1) Amy competes in my area. I've gone to the same HT's as her and Poggio, and there are people in Area 7 whose opinions I value more highly than hers. Not saying anything bad about Amy, she is just not at the top of my list of riders/trainers (that have done 3de's)whose opinions I value.

2) Like many juniors on here, I have goals, goals that *should* have taken me to a long-format 3 day. A short-format ride will NEVER be as satisfying or hold the same value as a long format, not for me.


The fact of the matter is, the long format has been running for quite some time. Now, maybe I'm blind, but the quality of horseflesh has not decreased to the point that we need to make it less strenuous for the horses. Not just ANY horse should be able to go run a 3DE.

[pwynnnorman]

Isn't anyone going to consider what happened with the 165 lb issue? Or is everyone too young to remember it? (Didn't seem that long ago to me.) And it reminds me of the hullabaloo after Lexington in 1978 (I'm pretty sure that was the year) when Might Tango needed oxygen after x-c.

The more I think of it, the more I realize that this is NOT a new debate, really. The sport has always been a tough one on horses and disagreements about modifying it (to make it safer and/or to spare the horses) HAVE been around for a while. Certainly, this is the "biggest" modification to come down the pike, but it isn't like the sport has been exactly rock stable in the last 20 years.

[Reynard Ridge]

pwynnnorman,
Carol Kozlowski (sp?). Very interesting point. She decided the 165 pound rule was silly, raised holy h*ll about it and managed to persuade enough of the right people that she was right that the rule got changed.

I believe there was a huge furor over it at the time. Anyone now care to argue that she was WRONG?? Should all horses pack around 165 pounds because that's they way it always was, has been and should be, ever more?

Seems like a really good analoge to me. But then, I also think the arguments for the short format make a lot of sense http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Gry2Yng]

pwyn - no spin, you said… <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They can't leave it and go back to their 8-5 jobs to put bread on their tables. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response is that it is possible to put bread on the table without "running your horse into the ground", which may be a figure of speech in some cases and may be a literal interpretation in others. As you say, even LLR can run their horses into the ground.

Both Dorothy and Bruce are examples of professionals who make a living and do not live and die by the idea that they must run a spring and a fall three day on their horses every year.
Your post suggests that those of us who have real jobs need to understand the reality of being a full time horse professional. My response is that just because you make your living at it doesn't mean you have to work your horses so hard that the short format is a "better" option so that you can compete your horse more often and make a bigger name for yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> *I* was commenting on "leaving the horse in the barn" instead of being able to compete it on a schedule that would allow it to become a "star" of whatever would be most rewarding for owners and sponsors--the argument that some ULRs are making. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read this statement as saying that if the riders and owners want to create a "star" that overrides giving the horse the rest it needs.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Who in their right mind runs their horses into the ground intentionally in a sport where doing such is of no advantage whatsoever? You make it sound like the ULRs who are OK with the changes are such an ignorant, self-centered lot, while those who are against it are all saints.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me for getting annoyed! I in no way suggest that ULR's are an ignorant lot. What I am suggesting is that if you have team fever, you are pushed to compete on a grueling schedule, both by the FEI and the USET. It has nothing to do with trying to make a living in the real world as you suggest. Making a living and making a team are different.

I don't agree with changing the test so that more money can be made and our horse can work harder and become more expensive. Professional equestrians choose to make their living in that field. If they want to be rich there are other professions that are more lucrative. I make my living in banking and ride as a hobby. I make my choices, they make theirs.

I would like to suggest making the jumps lower and the combinations less technical at the four star level because I am an adult amateur and must put bread on the table and I just can’t practice enough to complete a four star the way it is. Could you please make it easier for me, because I am very busy and I live in the midwest and it is very hard to get good training and spring comes late. BUT, I really want to be a “star” and live in my nice house and drive my pretty car and sleep late on weekends, so could we change the rules.

Let me add one more thing...each year for the past three years the dressage tests have gotten more difficult and the stadium jumps have increase in height and spread at the FEI level. Why is it acceptable to increase the level of difficulty in these phases but decrease the level of endurance required? Why is it okay to say you can compete at the FEI level with one stop on xc as long as your dressage and stadium are up to standard? The emphasis of our sport is changing, and you are right pwyn - it is about money.

[dunthat]

Pwynnorman,

The one of the reasons Might Tango needed Oxygen after XC is that is was hot as hell and extremely humid that year in lexington. Caroline T. was so sick the next day for SJing that she had a terrible fall. Bruce was going for it at no cost. I don't believe that the long format that weekend in Lexington was the main cause of horses having problems, I think there were a lot of factors, the weather being a large one.

[PiedPiper]

pwynnnorman

I am sorry but are you familiar with Karen!?! ALl that was meant to imply is that she is not some wallflower that would keep quiet which you were saying that all these riders have been doing all these years. If she has a problem, concern, she most definitely speaks up. And if it is in regards to the welfare of her horses then there is NO stopping her.

Jesus, what the hell were you implying?

[Gry2Yng]

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

I am sorry but are you familiar with Karen!?! ALl that was meant to imply is that she is not some wallflower that would keep quiet which you were saying that all these riders have been doing all these years. If she has a problem, concern, she most definitely speaks up. And if it is in regards to the welfare of her horses then there is NO stopping her.

Jesus, what the hell were you implying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of us understood EXACTLY what you were saying.

[Sannois]

OH COME ON PEOPLE!!! Chill!!! We need not bite each others heads off to solve this ! Or even discuss it! Yes it is a VERY hot topic but I think we all need to take deep breaths and be CALM!!!
I have been reading these threads all of them over the last year, and one thing I dont get at all. The statement that the conditioning it takes to get a horse 4 star fit is what is so hard on them. Ummmm Wait isnt the horse naturally built to trot all day long? Isnt the real problem the jumps? The pounding?? I find this whole thing such a sell out by these riders. I cant believe that eventing survived all these years and so little problems. And sure I remember the weigh issue, I think THAT is a totally different thing. The excess weight was ridiculous! I think If someone like Bruce or Karen or David would speak up on their feelings for the short versus long it would really help. They have seen eventing for the last 20 years and more!

[GO-dog-GO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to suggest making the jumps lower and the combinations less technical at the four star level because I am an adult amateur and must put bread on the table and I just can’t practice enough to complete a four star the way it is. Could you please make it easier for me, because I am very busy and I live in the midwest and it is very hard to get good training and spring comes late. BUT, I really want to be a “star” and live in my nice house and drive my pretty car and sleep late on weekends, so could we change the rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no no, you have it all wrong! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Each rider should have the entire 3-day tailored to their horse! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Lets not be so silly to think that a horse should be asked to measure up to a standard. If they can tailor each test to each horse just think how many more CCI**** horses we'll see. Then we can buy our horses from the same lines and have a shot at a **** our selves. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Carol Kozlowski (sp?). Very interesting point. She decided the 165 pound rule was silly, raised holy h*ll about it and managed to persuade enough of the right people that she was right that the rule got changed.

I believe there was a huge furor over it at the time. Anyone now care to argue that she was WRONG?? Should all horses pack around 165 pounds because that's they way it always was, has been and should be, ever more? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason no one would argue that Carol Kozlowski was wrong is that CK raised the money to fund a study of how horses are affected by carrying dead weight vs. live weight. The study showed that carrying dead weight was more difficult for the horse and put them at greater risk for injury. In the face of the evidence (it was not simply a case of persuading the right people), the FEI got rid of the weight rule.

(CK didn't think the weight rule was 'silly', she thought it had a detrimental effect on the horse.)

However, this is not what's happened in the great format debate. The data in the UK study of short vs. long format showed that the long format isn't harder on the horse or, if you prefer, that the short format wasn't any better for the horse.

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Reynard Ridge:
pwynnnorman,
Carol Kozlowski (sp?). Very interesting point. She decided the 165 pound rule was silly, raised holy h*ll about it and managed to persuade enough of the right people that she was right that the rule got changed.

I believe there was a huge furor over it at the time. Anyone now care to argue that she was WRONG?? Should all horses pack around 165 pounds because that's they way it always was, has been and should be, ever more?

Seems like a really good analoge to me. But then, I also think the arguments for the short format make a lot of sense http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a great analogy, and I'm not too young to remember (as I'm also of that build . . .). If I recall correctly, Carol didn't just ask for the change. There was a STUDY required to understand the differences between running under weight and running without weight.

This is the issue I have had all along. The change (and it IS a significant one, regardless of which side you are on) was apparently made without actual data as to how it would impact the horse . . .

Edited to say thanks, JER - you made the point more eloquently than I did, had I only managed to read to the end. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[deltawave]

Thank you, JER and cweimer...I have been sort of slack-jawed at the implication that the minimum weight rule and the changes that were made to it are in ANY WAY are analogous to changing the entire format of the sport. Hello, one rule change that was strictly meant to help the horses was based on DATA, yet the entire sport was bushwhacked based on...what? Not enough money to run the long format? Yeesh. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif There is no comparison.

[free]

Sannois...This is the way I read it. David did speak up as much as he was able to, and he wasn't even heard. His voice only goes so high. The powers that be in the FEI will not pay any attention to Amy or Bruce or Karen as individuals. They carry no weight in the FEI decisions. The FEI is a royal dictatorship. It is made up of European royalty and from what I read...the decision was made/finalized by approximately two people after listening to their fellow royalty and friends (kind of like a good-'ole-boy group) and the rest of us can like it or lump it as far as they are concerned.

It will take a revolution against this dictatorship to bring about any change, and all of this in-fighting is wasted time and energy. It would require the combined efforts of ULRs and the mainstream riders both here and abroad (unless a break with the FEI is made here in the U.S. and that would be next to impossible) to bring such change and arguments such as these are only burning daylight.

[Sannois]

Free, I am afraid you are 100 percent correct! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[DizzyMagic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by free:
The FEI is a royal dictatorship.... It will take a revolution against this dictatorship to bring about any change, and all of this in-fighting is wasted time and energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely right. I would LOVE to take this fight right to the FEI's doorstep, where it belongs. Let them eat cake, indeed!!

Emily

[nature]

If I remember correctly, Might Tango was only 5 years old. It was after that, the rule was passed that advanced hrses must be at least 6. I am not sure about Intermediate.

[Blugal]

Chiming in late here - a couple of random thoughts... (bear with me)

I am thinking along the same lines as IQ3Day... I have run * and ** and would like to do a *** some day. I am stuck between wanting to support the classic format (I love all the aspects, fun, challenge etc.), and worrying that I might be wrong about its effects.

My coach is an ULR who has run 3-days for over 20 years, and who is *very* particular about the care her horses get. But, her honest opinion is that the classic format is harder on the horses, does break horses down, and shortens their careers/jeopardizes their soundness. [I do keep in mind that this is coming from someone who did struggle from the financial side of staying on team for those 20 years while living on the west coast, and who "had" to run madatory outings for the team etc.]

I guess my questions are:
-for those who say we can get data on the # of horses, length of career, reason for retirement etc. - how do you account for the ones that went lame in the run-up to a 3-day, or who made it through on intensive ice therapy, never to do a 3-day again? Or who were sold afterwards etc. b/c the rider was keeping the horse's inability to do any more 3-Days hushed up?

-how can you tell whether the horse went lame *due* to steeplechase, when it breaks down on or after the XC? You can't always prove what caused the problem - tiredness? slipping? lack of conditioning?

-what about horsemanship? What if that horse ligitimately goes lame b/c of steeplechase, but because the rider didn't condition properly? Or has poor horsemanship skills at home? I have seen this - it is amazing what I have seen some "knowledgeable" Upper-level horsemen/women do/ not do. Properly tending an "iffy" leg, rest, timing of interval training, warm-ups, several days of trailering a 3-day fit horse with no exercise or poor nutrition etc. If the rider is ignorant to the cause, s/he might blame the extra "stress" of ABC on their horse going lame.

-lastly: I wonder about the effect of the increasing competition and standards in dressage/SJ that someone mentioned. I know Lucinda commented that horses and riders seem not to be able to go by the "seat of thier pants" etc. Do horses get injured on steeplechase or XC (when the horse rides bit differently after ABC) because the riders haven't been practicing these enough, or are unable to adjust to the different feeling their horse gives them after ABC? Are they spending enough time riding over grassy terrain and conditioning for that? Are we stressing their muscles/joints by over-training the dressage and SJ instead of having a day off or going for a relaxing hack?

OK, incomprehensible rant over. I realize some of the above may not apply to long-term ULRs (who, for example, are very good at adjusting their riding).

[redlight]

I think there have been some great points made here on both sides but somehow we've all got to meet in the middle to get this mess fixed! If you want the classic format to remain then be prepared to support it either by riding in them, volunteering or by donating money to the USEA and designated to their 3 Day Fund. Otherwise, there'll be no point in organizers holding Classic 3 Days.

Since money seems to be such a huge factor here's an idea: everyone who supports the classic donates $10 towards a purse to the winner of a major 3 day in this country like Rolex. Imagine a $100,000 purse like in grand prix showjumping. Riders would qualify for it by completing long format 3 days and maybe the top twenty or something qualify. With the right PR I bet alot of riders and owners would take notice. I admit in a purest sense that money should not be a driver in our sport but nowadays it is and I don't think it will lose influence.

Secondly with land becoming more scarce and finding enough volunteers to fill all the positions it is getting increasingly hard to run classic formats. How do we deal with that? Its easier and cheaper in this regard to run short format.

Maybe if you are a URL and want the short format you should go over to Europe to live and train and leave the long format over here for our URLs that want it to stay. Is there a tally of what URLs favor long and what ones favor short? Seems alot of these people have been mum but I could be wrong.

Another idea, and I'll put my flame suit on for this one, why can't we have an American as our team coach instead of Mark Phillips? Anyone care to join me on that one?

Very long I know just thought I'd add my 2c!

[mares.com]

Okay shoot me - as a horse owner, I like the short format. Sorry but les agony over possible injury. Politically incorrect statement # 2 - replace Mark with J Wofford.
or D O'Connor.
Keeping my head low to the ground.

[Sannois]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another idea, and I'll put my flame suit on for this one, why can't we have an American as our team coach instead of Mark Phillips? Anyone care to join me on that one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Double Ditto on that one!!! I have always wondered about that! WHY dont we have an american??? OK Jimmys off the Canadian team, Can we please have him???
One other point, Where are the statistics for horses that have broken down as a result of the long format??? There are none are there? No scientific studies, no veterinary studies on the effects of the steeple chase! Thats because its NEVER been about the horse! Dont kid yourself into thinking the FEI has the horses best interest at heart! They have there royal Butt in mind, there money and status! Agh The whole thing juat makes me sick! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[persefne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Politically incorrect statement # 2 - replace Mark with J Wofford.
or D O'Connor.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mares.com, don't worry. I said this on page #2: "Can we please be smart about this and get Jimmy Wofford or David O'Connor as our Cd'E??? Let CMP go back to England and buy his daughter a few more expensive horses to compete (maybe even a few that will stay sound!)."

Ok. Maybe I shouldn't have been so hateful about Zara, just because she has parents who will buy her expensive eventers and pay for them to be trained and maintained while she's in London focusing her time on her "royal responsibilities." (I have a subscription to HELLO! magazine, so I frequently see what Zara spends her time doing...and it ain't practicing gymnastic sets or running conditioning gallops.)

Alright, it's late, but since we're being "politically incorrect" (no one really has, to my knowledge...yet), let me give a hypothetical situation: &lt;spoken in a "once upon a time, in a land far, far, away" voice&gt; WHAT IF (and, we're just pretending here, but bear with me), WHAT IF all of a sudden, the Europeans -- i.e. French and Germans -- decided that they were tired of the NZers, AUSians, GBrits, and USofAmericans dominating the sport of eventing on their sharp, intelligent, and tireless TBs. BUT, lo and behold, the Germans get the chance to host the WEG at Luhmuhlen! Yay! So, they convince their homies (the FEI) that they want to run a "new format" for the ****WEG that is much more "horse-friendly" (read that as Warmblood appropriate). European-bred warmbloods excel at dressage and SJ! So, let's devise a format that turns the traditional 3de into a dressage and SJ focused feast (we'll minimize xc so that it's an in-between activity...none of that tedious trotting/galloping stuff before the actual jump course...duh!). Won't that be great!

Ok, ok...we're just pretending here. No one would actually agree that this type of thing could really happen in the real world. Unless, of course, you consider Athens....(to be continued). http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Gnep]

Blugal,
There is no, absolut no question that a 3 Star or a 4 Star is a tremendos strain on the horses, equal for most horses that go 1 Star or 2 Star. You know yourself how much time you had to put in and how many miles it took to get Blue ready for a 2 Star. Naturally that will go on the horses joints, tendons etc. no questions about it. If you go 3Ds you will go les HTs that year, well at least that is comon sense, or proper horsemanship. It is probably correct that a lot of the injuries in X-C are caused by the additional stress of ABC. But I believe that most of those horses have already been marginal, my personal experiance and observation.
Far to few riders are willing to pull a horse 4 weeks befor competion because of a slight injury. They make al the jogs but not the one on Sunday.
If they would do horsetrails, they would get by but in the end be done by the end of the season for a long time.
A 3D is rather unforgiving to a marginal horse.
I always find it quiet interesting, that most horses who have to go into the holding area either don't make sundays jog, or don't show up.

It would be interesting if there were jogs for prleim, intermediat and advanced. They do thos in some European countries. How many of those horses would not go into stadium?

I think the main problem is, if you do 3Ds it limits quiet drasticly the shows ( use ) one gets out of that horse. If you do one in the Spring and one in the Fall, what is it 3 or 4 HTs to keep the edge on the horse.
It is tough for me to believe, that the bastard will prolong the horses showlive. They will just get more shows, like jumpers. That argument is in my eyes hogwash. Sounds good but is BS.

Persefne, nice try, but you should take a history lesson, ever heart about the Olympics in Peking and Eventing.
Give it a shot.

[Blugal]

Hey Gnep,
You have stated a lot of my observations as well, re: horses not being pulled out *before* the 3-day, and doing fewer HTs if you are running 3-Days. (In fact, I think you could say I took that one a bit far http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif - we did both of our first Int. in Aug., one more in Sept, both were qualifiying scores, and off we went to Galway end of Oct.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gnep:
I think the main problem is, if you do 3Ds it limits quiet drasticly the shows ( use ) one gets out of that horse. If you do one in the Spring and one in the Fall, what is it 3 or 4 HTs to keep the edge on the horse.
It is tough for me to believe, that the bastard will prolong the horses showlive. They will just get more shows, like jumpers. That argument is in my eyes hogwash. Sounds good but is BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed - does this speak to that financial aspect again? - "use" of the horse, results, satisfied sponsors/lucrative sales of horses. I honestly don't know if that's it - but I've been reading Lucinda Green's books about Be Fair, George, Wide Awake, Killaire... she had her setbacks, but with proper conditioning and the best care, and even a few mistakes, the horses all did well on a small number of shows. She did mention the fear of having to sastisfy sponsors, but was able to pull it off by keeping the horses' happiness foremost.

As others have said: is the problem maybe that horses without a high % of TB blood require so much more conditioning = more wear and tear? And, having to work hard/struggle to make time on steeplechase? And with the concentration on dressage/SJ, more and more low% TB blood are being used? And going lame? (Not warmblood-bashing here, it's just that these are my observations.) Or it's just too much time/work for ULRs to get them fit enough?

I'm going to stop rambling now since I don't think I'm making any point.
PS Gnep I sent you a PT a couple weeks ago.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I have been sort of slack-jawed at the implication that the minimum weight rule and the changes that were made to it are in ANY WAY are analogous to changing the entire format of the sport. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I didn't bring it up as an "analogy"; I specifically said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now THERE's an eventing milestone to revisit in light of these developments! Hmmm... Are there lessons to be learned there? (I honestly don't know. It just occurred to me. Not using it to make any point other than how rare it has been for ULRs to speak up.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, as I went back to get that text, I see that I my response to the KOC thing (and, sorry, but she isn't exactly at the verbal forefront of this issue, in spite of what I (now) realize you meant in that reference).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"What makes you think they haven't "kept quiet" about preferring not to do steeplechase?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This simply isn't something that someone not in the heads of ALL ULRs, not just the BN ones, can draw any conclusions about.

Similarly, Might Tango: many of you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I brought up that incident to "imply" the sport is too tough or something. Actually, I only brought it up as an example of another "hullabaloo". Indeed, both of these instances (the 165lb and Might Tango) are, in MY mind--even if maybe it doesn't quite get onto the paper--examples of the "flavor" (I believe that's the word I used earlier) of the administrative beast that USEA is and USCTA was.

I'll say it again: there is no real history of "smurfs" EVER having a say in this sport. That's as much today's reality (which maybe this debate will change? I wonder?) as the financial pressures faced by ULRs.

(And I repeat that it is just so unfair to sugarcoat them and/or twist them into something that reflects negatively on them--ULRs are individuals with individual goals, financial advantages and disadvantages, personal issues, etc. It is dreadful how fast some of you are to judge them or the "nobleness" or lack thereof of their motives and means.)

Ah-ha, here's another--this one I WILL introduce as an "analogy": bounces and frangible pins. More "adjustments" in the sport (I don't actually remember exactly what occurred after that year of all those deaths when bounces came under fire--does someone here recall that?).

Again, I bring these up to show that the sport has been getting tweaked and twisted for years. You're right, upping the dressage and stadium traits are yet another change. Change, change, change. The sport has long since been something other than what it was back in the day when you could blow dressage and make it up in cross country. It's been edging further and further away from that for years.

And, mares.com, thank you for speaking up! I feel the same way:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sorry but les agony over possible injury. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel somewhat guilty about that--I suppose it IS somewhat selfish to prefer sparing the horses over fighting for a dying tradition.

And now you'll jump on me to state that there's no "research" to show that dropping ABC will "spare" the horses at all. Well, I'm sure once there ARE enough short format events and seasons based on them, we'll find out won't we? In that sense, the train HAS left the station--FEI, for whatever reason, chose not to "research" the new format before changing it--y'all ain't gonna go back and rewrite that history.

So forward we must go. Me, I'm gonna try to give ULRs (and course designers, too!) the benefit of the doubt and continue to believe that THEY will figure out how to make it work. I absolutely refuse to believe that they will "run their horses into the ground" just because the new format allows them to. Sure, SOME will (heck, who can't point to a ULR doing just that in each and every season and/or at specific big events back through history?).

But I can't believe that a sport like eventing--the GOOD stuff about the sport--could possibly end up "producing" a bunch of ULRs so many gripes seem to characterize so negatively here. If that IS the way of the ULR, oh, geesh, people, what would (NO, NOT "DOES") that say about the sport?!

[PiedPiper]

Again this all comes down to research and doing things that are best for the sport.

pwyn- I agree that all the example you put forth but the marked difference between them and this is that they are realitively "small" in comparsion to wiping out whole sections of the sport!!!! And most were done with some kind of research SHOWING that they were a good idea.

Again I will ask, where is the research? I don't think there is a single eventer on here who, if proven that the short is actually healthier, less stressful, and an all around better idea, would not end up accepting and support this new short format.

BBBBBBUUUUUUTTTTTTT again, there is no research. How does ANYONE know if this is good, bad, or nothing? Right now there is, at best, speculation from riders that it SEEMS like it is better but there really hasn't been enough time passed to really tell.

Plus I think it is been concluded that the prep for it is the same as the long format. Now if most horses do end up breaking down or starting to break down during the weeks prior to the event, how is the short format any better?


I feel somewhat guilty about that--I suppose it IS somewhat selfish to prefer sparing the horses over fighting for a dying tradition.

And now you'll jump on me to state that there's no "research" to show that dropping ABC will "spare" the horses at all. Well, I'm sure once there ARE enough short format events and seasons based on them, we'll find out won't we?



But, what if you are wrong? You have absolutely no research showing you are doing such a thing. Just think for a minute if a few years down the road it is proven that there is no difference OR even that the short is more stressful on the horse. What then to this passionate defense of this new overhauling?


Again I am not saying one way or another except that time has helped smooth out and prove the long format. Research has not been done at all and that is a tragedy. This sport deserve better than that. We deserve, all of us, to have as much thought and care put into every aspect of this sport and that changes are not done willy nilly with a "well let's give this a whirl and see what happens" attitude.

Absolutely, the horse, is the most important aspect of this sport and the safety of it is paramount. That is why these changes should have happened slowly and in much smaller steps to prove to every rider and for any research that each step was in the right direction. There would have been far less fighting and alienation of the top and lower tiers if it hadn't been such a sweeping change.

Name any other sport that had a huge section of it cut out and it still survived?

[RunForIt]

In my VERY humble opinion, there is not even ONE Upper Level/Big Name EVENT (I love writing that term) rider who got to the top, without running long format 3-days. Yes, some of them may have complained loud and hard about Phases A,B, and C, but they kept running their horses. These are the same riders who now care so much for their horses' well-being and long term soundness that they are "happy/relieved" to have the short format to preserve these wonderful animals. Why? Because they want to get to the "big game", they have to have sponsors who will provide money for horses, upkeep, and entries. Sponsors expect/love winning, and so do these riders/trainers/coaches. AGAIN, HOW MANY OF YOU OUT THERE WOULD KEEP COMPETING YOUR HORSE IN SOMETHING YOU WERE SURE WAS THREATENING HIS/HER SOUNDNESS? I WOULDN'T. But these ULRs did - for years! IMHO that's why so many of us just don't buy the BS from the ULRs.

[deltawave]

I could almost forgive an ULR who rode exclusively in short-format events because the owners of his/her horses wanted it that way, OR if his/her horses weren't up to the challenge of the long format. If a pro makes a living doing eventing and makes a BETTER living doing the short format only, then that is OK in my book.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the sport should be gutted! Most of us DON'T make our living doing horses, and if the long format is still the "pinnacle" (I don't see how that point can be argued) of horsemanship then why get rid of it just to appease the lifestyle of a certain number of ULRs? That argument will never make sense to me, along with all the other half-assed arguments in defense of the short format.

The ONLY arguments that hold water (IMO!) are the "too much land" argument (and that could be solved with a little creativity) and the "it's too expensive" argument. (valid, more's the pity) The "horse welfare" argument is 100% unproven and until I see some data I will continue to be utterly unconvinced.

I've pointed this out a number of times...in medicine, there are NUMEROUS well-known examples of medical "breakthroughs" that sounded JUST WONDERFUL in theory and turned out to be DISASTERS when the data were actually collected. A great hypothesis is nothing more than a "good idea" until you have FACTS, and the examples where the "good idea" turned out to actually be "really bad ideas" are legendary and forever get brought up when there is a lesson to be learned. IMO this is one of those times, although of course we're not dealing with medicine. Never, never, never let "it sounds good" be confused with "this is proven to be superior". In medicine, it is the patients who suffer when these errors are made. In this case, it will be the horses, I'm afraid. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

[free]

persefne...hypothetical situation? That is exactly what is happening. The FEI is sincere in that they decided this for the good of the horse...the Warmblood horse!

I do believe that there are a lot of competitors who sincerely believe that the short format will be easier on their horses. As to why they didn't initiate change before...well a lot of that is just human nature. Rescinding the weight rule was obviousely a good thing and yet, look at how long it took for someone to initiate that.

DOC himself said that he believes that now..."instead of taking a horse that is great at cross-country and teaching it to do dressage, that the day has come where we will have to take a horse that is great at dressage and train it to do cross-country!"

To me this means that most future TOP Event horses will have to have at least a percentage of Warmblood influence.

[free]

persefne...hypothetical situation? That is exactly what is happening. The FEI is sincere in that they decided this for the good of the horse...the Warmblood horse!

DOC himself said that he believes that now..."instead of taking a horse that is great at cross-country and teaching it to do dressage, that the day has come where we will have to take a horse that is great at dressage and train it to do cross-country!"

To me this means that most future TOP Event horses will have to have at least a percentage of Warmblood influence.

[mcm7780]

teacher2nd -- I agree with you! Like I stated a few pages back...ABC are only "required" at a CCI. If they are so against it, they could have stuck to CICs and horse trials.

[persefne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deltawave:
If a pro makes a living doing eventing and makes a BETTER living doing the short format only, then that is OK in my book.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the sport should be gutted! Most of us DON'T make our living doing horses, and if the long format is still the "pinnacle" (I don't see how that point can be argued) of horsemanship then why get rid of it just to appease the lifestyle of a certain number of ULRs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, Deltawave! The short format should be an alternative to the more challenging classic format...NOT the replacement for that test. I believe that someone earlier in this thread mentioned rehabing his/her horse from injury so that it might perhaps compete again in a short or modified format event. But, doesn't that imply, then, that the modified test is less of a demand, less of a test? To me, that means that it's a worthy competition, but should not be the ultimate competition. In no way shape or form (until it is PROVEN that the short format DEFINITELY will save human and animal lives over the long format) will I ever believe that the short format is the pinnacle of the sport. Sadly, I will appreciate all of the very talented ULRs out there competing today, but I will always hold in the highest regard those riders (Ian Stark, Ginny Holgate/Leng/Elliott, Lucinda Green, Mark Todd, Blyth Tait, Mary King, etc.) who constantly trained for and rode the big **** in the traditional format...and none of them ever said, "can't we find something that is a bit simpler than this?"

I don't think I ever remember hearing someone, after having reached the summit of Mt. Everest, say "wow, the ride up here on that magic carpet sure makes this view worth while!" No one rides to the top of Mt. Everest on a magic carpet! They CLIMB THERE (and some even die there). If the start box of phase D of a **** is our Mt. Everest, we shouldn't get there on a "magic carpet" either. To me, that's the mentality of the short-format: remove A, B, and C, and just show up at phase D when it's time to start. Pardon me for being trite, but isn't it about the journey, not just the destination? The journey, in this case, is preparation, conditioning, and warm-up. Anything less is just a short-cut, and a short-cut is just that: "short." That doesn't necessarily make it the best route.

In this debate, I'm reminded of a quotation from C.S.Lewis: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

[persefne]

Oh, and I forgot this, but I think it is interesting what Gnep said about trot-ups or jogs at prelim/int level. There probably are a lot of horses that would not finish all 3-phases and make it to stadium (when xc is run on saturday before sj; but, it's not always organized this way). More jogs at competitions, at all levels, might be a better way to keep all competitors in-tuned to their horses' condition and soundness (although more riders than not are already very aware of how their horses are faring). I guess the reason this isn't done more often is that it would require having more vets available on site? Or, couldn't they just use the 1 or 2 vets/professionals already on-site? Don't know about the logistics of that but it's worthy to consider. If people are worried about getting in more shows per season, then keeping horses healthy and sound at all stages of the process (not just before and after, but during) might actually save a lot of horses that are shooting for 3des from serious or unecessary injuries which would make them "marginal" and, therefore, not really ready for a big 3day.

[BallHillFarm]

I thought her article was well thought out and written. Everyone can have an opinion right?? Doesn't mean everyone has to concur.
I thought her point about horses being so tired after the long format was a good indication that she really cares for the good of the horses.

[arnika]

I've read through all of these pages. I've also never posted about this before but I just have to say as a volunteer at many events:

1) I will only think of ULR's from now on as people that do Horse Trials. Sorry, but they are no longer 3 Day Eventers.

2) I agree with free 100% and I have worked with these registries and known their members (as I am one) for a long time.

3) I may help out my local shows but I am not going to spend my energy and money traveling to attend or volunteer at out-of-state HTs. Even if they are run over 3 days. I'm particularly sorry I didn't get to go to Rolex again this year since I won't bother going in the future.

4) Get rid of Mark Phillips! Add me to the politically incorrect bunch. The man stood firmly behind the FEI throughout the whole debate.

I truly love this sport but hate where it's ended up.

[Sannois]

Yes Arnika! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gifSo sad but I am afraid so true! I too wish I could have gotten to Rolex this year! At least I have many years of memories of when it was a REAL 4 star!

[Scaramouch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BallHillFarm:
I thought her point about horses being so tired after the long format was a good indication that she really cares for the good of the horses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha. Sure. She cares so much that "Oh, I can't possibly give my horses 3 more days' rest, so let's just change the sport entirely!" The long format doesn't "damage" the horses in any way, at least, no one's bothered to prove it if it does. It's really a reflection on the rider if she can't give her horses the time they need. You want to show evey weekend? Go ride H/J!

[free]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by persefne:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by deltawave:
If a pro makes a living doing eventing and makes a BETTER living doing the short format only, then that is OK in my book.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the sport should be gutted! Most of us DON'T make our living doing horses, and if the long format is still the "pinnacle" (I don't see how that point can be argued) of horsemanship then why get rid of it just to appease the lifestyle of a certain number of ULRs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get the idea that it was gotten rid of to appease the lifestyle of 'a certain number of ULRs'? There is SO MUCH misconception floating around. It might be a byproduct...but certainly not the reason behind the demise of the long format.

[free]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scaramouch:
Ha ha ha. Sure. She cares so much that "Oh, I can't possibly give my horses 3 more days' rest, so let's just change the sport entirely!" The long format doesn't "damage" the horses in any way, at least, no one's bothered to prove it if it does. It's really a reflection on the rider if she can't give her horses the time they need. You want to show evey weekend? Go ride H/J! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scaramouch...Newsflash for you. Amy didn't have anything to do with the change to the short format...so why are you so angry at her?

[Gry2Yng]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As others have said: is the problem maybe that horses without a high % of TB blood require so much more conditioning = more wear and tear? And, having to work hard/struggle to make time on steeplechase? And with the concentration on dressage/SJ, more and more low% TB blood are being used? And going lame? (Not warmblood-bashing here, it's just that these are my observations.) Or it's just too much time/work for ULRs to get them fit enough?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am also not wb bashing, but want to point out another fact that is coming to light. Both TB's and WB's are requiring more speed work and less long slow distance work as prep for their three days. So, conventional wisdom (meaning the top trainers) are now advising doing more speed work with three day horses, especially their wb crosses, in order to prepare them for the short format.

Again, I do not know anyone who has decreased their fitness training to run a short format. Most are now doing sprints (albeit withoutht the jumps and not at steeplechase speed)but the marathon runers can certainly speak up about what LSD and sprints mean as part of a training program. We all know that injuries occur at speed, so what happens when you add more speed to your conditioning program?

[glfprncs]

I only have one comment to make on this subject, and it's about research.

The last time a MAJOR change was made to the 'classic' three-day event, it was years back when Carol Kozlowski had the wherewithal to to question the weight requirement in the three-day event (at one time, everyone had to carry 165 pounds). Being that Carol was small, and her current mount was small, she had to carry a lot of lead around on cross-country. She felt that this was unfair to the smaller rider as well as unfair to the horse. She then set out to find out if there was research to back up her opinion.

Research is gathered, and lo and behold, there is a higher incidence of horses breaking down, falling, etc. on cross-country if they're carrying a weight pad, versus just carrying a saddle and rider that come in at 165 or over. People realize then that in the interest of safety and well-being, the weight rule should be abolished.

My point is, there are a lot of people in the upper level eventing world (wether they are riders, trainers, coaches, or in a administrative role) that keep saying the classic three-day event is too hard on the horses. That very well may be a truthful statement, but I would have liked for someone to take the initiative and create a research panel to come up with data to support this change. I'm tired of people just spouting off reasons, without offering up research.

I think that by vilifying the wear and tear of the conditioning aspect (as well as the effort of phases ABCD) of the classic format, everybody's attention is pulled away from what, may be, the real reason behind the incredibly quick change from classic to short-format.

[Ellie K]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arnika:
4) Get rid of Mark Phillips! Add me to the politically incorrect bunch. The man stood firmly behind the FEI throughout the whole debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

arnika, your statement is factually incorrect. You might want to read the following:

Mark Phillips, A Columnist for Horse and Hound, Stated his View on the FEI and Eventing in the November 6th, 2003 Edition

"In 1912 the roads and tracks were 35km and the cross-country 5,000m long. In the past 90 years, the "military" competition has been developed to produce the outstanding competitition and entertainment witnessed around the world.

"We know the FEI president, Donna Pilar, does not like steeplechase and thinks it unnecessary. Dr. Hanfried Haring, secretary general of the German Federation and chairman of the FEI strategic planning committee, has been feeding her what she wants to hear. The Infanta has put huge pressure on Wayne Roycroft, chairman of the FEI eventing committee, to get rid of Phase B.

"I still cannot believe how this resulted in Giuseppe de la Chiesa, Mike Ethrington-Smith, Eddie Stibbe, and Bill Henson effectively signing the death warrent on 90 years of tradition and development at the September meeting of the FEI eventing committee.

"Why did things have to go so far so fast? Should they not have thought this through in depth? Should they not have had an interim year before committing the report to a format that has not even been run yet?

"Should they not have listened to all the concerns about safety? No longer will there be that safety net in the 10 minute box, a final health check before horses go out on cross-country.

"Should they not have thought about qualifications and rules? Jumping efforts must be tied directly to metres galloped if we are not to have a complete disaster.

"Should they not have listened to the riders who want to keep both formats as part of the qualifications? What is wrong with the flexible approach, the twin track, so the format can be suited to the venue?

"Typical of the muddled thinking is the proposed change of age limits (for juniors from 18 to 19 and young riders from 21 to 23), with the star level at which they have to compete staying the same.

"What was asked for was the junior's age limits be extended to 21 and the young riders' to 25, but going up to two- and three-star level respectively. Now we have the worst of both worlds.

"The FEI committee has acted without mandate. It has selectively listened to statistics it wanted to hear.

"Why has so much good been thrown out of the window so fast and without even a trial period?"

[eventable]

Wow this thread has really given me some food for thought. I've always firmly stood in the long-format camp. Why does it *have* to put additional strain on the horses? If organisers are providing steeplechase style fences and galloping tracks for riders and their mounts to warm up, then why isn't this still formalised in the form of the ABCD? It seems insane to provide those facilities and have the majority of riders use them - does this not prove that the riders prefer the ABCD format?

Second, re the longevity of an event horse's career - Charisma won his SECOND gold medal at 16, Glengarrick retired after a remarkably successful Olympic campaign at Athens at the age of 18. Ready Teddy also retired last year, fit and well at the age of 17 or 18, with both WEG and Olympic golds under his girth. Note also that Charisma was not full TB, had a portion of Percheron in him, and was known as Podge at home. This didn't mean he "wasn't up to long-format", merely that Mark worked harder and thought outside the square to keep him fit and able to compete at that level.

By all means, if you can prove that short-format is better for the horses, then go with it, but I'm not seeing the evidence so far and in lieu of a comprehensive study a la Kozlowski, I think we're probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[arnika]

Ellie K, if I am wrong I will be happy to admit it. I don't read Horse and Hound and he didn't express those viewpoints in the American press that I am aware of.

Your quotes only lead me to conclude that it truly was the idea to make it easier on the European breeds/registries to become more prominent in eventing. Frankly, I can see this as a longterm strategy both to become dominant in the sport and also to maintain a market for the WBs. Land use and expense have a role as well I'm sure but there is no doubt in my mind about the first two.

[IFG]

I read these threads, and I really think that the whole thing is about globalization and money. Does anyone remember when horses got the winter off?

You might ride in the snow and school your horse over the winter, but there was no competing until the weather allowed. When I saw eventers starting to travel to Florida to compete in January, February, and March, I began to fear that eventers were doomed to follow the HJ folks.

If you compete year round, and the horses never get a rest, and you are getting your money's worth out of them (come on who wants to let an expensive horse have months at a time off-- they only have a few good years), then you are going to start using performance enhancing or pain masking meds, and trying to scale down the competition to spare wear and tear on the horses.

Eventing has become about $$$ like other horse sports. The folks who compete are no longer either the idle rich or those supported by the USET, but now they have to make their living by competing. In some ways I don't blame them for finding a way to keep business going year round. They need to make money to live during the off season.

Do I like what this has done to the sport? No. Do I blame people who are trying to make a living? No.

And no, I don't have an answer either, but I think that the whole topic is more complicated and less one-sided than many of us make it seem.

Stepping off of my soap box and back into the background...

[The natural]

I think we all have gotten diverted by the hot-button issues about horse safety, etc. When something changes this quickly in a large organization not noted for swift action, you know that powerful people with an agenda are at work. The ULR are just as powerless as anyone else. Clearly, an FEI with a dedication to eventing as it has been would have found another way to respond to the problem with the Olympics. Reasoning and logic about horse care, safety and longevity are probably not really at issue. The odd thing about this comes from what pywynnorman has been saying about the smurfs: I'm sure that nobody in the FEI expected the American LLRs to make such a stink. Of course, anybody with half a brain might have been able to see that the addition of the Training, Novice, and Beginner Novice had opened the doors to a bunch of folks who care about eventing and don't give a hoot about the FEI. An alternative way might be to give people a choice--kind of like what major league baseball did with the designated hitter (which is considered an abomination by some). Apparently the FEI way is to force everyone to follow their direction. This is what usually causes organizations to split up.

[RAyers]

REVOLUTION!!!!!

Burn the FEI and IOC!!

Reed

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Burn the FEI and IOC!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Preferably with the Olympic torch.

[GotSpots]

Wow, come back from a glorious weekend in the sunshine at a beautiful event (The Fork), to see pages of debate. Just one response, someone said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'll say it again: there is no real history of "smurfs" EVER having a say in this sport. That's as much today's reality (which maybe this debate will change? I wonder?) as the financial pressures faced by ULRs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd have to disagree. I'm as much a smurf as anyone else, but I volunteered to be involved in USEA and have found through those opportunities that the organization is full of dynamic people who are really trying to make USEA work for and on behalf of all eventers, from the BN/N/T through the Team riders. There are lots of neat things going on, and the organization seems really interested in trying to serve members' needs and to improve the sport. There's lots of room for volunteers and folks interested in adding their talents to the pool, and I found the groups I've been involved with so far to be exciting, interesting people who are tremendously dedicated to the sport.

[Gnep]

Gry2yng,
Very good point with the speed training, defenetly far more stress.
I have competed WB at upper level 3D and I have never had a problem making time on steepelchase. Naturally they were purposebred.
Lately I evented Appendix QH, Racing Blood, had 2 of them 2Star qualified and both had absolutely no problem with speed. My Mare did on her last outing the final 1000 meter at Gallway Steepelchase in 62 seconds ( I think that is pretty fast, or fast enough, defenetly wrinkel free zone ). She was a slow starter, but a great finisher.


Blugal, I think in the end it al boils down to sheer economics. The whole hoopla started wehen Peking refused to have eventing and basicly broke the contract with the IOC. It was deemed to expensive, understandebal for a country that has absolutly nothing to do with Equestrian sports. They exepted the Modified Bastard.
I think the CICs were just a test phase, they became very popular in space straped Europe as a upgrade for NHTs to IHTs. Everybody did them in the US when they were new, it kinde peetered out a bit.

I personaly understand the International Riders, a 3 or a 4 Star will limit the further use of a horse during a season, 2 of them even less use. Doing a couple 3 or acouple 4 or mixe 3 and 4 star and one is down to 3 or 4 shows a year, very little for several 100,000 and long houres in the saddle. Especialy since you have to decide very early if this horse will be a 3D or a HT, because if one wants a very long use out of a 3D one has to start around training level and start with the minimasation programm ( thats how my old trainer called it ). No spurt training, as in oh I got a 3D coming in 3 month, lets pound the sucker into the ground and git some condition going. Its a long and slow programm, that best starts 2 or 3 years befor the first one, and keeps on going over years till the last one. A huge time, hope and desire investment, and all for 3 or 4 maybe 5 shows a year. I was tought ( over 30 years ago ) that a 4 to 6 weeks recouperation is needed, with slow maintenance training, a slight drop is ok.
If you have sponsors etc. riding your back, they need exposure, demand it, one might just start a little early, squeeze a nother one in......

Than take organizers, it is a huge effort to put a 3D to gether and needs quiet a bit of ground and people. Get rid of ABC, les real estate, les people and a lot les money and a lot les worry to get it together.

Good for the Horses, well that came later, like WMD and freedom.
I don't believe in that one. If a 3D horse gets properly used and managed it has as long a uesebal live span as a HT. Only differance is you get les shows out of it

But nothing beats that glorious moment, absolutely nothing, when you cross the finish line of D.

[deltawave]

LOL, I hereby propose that the designation for the short-format now be called "CMB" instead of "CCI", for "concours modified bastard". http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[3Day-Eventer]

Ok, here is my opinion:

What is wrong with only doing 2 big shows per year? (One full 3 day in the spring and one in the fall) I am a ** rider, and I enjoy the preparation for both shows, with a break for my horse in the summer and the winter. There is a tremendous buildup and excitement that goes with preparing for an international competition. I think that this just goes to people wanting immediate gratification. They want to keep showing, and showing. If I wanted to show every weekend, I would get more horses, or do a different dicipline (Dressage or HJ). I wouldn't want my horse to go to 25 shows a year, just for his mental health!! He quite enjoys his weekends off grazing in the pasture!!
Now, on to the "safety" issue with the full format...
I know plenty of horses that have gotten hurt doing all diciplines (or no dicipline!!). Dressage horses get bad hocks, HJ horses bow tendons, etc. My own horse strained his tendon out in the field playing!! Not out on an intermediate XC course! Maybe I should not turn him out, or if I do, I should wrap him in bubble wrap and hope for the best!!
Maybe we should lower the fences for the Olympic show jumpers because the landing might cause joint problems. Or maybe we should not do jump offs at all anymore because if a horse slips on the turf, it might bow a tendon (ie, the Athens olympics!!). Maybe we shouldn't ask upper level dressage horse to do as much collection work, because some of them dont have good enough joints to sustain that ammount of work!! Good bye Piaffe and Passage!! I want my Off the track TB to be able to represent the US in the Olympics for dressage, so I think we should change the expectations to allow him to keep up with horses that were bred specifically for upper level dressage. If there were no real collection work, I think he'd do just fine!!

Speaking of track horses....
How many 2 year olds are completley crippled after only 6 months on the track!! I dont hear anyone sticking up for them, or changing the way the racing people run their sport!! Even if an upper level event horse retires at 13, thats a long way from 2 or 3!! (I know it is not an Olympic sport,but you catch my drift). If we are in the for the horses "welfare" then every horse sport should be changed. Unfortunatly, horses get injured. They do it to themselves in the field, and yes, sometimes they do it when we are on them.
I think the risk of hurting my horse on steeplechase is much less than his risk of burnout if he did a HJ every weekend with no turnout at the show grounds. Or if he was asked to do dressage work everyday without a nice gallop thrown in for good measure. I love to do my trot sets. It is so peaceful, and I know that my horse feels the same way. I hardly think that he is going to burn out any faster doing the trot sets as he would doing collection work day in and day out, to improve our scores, so that I can place in a CIC. I like to think of endurance day as his reward for staying in the dressage ring the day before!!
I wish that someone would do some research on long vs short format. But, I also wish that someone would do a study on eventing, vs. Hunters, jumpers, dressage, ,endurance, driving, reining, barrel racing, roping, etc. I think that you would find that horses get injured in all competitive diciplines fairly regularly. Thats the name of the game.
Earlier in this thread someone made the Peyton Manning analogy. I think that is accurate. Someone else brought up that, unlike Peyton Manning, our horses dont have a choice in what they want to do. To a point I agree, but when I see the videos of my horse running XC, I dont think that there is anywhere else he'd rather be.
Like I said earlier, they get hurt in the field. That doesnt mean that I am not going to turn my horse out anymore!! It was HIS CHOICE to run around like a lunitic and hurt himself, not mine!!


Sorry for the spelling mistakes!! Hopefully my thoughts came across somewhat understandable!!

[Sannois]

I have been surprised since the begining of the talks about the changes, that someone hasn't offered to do a study on the effects of the 2 formats! But then I dont know why I am surprised, The people that made the change already made their minds up! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Dang I wish I could have gone to Rolex this year!

[savannahlover91]

I know!!! What is wrong with being a "low- level" rider?? I dont see it. After all, we are the future, not her. She can say whatever she wants, but in my opinion, she should've left us out of it. I love the steeplechase and the classic! I think it makes up the backbone of the sport. Its not really a "three day" without it, y'kno? Sure, its 3 days long, but its just a horse trial thats been stretched.


<span class="ev_code_PINK">~Sarah</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">proud supporter of the 3 day</span>

[cowchipss]

I haven't read all there was said on the eight pages of this discussion but I do see an underlying theme of "fake". Eventing is now fake and not real without steeplechase, right.

I want to know how many people can do one of these fake mediocre four stars. I'm not anywhere close myself; really the sport seems to be changing and thats fine if you want to turn your back and go ride dressage. But I'm pretty sure if you love what the sport is truely about (to me anyway) CROSS-COUNTRY, you might stick around even if you don't get your ABC phases.

[Sannois]

I'm sorry but that in NOT what the sport is all about. It is the sum total of all the phases combined! The ultimate test of horsemanship! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[purplnurpl]

being an amature with aspirations of riding in her first three day....
the part that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand due to excitment is thinking about comming out of the start box for Steeplechase.
(and the trot up)
but its the steeplechast that runs like a broken record in my brain. I can't wait.

I am afriad it will be gone before I get there.
I hate this topic. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eventing has become about $$$ like other horse sports. The folks who compete are no longer either the idle rich or those supported by the USET, but now they have to make their living by competing. In some ways I don't blame them for finding a way to keep business going year round. They need to make money to live during the off season.

Do I like what this has done to the sport? No. Do I blame people who are trying to make a living? No.

And no, I don't have an answer either, but I think that the whole topic is more complicated and less one-sided than many of us make it seem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kudos, IFG.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are lots of neat things going on, and the organization seems really interested in trying to serve members' needs and to improve the sport. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean to imply that there wasn't, but it's not exactly a democratic organization, i.e. there is no structure for "majority rule," nor is there a history of surveying the membership before decisions are made. For example, in h-j-land, there ARE elections in the zones. I don't seem to recall elections in USEA.

In many organizations, the By-Laws establish certain membership rights that are associated with governance, such as rule changes, representation, etc., etc. My point was that USEA isn't characterized by that kind of structure, so the current "groundswell" kind of has no place to go, alas.

MEANWHILE, though...

I have an important question for those in favor of research: Just HOW would such research have been accomplished if there were no (or an insufficient number) of REPRESENTATIVE events to sample from?

Unlike the 165lb situation, where there was a sufficient number of horses carrying "live" weight vs. "dead" weight, there cannot BE a "sufficient number" of short format events (at various levels, various venues and various times of the year) without going through the process we're currently in.

No subjects. No research.

Perhaps by this time next year, we'll have more concrete facts to base our opinions on?

BTW, the point about the new "winter" circuits kind of represents yet another major change in the sport. Change, change, change, again! IF folks ARE going to compete year-round, what impact is THAT going to have? What impact SHOULD it have? However you answer those questions, you can't deny that the impact will be felt.

And as a result, there will probably be (and already are) MORE changes.

[rusti]

Have to agree with cowchipps, while the ultimate test of horsemanship does involve doing all three phases well, the guts of eventing isn't dressage, show jumping or phases A-C, its D. And there isn't anything fake about a four star cross country course with or without roads and tracks and steeplechase. Its a huge accomplishment to train a horse to that level and complete a four star course.
I don't know if the changes are going to turn out to be good or bad, but its been said many times, the train has left the station, and nothing anyone does is going to turn it around. So, unless there's someone here that has the money or the time and ability to raise enough funds to financially support and actually organize events at all levels, as well as go out and buy the horses, support them through the years of training needed to become a four star horse, it's a done deal and all the whining, and save the classic format tee shirts in the world ain't gonna change it.
Above everything else, I believe the changes are financially driven. Want it to change back, well, gotta put your money where your mouth is and frankly, very few people have the kind of money it'll take to make a difference.

[bigdreamer]

just my 2 cents here (w/o having read a lot of the post)...

I fully support the traditional 3-day until they come up with actual veterinary proof that the short format is healthier/safer for the horses. Hence why i am so interested in seeing the current vet. research that's to be presented at Rolex this year.

I guess it's only something we can see after the long run, tho... If it actually prolongs a horses career, etc.

but one thing i don't understand is why were people (including some of those who've stated they prefer the short format) out galloping their horses before XC at the olympics and rolex last year? galloping on unregulated ground... Can't wait til a horse gets hurt while doing that http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

[free]

rusti...so true.

[PiedPiper]

The seminar at Rolex will start touching on this and doesn't sound like it is going to support the idea that the short is better. From The Chronicle of the Horse:

"A British veterinarian whose findings suggest that the Olympic-format CCI offers no physical benefits over the classic format, will give a presentation during the Rolex Kentucky CCI.

Dr. Singer's presentation, sponsored by the US Eventing Association, will be on Friday, April 29th . . . .

Singer, of the University of Liverpool (England), tested horses competing in both the classic and Olympic formats at last fall's Weston Park CCI**. She found that the two formats had "similar physiological effects" on the horses.

She concluded, " There is no evidence to suggest short-format events are more beneficial on wefare grounds than the long format."

Dr. Catherine Kohn, who just stepped down as a member of the FEI Veterinary Committee and who has observed and treated horses at three-dau events for almost 30 years, will join her. Kohn is currently conducting a study similar to Singer's at US three day events."

[deltawave]

I don't know if I'd get TOO excited about this seminar at Rolex being "earth-shattering". The data have already been presented and I don't think there's anything new, but of course I could be mistaken. The data, of course, showed that there was essentially NO DIFFERENCE in the measured physiologic parameters of horses doing a short-format CCI** vs. a long format CCI**.

If anything, I hope the presentation is thought-provoking and raises awareness of the need for MORE RESEARCH. I will certainly be there! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PiedPiper]

Definitely don't think it will be earth shattering but think it will support what many have been saying here that most likely research will show that there is no difference if not (short format) being a little more dangerous since warm ups are not supervised. But it should at least deflate that balloon that is being flown by so many that it is SO much better. If you like it, great, but at least give good, honest, truthful, knowing answers. More money, better for owners, etc and not touting this safety reason. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It is hogwash since the research is JUST starting to come out.

Do whatever you like but at least be honest about it.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't seem to recall elections in USEA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Evcery year, at the annual meeting. And you get a proxy form in the mail to use if you don't attend the meeting.

[Candle]

I only made it to page 5 and I have to go to class, but my question whenever this comes up is always the same.

If the classic format is so tough on horses, than why do the O'Connor's horses remain competitive at Olympic competitions well into their late teens? Biko, Custom Made, Giltedge... I know Molokai didn't retire until middle teens, and there have got to be other horses in the same boat. I watched the Atlanta Olympics tape and then the Sydney Olympics, and David O'Connor's horses took on those courses like nothing else. Those did not look like suffering lame horses that proponents of the short format would have us believe that older horses will turn into. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Ellie K]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gnep:
Good for the Horses, well that came later, like WMD and freedom.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Exactly, gnep. Just like it!!!!!!!!!!