I'm back--my report and thoughts [Archive] - Page 2

EventerAJ

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Hannahsmom! REEALLY! This is insulting to EVENT HORSES--and maybe jsut the point some who LOVE what event horses ARE want to be able to make to MORE PEOPLE:

My lord, this is horrible! I hate, hate, hate the fact that event horses are basically three times as talented as jumpers and dressage horses and yet often are valued half as much (or less)! That's outrageous, and, NO, not just for my pocketbook.

An event horse deserves to be considered as FAR FAR FAR MORE than a failed dressage horse or hunter jumper!!! Geezum, can't you see why getting more support for the sport in any way possible MIGHT, just MIGHT help establish event horses as the true superstars they are?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok usually I am very good at restraining myself, and reading the entire thread before responding. That way, I won't repeat something that was already mentioned. If what I am about to say has been said in the remaining 2 pages, forgive me.

WHO SAYS that event horses are "valued half as much (or less)!"???? I know VERY, VERY few eventers who do not value his or her horse! What is your basis for this statement? Is it because event horses are often cheaper than hunters or dressage horses? Is it because some small-minded people (of any persuasion) don't value event riders or event horses? (that's their problem, not mine!)

I hate it when eventing is undervalued too. But life is like that. Eventers themselves don't undervalue their horses... of ANY discipline, I believe eventers care the MOST for their horses!

As far as event horses being "failed" dressage horse or hunter or whatever... so what?! Many of them are "failed" racehorses. Does that make them any less valued? Not to their owner/rider/fans! Perhaps monetarily less valued, sure... but I thought this sport wasn't about money. Value is measured in other ways.

Ellie K

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:28 PM

I don't think the idealistic Olympic "spirit" was lost with the elimination of the amateur requirement, it was never really there. The concept of amateurism was appropriate for another time, it was inherently elitist. It meant that only the monied class could participate (everyone else was too busy trying to put food on the table to devote themselves to high level sport). In order to have that "Olympic spirit" of doing it for the love of the sport, you had better be filthy rich. Why do we idealize that? So these other ways developed (e.g., the Soviet system) of leveling a playing field that was inherently elitist. Which as class lines blurred and 'regular' people sought access to high level sports participation, became unfair in turn. So under the "amateur" system, you either started out with enough money to not need to make a living, or you were provided enough money by your government or sports organization to facilitate your devotion to your sport which ordinarily would not provide you a living. In a modern world, the whole thing could only be a sham. That doesn't make the old way of doing things better. Certainly there is far less elitism now.

Robby Johnson

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:32 PM

So, who wants to place bets on:

a.) Eventing being on the Bejiing IOC Programme?
b.) Who wins the WEG at Aachen?
c.) What format we're running in 2008?

I personally believe we have an opportunity to all support our long format Grand Slam ... a triumvirate five years in the making that has produced a true hero ... and let the Olympics fall where they may.

As we witnessed in Athens, this version of eventing is NOT the pinnacle of the sport.

Robby

Erin

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:37 PM

AJ, I *think* pwynn was talking about dollar amounts... if that's the case, then I think we'd agree (and appreciate!) that event horses are, in general, less expensive than horses in other sports. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erin

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:44 PM

Oh, and out of curiosity, just because I was wondering earlier today...

Which came first? Three-day events or horse trials? Or did both sort of emerge at the same time out of the cavalry?

deltawave

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:51 PM

EventerAJ, I think pwynn was talking about DOLLAR value. I think you'll agree that, in general, event horses are bought and sold for a lot less money than H/J or dressage horses. Yes, an elite horse in any sport is going to be pricey, but I think she meant the "working class" horses being less expensive, not necessarily VALUED less by their owner/riders.

fooler

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ellie K:
I don't think the idealistic Olympic "spirit" was lost with the elimination of the amateur requirement, it was never really there. The concept of amateurism was appropriate for another time, it was inherently elitist. It meant that only the monied class could participate (everyone else was too busy trying to put food on the table to devote themselves to high level sport). In order to have that "Olympic spirit" of doing it for the love of the sport, you had better be filthy rich. Why do we idealize that? So these other ways developed (e.g., the Soviet system) of leveling a playing field that was inherently elitist. Which as class lines blurred and 'regular' people sought access to high level sports participation, became unfair in turn. So under the "amateur" system, you either started out with enough money to not need to make a living, or you were provided enough money by your government or sports organization to facilitate your devotion to your sport which ordinarily would not provide you a living. In a modern world, the whole thing could only be a sham. That doesn't make the old way of doing things better. Certainly there is far less elitism now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually most of those amateurs were their teens or early 20's. Many families or sponsers would support something when one was still young. That is why most folks competed at 1 maybe 2 Olympics. Exceptions were folks in the military or government sponsered.
While I appreciate the end of the sham of amateurism, I do miss the people who competed for the love of sport and yes, country.

Sannois

Dec. 9, 2004, 02:59 PM

Dang it hit the wrong button and lost my whole post. BUT Doesnt the Membership of the USEA carry some weight?? 75.00 a pop is a nice sum. Right?? What is the membership number anyone know? 15 thousand?? Seems to me we must be of some importance. Or is our money just used for the ULR??? I cant help wondering that if we put this much effort into writing to the USEA and various ULR's it would be more productive. After all for the most part we have been preaching to the choir! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 13 pages. I am not critisizing, I am wondering HOW we can do something, I know the petition and the tee shirts and the ads, but it has to as someone else said, Seb I believe, http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif it has to hurt! Like the almighty buck!

Janet

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, and out of curiosity, just because I was wondering earlier today...

Which came first? Three-day events or horse trials? Or did both sort of emerge at the same time out of the cavalry? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am pretty sure the 3 Day Event came first.

Before WWII, the only actual competition was at the Olympics- for military teams.

Then, in 1949, the Badminton Horse Trials started (but as a full 3 Day).

fooler

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Ok, OK--so conditioning ISN'T going to be a factor. I'll accept that (since I did say I didn't KNOW for sure). [Did I respond yet to the owners thing? I will again later, but for now, when I said I wanted to hear from owners, I meant a SAMPLING of owners--that is why I said ONE isn't enough. One of the problems with this debate in this forum is that the majority of voices "represent" only one category of respondant--if this were a survey, that is.]

But hey, why do you suppose I thought that? Because so many of you--including, with all due respect, Mr. Emerson--seem to be arguing that the horsemanship will be lost.

If conditioning WILL be the same (and isn't the topic of conditioning--and maybe event scheduling/managing the horses' competition schedules???--being used to represent with horsemanship in this discussion?), then why is there such criticism about the old vs. new there? If what you are saying about conditioning is accurate, then why won't those demands create the same fine horsemen (to the same extent, that is--there were always good and bad horsemen in the sport) as before?

[QUOTE] We have heard over and over the cost/land argument for eliminating the long format from the olympics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is making those arguments? You know what kind of research also needs to go on? Maybe some survey research. That section of the population who are eventers-who-post-online have probably been adequately sampled. I think owners need to be heard from in larger numbers, as do event organizers. SOMEONE is making these arguments. (Well, SUPPOSEDLY--oh, heck, in fact if it is ONLY ULRs making the arguments, that's really not good...but how do we know? There are a lot of assumptions being made in this debate.)

One example of an assumption is "the dumbed down format."

Isn’t this "jsut" an assumption? WHY does it have to BE “dumbed down”? WHERE is it dumbed down if the conditioning is the same? Indeed, some of you have even indicated that serious errors could be made by riders who don’t realize what it will take—how is THAT dumbing down? That sounds to me like the format will establish its own challenges. Hopefully, our course designers (whom I think some of these arguments don’t give anywhere near enough credit to) will work out courses which challenge and still enable lesser mortals to survive to fight another day.

Most all appear to agree that conditioning will remain the same. However the difference in a HT and full 3-day is how to spend that energy.
The rider who goes too quickly on phase A & B, will pay on phase D. Maybe a run-out, fall or just run out of gas & have to retire on course.
Horsemanship is the key to the full 3-Day. The dumbing down is the loss of the Horsemanship. Don't believe me?? Watch the tape of the 2000 Rolex. Mark Todd's horse is physically fit, but not mentally in the game that day. Todd knows this is his swan song at KHP, so he nutures his horse around this course. Then the same combonation end up 3rd at Sydney several months later.
Why do you think they give out 'Completion' Ribbons at the Full 3-Day Events and not at the HT's?

Erin

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:

I am pretty sure the 3 Day Event came first.

Before WWII, the only actual competition was at the Olympics- for military teams.

Then, in 1949, the Badminton Horse Trials started (but as a full 3 Day). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I figured must have been the case, and I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. The three-day IS the sport.

For most of us who are eventing now, the two (HTs and 3DEs) have always existed together, but obviously it wasn't always that way. And although I certainly wasn't around at the time http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would imagine that HTs were added so that the sport (albeit a slightly different version) could be enjoyed by those who might not have the funds or the facilities or the horsepower to get to Badminton.

denny

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:24 PM

Here is a very simple litmus test that might get the "ulrs" to understand why the "smurfs" are making such a big deal out of all this.
Last spring there were 2 competitions, held at the same time, over essentially the same course. They were won by 2 different riders, on 2 different horses.
Here`s the test:
Which win do you consider more meaningful, more significant, more worthy of recognition? Which win, had it been you, on your horse, would you have most wanted to achieve?
Answer either "A", or "B">
A. Darren Ciaccia`s win in the short format at Rolex on Windfall?
B. Kim Severson`s win in the classic format at Rolex on Winsome Adante?

If most people answer what I think they will, then my question to upper level riders is very simple, "Why trade a more significant system for one less so?"
It`s really that simple.

ridingdex

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:37 PM

Holy Cow! this thread is amazing!
First-let me add my appreciation to you Heather for standing up and verbalizing our thoughts. I'm wholeheartedly behind keeping the long format 3 day event but I would have never had the nerve. Thank you!

What I don't understand is why can't we stay in the Olympics (whatever format) and still have traditional CCI***/****'s? I do think it's important for "eventing" to have a presence in the Olympics. I have to think that the exposure has a "trickle down" effect for our sport. Viewers get inspired to start riding, start volunteering, maybe someone with some money/influence/LAND decides to take a more involved interest in the sport. People go to and watch the Olympics that have never been to a horse show before. I don't think it matters for eventing if that is a traditional 3 day, the XC hooks them, then Rolex, Badminton and Burghley reels them in! The key is the over the top attention that the Olympics and the WEG are getting from the USEA. To be honest, I couldn't tell you anything about the last WEG but I know that I am glued to the Badminton, Rolex and Burghley websites (and previously Fair Hill) during competition-please don't tell my boss.

We've already acknowledged that many sports participate in the Olympics without it being the pinnacle of their sport-why can't we have both? There are so many riders that will never wear a pink coat, are we really going to change the entire format to accommodate those few? And I don't have to wait for any research to be compiled-long or short format-eventing is hard on horses; some will hold up and some will not. It's up to us as horsmen to know when enough is enough or too much. We lost a horse at the Olympics and at Fair Hill-the short format did not prevent those freak accidents from happening, nor will it prevent horses from breaking down. We lose race horses at tracks across the country daily but that doesn't prevent it from being one of the largest spectator sports we have nor does it keep non-horsey; wealthy people from supporting the sport. But what draws them? The allure of owning, sponsoring and otherwise being involved with a potential KY Derby winner certainly, but I have to think that they, like most of us on this BB, become addicts to the bond we form with these animals. This bond can be formed while riding a horse to the completion of a true 3 day event or while icing his legs and rubbing him down or while watching these magnificant animals complete a test which demands an extreme (but achievable) physical effort. Like Denny, I have a really hard time understanding those that have accomplished it and formed those bonds with their truly special horses being able and even willing to give that up.

Mary in Area 1

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:43 PM

Denny,

This is probably the easiest question I've ever answered in my life (maybe after, "will you take this man...":

B. Kim and Dan are the most significant win.

ps. who is Darren ChaCha, er um, Chiapet, ah, Chumpapa? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Gnep

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:47 PM

Guess who is going to be the Course Builder in Luhmuehlen.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAahhhhhhhh you guys guessed right.

Mary in Area 1

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:51 PM

By the way, if you don't think these discussions are having some MAJOR influence on people, please consider this:

My husband and I have recently purchased a large piece of property in Vermont (very close to you, Denny) and are currently considering whether to construct an event course on the property. My ultimate dream would be to hold a 3-day there someday, and the course-builder we have hired to consult and plan with us thinks it would be a possiblity.

Right now, I am SO disillusioned that I'm really not sure I want to put this kind of MAJOR investment into this sport. I feel totally out of touch with the USEA and the ULR's. Maybe I should just build a whole bunch of dressage rings... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

Sebastian

Dec. 9, 2004, 03:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ellie K:
I don't think the idealistic Olympic "spirit" was lost with the elimination of the amateur requirement, it was never really there. The concept of amateurism was appropriate for another time, it was inherently elitist. It meant that only the monied class could participate (everyone else was too busy trying to put food on the table to devote themselves to high level sport). In order to have that "Olympic spirit" of doing it for the love of the sport, you had better be filthy rich. Why do we idealize that? So these other ways developed (e.g., the Soviet system) of leveling a playing field that was inherently elitist. Which as class lines blurred and 'regular' people sought access to high level sports participation, became unfair in turn. So under the "amateur" system, you either started out with enough money to not need to make a living, or you were provided enough money by your government or sports organization to facilitate your devotion to your sport which ordinarily would not provide you a living. In a modern world, the whole thing could only be a sham. That doesn't make the old way of doing things better. Certainly there is far less elitism now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is there "far less elitism now"? The system hasn't changed... You're either monied or required to "play the game" with the people who ARE monied to get backing... And, I'm a little confused about how you're invoking the "Soviet System", because history has shown us that it was just as elitist...

I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that the power lies with those that are in control of the money. (Really, it's always been that way.) And, if anyone here really wants to preserve their sport as is...they need to find a plan that will influence the MONEY -- i.e. Sponsers and Owners -- rather than gripe about the ULRs.

Seb http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

UNCeventer

Dec. 9, 2004, 04:03 PM

Wow Denny! I too have an answer for your question!!!

So- What can we do to help the riders and the organizers (etc) who support the long format? What is the next step in this battle?

I know that we may not know the answers to these now, but lets start thinking and see what we can actually do!

Laurie@CBF

Dec. 9, 2004, 04:34 PM

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif!! "the chiapet"

deltawave

Dec. 9, 2004, 04:54 PM

Or as a few BNR are fond of calling him: "Darren CaCa". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ellie K

Dec. 9, 2004, 05:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I'm a little confused about how you're invoking the "Soviet System", because history has shown us that it was just as elitist...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is exactly what I stated:

"So these other ways developed (e.g., the Soviet system) of leveling a playing field that was inherently elitist. Which as class lines blurred and 'regular' people sought access to high level sports participation, became unfair [in other words, elitist] in turn." We idealize amateurism, but it contributed heavily to a playing field far more unlevel than it is now.

The "system" has changed in that you can now use your elite sport skill to make a living without violating any rules and still participate in what many consider to be the pinnacle of sport. Making it less elitist, in that superior skill allows you to do that, whereas when de Coubertin lived and this ideal of amateurism came about, you would be barred from participating just because you were not born with a silver spoon and needed to do what you were skilled at in order to live.

Gnep

Dec. 9, 2004, 05:16 PM

Seb.

The base of this sport are the novice, training, prlim, inter and advanced riders. Novice and Training are the majority. It gets prety thin around inter and advanced.
It gets even thinner in 1*, 2* and 3*. Forget about 4*.

If one can make 1* and 2* thriving, by incouriging riders to take up the challenge. They don't have to be CCIs, CCNs would be plenty good enough, run after todays FEI rules.
It would be cheaper ( no FEI vets, no FEI officials, nor FEI judges and so on ).
Have the long ones in the USEA anual Champion Ship.
Have a national 1* - 3* cup, include the Canadians and the Mexican Riders, or anyone who is a member of the USEA
In teh West there is Galway Downs, Colorado Horse Park, Nick Holmes Smith's place in BC, maybe Rebecca Farm MO, there are some people around SF that treid a few years ago but could not get the money roling, Kentucky Horse Park and the facilities at the East Coast.
If there is a Cup or a Champion Ship on the line you get the riders. And if they are CCNs and les expensive, instead of 500 plus $ maybe 300 one gets more riders.

Cut out the barn check in save a day, get those data on Wednesday. Or cut the first jog out completly, have the vets check out the horses after Dressage. They jog out doing Dressage.
Cut down on the time riders have to spent at the show. More riders will be able to attend, les time of from the job.
Creat a point system, give points to every rider competing, points for best dressage, points for best stadium , time and faults, points for best X-C closest to the optimum time and no jump penalties, points for the fitest horse end of endurance based on vet data.
Thats the way succesful sports have organized and created a great base.
Get rid of the multipliers in Dressage, actual score is good points, time penalties, jump penalties just get taken of. Simple and understandebal.
Time Penalties in Endurance should be much higher. Refusals much higher, its the ultimate thing refusing a jump.
That would make things more transparent for spektators.
If the season could be a chase for a champion Ship, one could create excitment and that gets sponsors for al the shows that are part in the chase.
That marketing system made Motorsports a money making sport, made every other sport a money maker

Erin

Dec. 9, 2004, 05:16 PM

*donning mean administrator hat*

Ahem... let's not get nasty and call names, please. Thanks. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erin

Dec. 9, 2004, 05:20 PM

BTW, what, exactly, is the difference between a CCI and a CCN? Are the rules/requirements different? Are both recognized by the FEI? Are there any events that currently run in that format?

Just curious.

Ellie K

Dec. 9, 2004, 05:31 PM

I still so, so, so want to hear from someone who knows how/why we went from creating a 4-star CIC to the whole short format mess. How did we get from adjusting things for the Olympics, to just throwing in the towel for the whole sport.

JER, thanks so much for unearthing that transcript. It confirms my belief, that it's the FEI Strategic Planning Committee we really ought to be writing to. I said it on another thread, and I'm not one of those big conspiracy theorists but it is totally inappropriate for that committee to be chaired by the secretary general of an NF--any NF, especially given the extent of the influence they have clearly been exerting over the technical committees. Why bother having the technical committees?

CCN is just the FEI's way to reference a nationally-recognized 3-day, they do not sanction it in any way except formerly you could use them for CCI qualification purposes. But USEF has kept the national rules in line with the FEI's so technically I would say they should be pretty much in line (?) but definitely cheaper as Gnep said!

Janet would know about any technical differences.

Gnep

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:10 PM

Erin,
Organizers can use national qualified judges and TDs. They dont't have to go to the very expensive international Judges and TD and Vets.
Just think about the transportation cost to bring some one over from the UK, France, Germany or from were ever. Even if they come from Canada or Mexico, it is very expensive. You are talking thousands of buks.
Vets have to apply for a FEI licens, expensive sucker, same for judges, they have to work their way up, go to clinics and so on, very expensive to, TDs the same. Naturally they are mor expensive, besides the travelling expenses. Besides the other FEI cra..... If an organizer does not have to deal with the FEI, ! just USEF and USEA ! ( which is already bad enough ) it would cut a ton out of his/her time and expenses.

It would naturaly take a litle out of the stardom, but I bet you most of them would like to get rid of the FEI BS.

I think it is time to start to get some concret thoughts together, how are we going to do it and that we put our money were the mouth is.

If we want to save 3 Day Eventing in our hemispher we better come up with some solid ideas and some money and some organizers so we can present this to the powers to be.

That calls for a new thread I gues

JER

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I don't think the idealistic Olympic "spirit" was lost with the elimination of the amateur requirement, it was never really there. The concept of amateurism was appropriate for another time, it was inherently elitist. It meant that only the monied class could participate (everyone else was too busy trying to put food on the table to devote themselves to high level sport). In order to have that "Olympic spirit" of doing it for the love of the sport, you had better be filthy rich. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ellie K is on the right track here -- the Victorian "amateur" spirit was mostly about elitism and taking sport away from the lower classes, who had no choice but to be professionals.

For more on how the Victorians changed the sporting record books, see Peter Radford's excellent and fascinating Observer article, "The Time a Land Forgot" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1207866,00.html).

But Victorian elitism is still very much in evidence today. Take, for example, Captain Mark Phillips. The rank of captain is hardly a stunning military achievement; usually you only go by your officer title after your retirement if you've achieved the rank of Major or Lt. Colonel (not sure which it is in the UK).

(My father achieved the rank of Captain in the US Army by managing a bar (a big officer's club) for 3 years.)

So much for CMP's not taking a title when he married Princess Anne. Or perhaps it's just an homage to the late great Capt. Kangaroo.

Mary in Area 1

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:13 PM

Sorry Erin, I'm just not a very good speller. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Sannois

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:16 PM

The answer is Soooo easy! Kim And Windsome!!! Awesome! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif BUT I am still wondering about my question about the numbers in the USEA membership How many, does anyone know? Tammy?? And if we "Smurfs" Are truly the Backbone of the sport in the US, Then I think we should be able to pull some weight! OK So I'm just a lowely little BN rider, Hope to do Novice someday.. But This sport is the ultimate, and I will do whatever will help to save it! I think we on here all will!

sfir

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:23 PM

It occurs to me that many of the BNR who are so outspoken for the short format have ridden in many CCI****'s in the long format - not just a couple. I honestly think these people have 'lived their dream'. By that I mean they had the opportunity to ride in the greatest events in the world at their most difficult and would not be missing anything if they did not run in that format again. I would wonder if any of these riders - Karen, Amy etc - would trade any of those memories of the amazing trips they had around those full format CCI****'s for the short. My guess would be no - they would have no regrets that they ran those the way they were and maybe the memories would be a little less sweet had they been a glorified horse trial instead of the pinnacle of eventing that they are.
There are many of us who have worked hard at eventing and have long dreamed of getting to Rolex, Badminton or Burghley. I fear by the time we get there they will be run in the short format and we will have been cheated of our aspirations.
One of my owners is a long time supporter of this sport. He knows little of horses or eventing but was willing to invest in one riders dreams of the future by taking the risk in investing in horses for me to ride, produce and resell. He has owned some of the top horses in the sport last year including CCI*** winner Outlawed, CCI** winner The Mistress and NAYRC CCI** Gold Medalist Russian. He came to watch me ride some of his horses at a CCI** - his first trip to any event - and was amazed by what a 3 day entails. I tried to explain to him the new short format that is taking over the sport and asked him if he was coming to watch his horses run at the CCI - M at Foxhall this spring. He said 'well, how is that any different than what you do with the horses all year on the weekends?' My response was - the dressage is a little harder and the xc a little longer. His response to that was ' well maybe I will just come watch some of them go on a weekend since their really is no difference'. That pretty much sums it up right there.
As a rider just trying to reach the top of our sport I am disheartened. I truly feel that in the coming era of the short format our riders will be not quite as good and well rounded as those in the past and the horses will be less legendary. This is exactly the argument FOR the short format and I believe it will have the opposite effect.
I also believe CMP is making a huge mistake by asking our top horses and riders to forgo Rolex and go to Germany instead. Heros, dreams and legendary horses are made when the fans can see them, watch them go and brag about being up to close to them. How many little girls and boys do you see at Rolex waiting for autographs and hoping for a glimpse of their favorite horse? These are the future riders and supporters of our sport. If those horses and riders are not there some of those fans will not be coming back next year.
I am very glad Denny brought up the last Rolex. I was wondering when that would come up. Whether it be right or wrong the general consesus was Kim and Dan were the Rolex winners. Not one person I spoke to thought what Windfall did was equal to Dan's accomplishment on that week. The BNR have the unfortunate position of not being able to see the sport through the eyes of the general public. The legendary riders and horses are made from the long format, not the short, atleast according to those watching from the sidelines and those still working their way to the top.
Ruthie

Hannahsmom

Dec. 9, 2004, 06:27 PM

Gnep, I'm a little confused by your proposal, maybe I'm just getting lost in the thread.

I thought our ideal goal would be to continue to enable four stars that would draw our best riders so they can go head to head. With the double track (as Denny stated in another topic), will ULR's really be able to be competing in both with their best horses? Isn't that what happened at Fair Hill and what CMP is cautioning them about? I really do want to see them all at Rolex, and I do want to keep the sport how it was (or how it has been in recent years as a much safer sport). How can we do this in a way that in the end allows these riders to see the same sort of living, financial rewards and excitement as if they shoot for the Olympic team?

My confusion is about your proposing CCN's for the one to three star. Are you saying we dump the four star?

RunForIt

Dec. 9, 2004, 07:23 PM

Well said, and better yet...well done, Ruthie! Thanks!
Lynda

Janet

Dec. 9, 2004, 07:26 PM

The total number of USEA members is 14???. Maybe 14,300- 14,400.
Of those approximately 11,000 are below Prelim.

Carol Ames

Dec. 9, 2004, 07:39 PM

Thank so much for the the effort,sorry about your sinusinfection, http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif i do agree withyour statement on the need for research http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif .maybe then we will be able to muster the "forces"needed. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

wanderlust

Dec. 9, 2004, 07:41 PM

Denny and Ruthie, you guys rock. It is so heartening to hear such support from both someone who has been there, and someone who is heading there.

Ruthie, I completely agree with your assessment of "been there, done that" in the case of the currently vocal ULRs. In the case of one particularly outspoken rider, she has been there and done that so many times over the past 25 years that she probably lost count long, long ago.

Although I doubt I will ever get to the ***/**** level, (although stranger things have been known to happen) I so fervently hope it remains intact, so talented, dedicated and driven riders like Ruthie can realize their dreams and the rest of us "smurfs" can cheer them on and vicariously live *our* dreams. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

DizzyMagic

Dec. 9, 2004, 08:01 PM

Just for the record, and not meaning to speak for her, but I know that what Karen wants to preserve for the next generations is the dream she lived - the Olympic podium.

My opinion is that there's no way to do that, and that we're going to lose the whole sport anyway trying to stay in the Olympics...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sfir:
It occurs to me that many of the BNR who are so outspoken for the short format have ridden in many CCI****'s in the long format - not just a couple. I honestly think these people have 'lived their dream'. By that I mean they had the opportunity to ride in the greatest events in the world at their most difficult and would not be missing anything if they did not run in that format again. I would wonder if any of these riders - Karen, Amy etc - would trade any of those memories of the amazing trips they had around those full format CCI****'s for the short.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Carol Ames

Dec. 9, 2004, 08:16 PM

Ithought that the short format was an attempt both to keep eventing in the Olymics http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , and, to quiet the Europeans who, were were said to be be upset by the falls they saw at sydney http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif , I recall very few falls, does anyone remmember any? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Itwas said by the Europeans to be " inhumane" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif , now,if we can come up with the statistics to show that,in fact the percentage of falls, in the short format is the same or greater, we might have some ammo to take the debate further. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

wanderlust

Dec. 9, 2004, 08:32 PM

I don't understand the need to "placate the Europeans" because they were upset by seeing falls. Why do they get upset over eventing, but turn a completely blind eye to the many, many completely heinous falls that happen in every steeplechase race? Or even the occasional major crashes that happen in flat racing? How 'bout showjumping and hunting (even on drag hunts http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif), they fall racing, just about the only time they don't fall is doing dressage. So why is eventing singled out?

Pol

Dec. 9, 2004, 08:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mary in Area 1:
By the way, if you don't think these discussions are having some MAJOR influence on people, please consider this:

My husband and I have recently purchased a large piece of property in Vermont (very close to you, Denny) and are currently considering whether to construct an event course on the property. My ultimate dream would be to hold a 3-day there someday, and the course-builder we have hired to consult and plan with us thinks it would be a possiblity.

Right now, I am SO disillusioned that I'm really not sure I want to put this kind of MAJOR investment into this sport. I feel totally out of touch with the USEA and the ULR's. Maybe I should just build a whole bunch of dressage rings... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
MAAARRRRRY! MARY! (jumping up and down)
Do not be disillusioned. You WILL build your event (to be built by a VERY well known CD, by the by) and then you will send out invitations. Only CERTAIN people will be invited, (certain people will NOT), you will have the best competitors, the best volunteers (Barbara, Warren, you are in charge), the best food, the best footing, you get the point, AND, you'll make up your own rules. Forget the FEI, the IOC, the USEF. Just you and the USEA. It'll be a gas. Yes, Gnep, there WILL be an over-50 division and I shall be in it! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif
If you build it, we will come.

Gnep

Dec. 9, 2004, 10:13 PM

Hannasmom,

I could not care less about the 4*.

They realy don"t matter to me, or the Olympics, or the WE.
They are just a platform for a very, very few, a circus act.
Its about the 3D, about a very special thing. Extremly special.
I don't care about the Kims, the OC, the Hoys or what ever.

Every Sport lives by its roots. The root of 3D is Novice, training, Prelim and so on. Its 1* and 2*. Something alot of us can accomplish.
If we can astablish a solid base in the 1 and 2 make it interesting, exciting there will be 3*.

Wanderlust.

There is a very strong move against Steepelchase and Racing in Europe. Eventing is not singled out.
And don't get me wrong, but Atlanta sucked, Sydney sucked and Jerez sucked too. If we take it for granted that we loose horses or riders at every Olympic, WE or 4* than we can not blame anybody but our selfs if our sport gets abolished

Hannahsmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 03:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gnep:
I could not care less about the 4*.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Gnep, I do. Or at least the kind of challenge that the Rolex long format provides. And not because I'll ever ride in one. I went to Rolex for years and years at the three star level and watched some great rides. But I distinctly remember when the first four star was at Rolex. It was something special. It drew the best from the world. I stood by a galloping lane in awe as a British rider went hurtling by. I remember just sucking in my breath and it wasn't even near a jump. I justg knew how far they had already gone that day and to see that focus and display of skill, it just gave me chills. I love seeing the legends from the best events in the world compete there. I'm old and jaded but that day I was wowed and continue to be. I love the long formats. I don't think it's about the four star per se, it's what do we need to do to encourage the best of the best in the world to compete against each other and to make it worth their while. I want to keep getting that opportunity to marvel at them.

I do care about people like Kim or KOC. I think they are stars and my heroes. And I didn't need the Olympics to prove it. But for now, the riders still want a shot to ride there. An earlier poster mentioned we should be focusing our efforts on the FEI. I agree, but fear that that's one area where a grass roots effort won't make any difference.

Sannois

Dec. 10, 2004, 04:12 AM

OK This is getting complicated. Someone with some experience please tell me. Last year after Rolex, there was a HUGE discussion on the difference between the final condition of the short format and long format horses. And it seemed to me that the short format horses were burned out faster, as a result of not having the roads and track and the steeplechase to Blow off steam so to speak and set a pace for cross country. The short format horses, or many of them were wasting so much energy fighting to "Burn Rubber" so to speak at the begining of the course, that they were burned out by the middle to the end of cross country. Some folks said they saw seriously tired horses coming off the short course. Now to me THIS is significant. And where is the research to study that. So to say the conditioning is the same for both formats is interesting, But the end result is not! Like I said I'm just a lowly low level rider. BUT I have ridden horses for 30 plus years. So how can that SAVE the horses for more competitions or a longer career??? Oh and Janet, Thanks for the stats! Seems a significant numer of voice to me! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hannahsmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 04:22 AM

Sannois, go back to beginning of thread. Riders (not watchers) had opinions on that. But that was all the early "we need a true research study" in this thread was all about.

denny

Dec. 10, 2004, 04:50 AM

I hate to tell you this, but---
Someone needs to start a brand new thread about encouraging people to become members of the United States Eventing Association, and getting actively, politically involved.
For everyone who has asked the key question, "Where do we go from here?" That is the best answer.
We ALREADY HAVE the vehicle. It NEEDS MORE OF YOU to help drive it.You have already seen what passion and commitment can begin. Join the USEA AND HELP FINISH WHAT YOU STARTED.
Too many think, "What can I do, I`m just one person?" You aren`t just one person if you are a bigger voice in a bigger group. Guys, study the petition---see how many ARE NOT MEMBERS.
You want to really help? START A MAJOR "JOIN THE USEA" drive. Then stay as active as you are now, and I absolutely promise you, you will move mountains. Everyone in these old, tired associations is DESPERATE for new, young,(in age or in spirit), committed people to get on board, provide fresh new ideas, fresh new energy.
I`ll say it one more time.
JOIN YOUR USEA AND GET INVOLVED!!!!
signed--an old, tired, but inspired by you guys former president of said organization

Luckington Lane

Dec. 10, 2004, 05:09 AM

Re: Gnep's post on page 15

Please say Mark Phillips is not designing Luhmuhlen.

In any other area, sporting, social, whatever, such blatant self-promotion by a person in power would draw serious reprobation.

Keep in mind that CMP used to design Burghley (but no longer does). His final year designing it happened to be the year that many people had serious problems at the 2nd water (not the trout hatchery), including Blyth Tait, whose fall was so bad that he broke his leg. Accidents happen, but to Blyth Tait? On Ready Teddy? At the same fence that caused surprising problems for many other excellent riders? Hm.

Why is he the international spokesman for the sport? Lucinda, Ginny, where are you?! Help!

deltawave

Dec. 10, 2004, 05:26 AM

Kim, the comments about the condition of the horses at Rolex, etc. is what ought to be called "hypothesis generating" and not "fact". Meaning, those observations shouldn't be accepted as fact, but OUGHT TO provoke research to answer the question: WHY?

Of course, the FEI seems to have overlooked the importance of doing one's homework. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif They don't need no stinking data! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

tecumsea

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:09 AM

Running with Denny's idea. Getting people to join the USEA, I have to ask for a little clarity. I am so use to just writing the check for horse stuff without really looking at the bill that I do not know what types of membership are availble.

I have the $75 one, but, for my parents and friends who do not compete, let alone ride, what can they join as . ? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

RAyers

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:19 AM

According to Dr. Kohn, the short format horses were significanty impacted.

"My first personal experience with the new format was at the Rolex CCI***
before the Olympics this year. As many folks have mentioned, many horses
became fatigued at about the 7 minute marker and quite a few finished
unacceptably tired. I am not sure why this occurred; I do think that a 10
minute XC at the **** level is NOT a horse trial. Some horses may not have
been fit enough, the test might have been too great, and riders may have
been going too fast (ie the time was too short for the test). Since then, I
have seen the short format work very well at the Olympics, where the XC test
was much less demanding. Horses finished well."

Thus the data from Rolex resulted in making the Olympic course easier!

Reed

Bensmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:37 AM

Ruthie -- thanks for your input and thoughts on this matter. It is very valuable to me to hear from more of the riders that will be immediately impacted by the changes.

And the link that was several pages back to the FEI meeting at Rolex transcript is Very Enlightening. Basically, the way the changes were presented was that there would be no possibility or consideration of having the Olympics be different from the WEG, Pan Ams etc. That suggestion was torpedoed immediately, and the goal of keeping the sport in the Olympics was paramount. It is long, and can be a bit hard to follow, but was very interesting.

Many of the people that seem ok with the short format now stood up and spoke against making changes to the sport at that meeting, including Foxhall's owner, Jim Richards, who is now running a CCI-M in the Spring. Either there has been some convincing evidence presented in the meantime, or the crushing inevitablility of the change has become clear. After reading that and seeing where we are today, I'm not sure how we can stop what feels like an avalanche. It is a bit disheartening.

Reed -- thanks for checking in with Dr. Kohn on this -- she rocks! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Libby

canterlope

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:41 AM

Okay Guys. Time to put our money where our mouths are. Gnep issued a challenge on a separate thread:

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=2096094911&m=329208184

I've agreed to meet that challenge for the eastern part of the country. If anyone would like to help, financially support, etc with this effort, let me know. I'm sure Gnep wouldn't mind help with the western series as well.

The members of this BB have done great things in the past. We can do it again.

Janet

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wanderlust:
I don't understand the need to "placate the Europeans" because they were upset by seeing falls. Why do they get upset over eventing, but turn a completely blind eye to the many, many completely heinous falls that happen in every steeplechase race? Or even the occasional major crashes that happen in flat racing? How 'bout showjumping and hunting (even on drag hunts http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif), they fall racing, just about the only time they don't fall is doing dressage. So why is eventing singled out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Except for UK and France, there is not a lot of racing (flat OR over fences) or foxhunting, in most of Europe.

Janet

Dec. 10, 2004, 06:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sannois:
OK This is getting complicated. Someone with some experience please tell me. Last year after Rolex, there was a HUGE discussion on the difference between the final condition of the short format and long format horses. And it seemed to me that the short format horses were burned out faster, as a result of not having the roads and track and the steeplechase to Blow off steam so to speak and set a pace for cross country. The short format horses, or many of them were wasting so much energy fighting to "Burn Rubber" so to speak at the begining of the course, that they were burned out by the middle to the end of cross country. Some folks said they saw seriously tired horses coming off the short course. Now to me THIS is significant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AT the meeting, Karen O'Connor said, refering directly to Rolex 2004, that the raseon for the differentc was the footing, nor the short vs full (I am going to start saying "full" instead of "long" as it makes thepoint better). She said that, if the short foramt had been run in the mornting and the full format in the afternoon, it would have been the full format horses that were exhausted.

And a couple of the other proponents blamed the footing at both Rolex and Fair Hill, for the horses that had problems.

I don't know of this is true or not- again, we need research. I did ask Gillian, who rode the Fair Hill short *** very late in the day (within the last 5). She said that there were two sections of about 30 strides each where the footing was bad enough to make her back off a little, and she got a few time penalties as a result. But she said it wasn't any worse than the footing for the full format in 2003.

Janet

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tecumsea:
Running with Denny's idea. Getting people to join the USEA, I have to ask for a little clarity. I am so use to just writing the check for horse stuff without really looking at the bill that I do not know what types of membership are availble.

I have the $75 one, but, for my parents and friends who do not compete, let alone ride, what can they join as . ? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are a GREAT "straight man".

There is a category called a subscribing member. You count as a member for statistical purposes, and you get the magazine. It is $26 ($23 if you are already a member of an "affiliate" association).

And if you later want to upgrade your membership you only have to pay the difference.

When you pay the non-member fee to compete at Beginner Novice, you automatically become a subscribing member.

There is also a category called "non competing member" for $46. For that, I am pretty sure that you get the omnibuses as well, and a proxy to vote at the annual meeting.

Hilary

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:13 AM

As far as whether the long or short format was run first at Rolex and how the footing held up, wasn't it 2002 when it just POURED and Bruce and Little Tricky clocked around like it was a lovely spring day? For sure, those who ran in the morning had better footing, but it didn't have an adverse impact on all the horses.

Hannahsmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by denny:
I hate to tell you this, but---
Someone needs to start a brand new thread about encouraging people to become members of the United States Eventing Association, and getting actively, politically involved.
For everyone who has asked the key question, "Where do we go from here?" That is the best answer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denny, I have been a USEA member for many, many years. But I think what people are saying is 'what's the next step after that'. I wasn't at SF but thinking about some of the themes in this thread:
- need true research to effects
- how do we promote a grand slam
- maybe even some alternative options
- working from within our local organizations
-as well as earlier work about improving communication from the general people (the petition, the tshirt sales, the ads) as well as many threads,

Only my .02, but I think we need a 'campaign manager' to give us a focal point for the save the 3 day campaign. This would need to be someone passionate but also someone that is very savvy about the workings of the USEA (preferably in the inner circle). Someone who can work to harness all these efforts and give some direction to the bigger picture to know if we are on track to reach our goal. Needs someone with time and passion obviously. I haven't heard a name mentioned as the person who is going to be that campaign manager to harness all the efforts. This would give me a leader I could follow from my local little one person effort and do my part to help achieve the overall goal.

Is there that person and/or group already? I'll admit that I am NOT the savvy person on USEA workings so I may just have missed the boat.

pwynnnorman

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:18 AM

OK, what about a compromise?

What if the members (or an active group) made it clear that they would support, say (just ideas) a SERIES of regional ***'s (while continuing to allow organizers to offer additional *** if they chose to) in order to enable those riders with **** goals (including Badminton, Burghley and the Aussie one) to qualify and/or work their way toward that goal?

I mean, if there IS enough tangible support (as in $$$) from LLRs to preserve those aspects of the sport which epitomize it, even if only in more limited ways ("limited" IF organizers beyond the regionally USEA-sponsored ones did NOT offer additional ***s), then surely it wouldn't be in the interest of the USEA decisionmakers to just say "NO."

Especially not if such a set up could be identified, organized and proposed as a formal rule change involving, maybe, year end awards or something.

I'm thinking kind of like a "mini-circuit" type of situation, maybe just two, one on the east coast and one on the west, eventually meeting in the middle at KY's ****. I mean, why throw it all away, after all--IF the support is there. That way, those who DON'T support ***s don't have to go, while those who do, can--and there'd still be a way to prep for the "superevents" that are ****s.

How many events would need to be in the mini-circuit? I don't know: two, three, four? However many organizers could offer, but a minimum of 2 on each coast, thus perhaps requiring those who wish to qualify for KY to finish with no x-c penalties on at least one of the *** courses?

With such a proposal, wouldn't it then be possible to indeed put your money where your mouths are and contribute to a fund to support the kind of events you feel so strongly about? Perhaps the membership form could even have a little area where you could donate $$$ toward sponsoring the ***s and **** and your name could be listed in the program or some other way certain levels of donations could acknowledged?

Then, too, those who signed the petition would also have reason to join USEA (as Denny urges) because by joining there would be a specific way to save the three-day.

How about that? Why not propose something?

Also, kudos, Gnep, for that interesting and detailed run-down on page 14.

horsecents

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:33 AM

There's more to being a member than just mailing in a check and receiving a card. I believe Denny would like us all to become involved in the sport by stepping up and volunteering to work with your Area. Just by nominating someone for the Board of Governors can go a long way to helping shape the future of eventing. There's a lot of committee work that needs to be done to ensure that Area and National programs come to fruition and prosper.

Magnolia

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:39 AM

D'oh-
My last post got eaten!

We need to get all the riled up people to take their $, effort and resources away from the Olympic/FEI BS and put it towards the Grand Slam of eventing - the ****'s like Rolex. Brand it. Get the prize money and sponsorship high - $250k to the winner at Rolex. $1 mil if you win 3 events. Sell it as being the ultimate test - requiring this much more than the Olympics of horse and rider. These are the "Ironhorses" - the Olympics is the little girly "Horse Trial". Sell it extreme.

Enough prize money and sponsors will get the best to your events. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Pol

Dec. 10, 2004, 07:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hannahsmom:

Only my .02, but I think we need a 'campaign manager' to give us a focal point for the save the 3 day campaign. This would need to be someone passionate but also someone that is very savvy about the workings of the USEA (preferably in the inner circle). Someone who can work to harness all these efforts and give some direction to the bigger picture to know if we are on track to reach our goal. Needs someone with time and passion obviously. I haven't heard a name mentioned as the person who is going to be that campaign manager to harness all the efforts. This would give me a leader I could follow from my local little one person effort and do my part to help achieve the overall goal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems to me this person's initials are EEE, jr. !!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif I cannot imagine a better mover and shaker, loaded with inside info, connections, wisdom, savvy, grace, and has a really tough time taking NO for an answer. He got things started in the 60's, he has led the charge this time and he has done so much in between I can't even list it all. How 'bout it, Denny, care to grab the ball and run? We'll follow...LIKE DUCKLINGS, only a little more ferocious. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

annikak

Dec. 10, 2004, 08:02 AM

from tle...
[QUOTE] Bringing up another point of what I don't want to see disappear with all this short-format garbage -- the history, tradition and "roots" of the sport. Remember, this sport started as a test for cavalry horses who's primary trait was as a brave, sound and FIT for a long day's battle.[QUOTE]

I agree, http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.giftle...and also find it intersting that it started at a 3-day, and HT's came to allow for better preparation of the horse/rider.
Sannois brings up an important point, too- we did see results at Rolex that were thought provoking. However, we cannot dismiss the reality that the short and long format ran at different times of day. (At least CMP would not let us forget that!) So the research might make a difference.

And, as someone else added, there are about 12,994 of us that won't go to the Olympics....

So, lets get more to join. I aim to get 10 memberships before Feb 2005. Numbers! Numbers! Numbers!

back to what I said on page...oh...7? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

what are the differences in courses? I just had the mom of a former ulr at my house last night and I posed the question to her. She says that indeed the courses have gotten much more technical and difficult. That before at Rolex, (Pre- 1990)both the A and the I courses, the course galloped on, the fences were more direct and forward. She cited a lot of other courses,too that she remembers, the first Young riders course in GA (iifc), as well as middle tenn. So, it remains to me an important question. Because if the ULR's are saying the short format *and again, I believe that Papa Smurf has a lot to do with this, after all, their ability to have their jobs involves politics to a certain degree, at least those with sponsors that are competing numerous horses for numerous owners with breeding interests and all the rest tied up with it. Therefore they have to be on the team...* is better, then...why? And does that explain why riders that are competeing without the benefit of major owners, (I can think of 2 here on the coth bb and also Pam W) who fully support the long format are "free'er" to do so?

And let me sign up to ride with any of them any day! Names are good, and the checkbook does speak.

The only person that I have heard from about the courses getting more technical says an emphatic yes. And that is why they no longer are at the upper levels.

And, of course Darren C supports the Short format- he rides warm-bloods. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

weezie

Dec. 10, 2004, 08:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>And let me sign up to ride with any of them any day! Names are good, and the checkbook does speak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other thread on "who are good/bad clinicians" made me think of just this thing. Money talks, as someone has already said. Lower level riders (majority of USEA) pay big money to ULR to train them. What if the support shifted to ULRs who were in favor of "ABCD"?

Would anyone on this BB who trains with a ULR who supports short format make a break with that trainer?

AND has anyone contacted sponsors - Rolex, Maui Jim, etc, to tell them that if KY and other events become short format WE WON'T GO as spectators.

Muck r us

Dec. 10, 2004, 08:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
There is also a category called "non competing member" for $46. For that, I am pretty sure that you get the omnibuses as well, and a proxy to vote at the annual meeting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's correct, a Non-competing member gets the same benefits as a Full member except for the right to compete (obviously). You get the rulebook, omnibus's, Eventing magazine, all of the mailings and most importantly the right to vote.

colliemom

Dec. 10, 2004, 08:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> AND has anyone contacted sponsors - Rolex, Maui Jim, etc, to tell them that if KY and other events become short format WE WON'T GO as spectators. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, now this is a very good idea!

DizzyMagic

Dec. 10, 2004, 09:03 AM

I wouldn't be keen to dump this on the sponsors quite yet - I'd be afraid they would be frightened off permanently by what is hopefully some temporary controversy...

Emily

Hannahsmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 09:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pol:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hannahsmom:

Only my .02, but I think we need a 'campaign manager'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems to me this person's initials are EEE, jr. !!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pol, I was thinking of denny in the role of Champion and Spokesperson. I can't think of anyone better to fill that role. I wouldn't think he would have the time to do all the detail work.

For campaign manager, I was thinking like election campaign...that person who really keeps everything going and knows everything and who's doing what and can kick us all in the butt when things slow down. We already have Rayers and others thinking about the research, we have a great website and communication vehicle thanks to Erin, Jupes, tle, and others, canterlope and gnep are off and running with an alternative approach to getting riders who want to compete in the long format, but who is that right person to pull all it together? I was thinking of skills like canterlope, she's who I'm hiring if I ever run for president. But I'll bet there are others in the wings who could step in.

weezie

Dec. 10, 2004, 09:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>what is hopefully some temporary controversy...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that this is a "temporary controversy" in any way shape or form. The runaway train has left the station and is accelerating down the mountain.

Erin

Dec. 10, 2004, 09:54 AM

I agree Hannahsmom, we do need someone "in charge."

Also, we do need to start thinking about getting non-profit status, I think. I mean, I'm fine with having an extra $200 sitting in my checking account until we figure out what to do with it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But if we are asking people to donate to a cause, I think we owe it to them to make things legit.

tractor queen

Dec. 10, 2004, 10:27 AM

Along the lines of increasing membership...

I thought it was interesting when I found out that my local GMO is required to send $17 dollars of every membership to the USDF so that the USDF will recognize them as a GMO. This is regardless of whether the member (in the GMO) is an eventer or straight dressage person.

To me - this means that the USDF rolls are overstated. since I (as a GMO member) don't use the USDF participating membership.

In the USDF governance is through the GMO's who are given a certain number of votes based on the size of their membership.

It was very interesting.....I am not saying USEA should do it at all, but I thought it was strategically well done on the part of USDF and lends well to grass roots efforts from the ground up versus FEI dominance from the top down.

Janet

Dec. 10, 2004, 10:44 AM

The USEA affiliate program is structured differently from the USDF.

The USDF is primarily structured as an organization of organizations (GMOs). When it comes to a vote, the representative of the GMO gets to vote ALL the votes for the membership of that GMO. And, as you said, the GMO has to pay USDF $17 for each GMO member, even if it is a "DCTA", and some members do NO straight dressage at all.

The USEA affiliates pay either $75 or $125, depending on how many members they have (under or over 100) but no "per member" fee.

In return, affiliate members can get the subscribing membership for $23 instead of $26, and the affiliate has a "line of communication" (through the Area Affiliate representative, and the affiliate committee) to the BoG. This line of communication" has been pretty inactive recently, but I am working on trying to change that.

NO ONE, not the USEA, not the affiliates, and especially not the "dressage only" members of a DCTA want to go to a "per member" fee like the USDF.

Hannahsmom

Dec. 10, 2004, 10:59 AM

Janet, I agree, I used to be one of those who wondered where my USEA money went. But after some education on the programs, I truly feel that as a LLR I am gettin the benefit of my membership money, at least as a competitor. I think the USEA does a really good job of trying to respond to its membership.

Sannois

Dec. 10, 2004, 11:07 AM

Thanks Janet for the info. I feel that is a primary area to start with. But dont we need some ULR's comitted to the long format, to help in the research?? And Some vets?? And I hate to be the devils advocate but what if the resaerch shows that the short format is not better for the horses and infact may be harder on them? Will it even change any minds??
And On another note. I think Denny would be a supreme leader and spokeman for this cause. I second the nomination. I know we would all be behind him 1thousand percent!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif
And one final note. I have been a USEA member for 5 years. Last year I did no events with my horse but was still a member. This year I will rejoin as well. I was under the impression that EVERYONE that evented even on a local level was a member, because of the Rule books and that some HT's require you to be a USEA member. So maybe in our little neck of the woods, riders that are a member of TEAM, may not be a member? There is a lot we could do on a local eventing association basis. Thats something we will have to look into. Deltawave, Annikak SLP2 Maplebrook Oh man there is a bunch on here that are all TEAM members. Sorry realized I am rambling!

deltawave

Dec. 10, 2004, 11:58 AM

There are MANY people who event at BN in Michigan who are neither USEA nor TEAM members. At BN, membership is not required in either organization, and a lot of folks don't feel like it's worth it if they're only going to go to one or two HT's a year. By the same token, a lot of USEA members don't bother joining TEAM because they don't feel like it's necessary...either they don't do local HT's or they just pay the non-member fee each time they do.

While I wish everyone would join both organizations, often it's a financial thing: all those memberships add up!

And FWIW, there are large, prominent features on the TEAM webpage supporting the "Save The 3 Day" movement. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Since TEAM is not (as of yet...working on it) an "official" local organization under the USEA's umbrella, there is no political "clout" to our organization whatsoever. I'd say the Area organizations are probably a lot better poised to do the "moving and shaking", but I have no doubt that TEAM would be behind anything that would help the cause. Of course, I'm speaking ONLY as a member...I am not an "official" in any capacity except web-mistress! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sannois

Dec. 10, 2004, 01:40 PM

Interesting Lynn, I did not know that! I always join both, I figure its got all the bases covered, and The money is well used.. I think? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I figure since we are part of Area 8 there must be some good we can do. And Might I say you are a fantastic Webmistress!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tractor queen

Dec. 10, 2004, 09:07 PM

Janet I didn't imply that I was in support of it, only pointing out that it is useful in USDF for keeping the organization in touch with it's membership.

Having been the VP of CT for the local GMO I know first hand that USEA has no real lines of communication/programs for the local GMO's - it is pretty much your name in the omnibus and a link on the webpage and that is it. Since most people new to the sport join their local GMO first and then USEA once they start competing recognized...we are missing a large portion of potential members that USDF is picking up (not that the means justify the end).

denny

Dec. 11, 2004, 04:38 AM

Here are some of the reasons I strongly urge this "movement" to get connected with the USEA:
1. That group already exists. It has non-profit status, an office, paid personnel, a magazine, an entire infrastructure aimed at supporting the sport of eventing. Can be summed up by "Don`t reinvent the wheel."
2. I`d bet that the majority of the current governors, including, as we already know, from the petition, the president, Kyra Stuart, and the ex. director, Jo Whitehouse, support these goals and objectives.
3.There really is strength in numbers---assuming the voice of this "movement" doesn`t get drowned out by the larger group. I PROMISE YOU THAT WON`T HAPPEN, if you don`t simply join and sit back to let the ubiquitous "others" do the work. Join and KEEP FIGHTING!!!
4.Things are beginning to slow down. The petition is running out of new names, a bit, and I sense a feeling of "now what?" creeping in. That "now what?" MUST TRANSLATE INTO POLITICAL ACTION.
5.The best way to keep this alive is to create a working group, WITHIN THE USEA, to fight for our agenda. Remember, the "movement" that supports CMP and his url-s will be competing for the same dollars. There`s nothing wrong with competing agendas, it`s the way of the world, but the clout often goes to the loudest, most persuasive voice. I`m convinced a voice within the USEA will have more effect, in the long run, than a voice outside the USEA.

canterlope

Dec. 11, 2004, 07:23 AM

Ditto what Denny said. Let's not try to re-invent the wheel. Let's use the wheel we currently have to our advantage.

The USEA already has the Membership Recruitment Committee which is dedicated to increasing the membership in and the visibility of the USEA. It is chaired by Carol Montgomery (gmmmd@aol.com). Its USEA Staff Liaison is Jennifer Hardwick (jennifer@useventing.com). I'm sure that Carol, Jennifer, and the rest of the Committee would be very open to any suggestions that we have as far as recruiting members and/or setting up a program that will recognize the recruitment of supporters for the Three Day.

Also, as far as setting up a not-for-profit organization to support the Save the Three Day efforts, this is a fairly detailed and somewhat risky proposition if it is not conceived and administered in an appropriate fashion. It is quite easy to lose not-for-profit status if it is granted and the brunt of any actions brought by the government against this loss of status would be borne by the individuals associated with that organization (meaning you, I, or any other individual who held any sort of responsibility within the not-for-profit would be financially or otherwise liable if the IRS determined that some sort of tax needed to be assessed on the funds of the not-for-profit.).

Again, the USEA already has the not-for-profit status we are searching for. I have never know the USEA to turn away contributions if they are given to fund an initiative which is congruent with the mission statement of the association. It seems to me that the Save the Three Day would fall within this mission statement. I've also never known the USEA to ignore the directives of an donor with respects to how his/her donation is to be spent, so any funds given to the USEA in the name of the Save the Three Day initiative would, indeed, go towards that effort. If this is a path that should be further explored, Jo Whitehouse (jo@useventing.com) would be the person to contact.

Janet

Dec. 11, 2004, 09:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tractor queen:
Janet I didn't imply that I was in support of it, only pointing out that it is useful in USDF for keeping the organization in touch with it's membership.

Having been the VP of CT for the local GMO I know first hand that USEA has no real lines of communication/programs for the local GMO's - it is pretty much your name in the omnibus and a link on the webpage and that is it. Since most people new to the sport join their local GMO first and then USEA once they start competing recognized...we are missing a large portion of potential members that USDF is picking up (not that the means justify the end). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I am trying to DO something about that.

area3yr

Dec. 11, 2004, 10:16 AM

Ok I am going to jump in here and see if I can clarify some information on USEA Membership. You DO HAVE A VOTE in all levels of USEA membership including the Subscription level. Your voice at any level of membership counts!! That level now cost $25 and includes your Eventing magazine and a membership card. As of July 1st we utilized the non-member fee of $25 at the Beginner NOvice level to automatically make the rider a Subscribing member of the USEA. This is why the price was dropped to $25 and has helped drive up the membership numbers to an all time high of 14,041!!

Presently the discount for this membership is $22 for Pony Clubbers and Affiliate Members. We are looking into making this a $20 fee for PC and Affiliates so that two $10 vouchers at USEA Educational Clinics could go toward a Subscription Membership. Then the rider could attend other educational clinics without further non-member fees for that competition year. This has not been approved but should get off the ground by our Rolex BOG meeting.

AS VP of Membership for the USEA I have poured through your comments and welcome your ideas to improve methods of driving our membership numbers up.We did not get in on that USDF connection with GMO's in a timely manner so that is not an option now. WE do not in any way want to drive up the cost of belonging to an Affiliate Club. The intorduction of eventing to the equestrian world is something we only want to encourage. However, we would love to bring the eventers of our nation, no matter what level of riding, under our umbrella and include their thoughts and concerns into our programs. As long as we can cover the costs of mailing and office time we will consider the suggestions of increased membership. Send me your ideas!!

I am concerned that very few BOG reps see this site and read your thoughts. Can you email the office and that way we can be sure the entire BOG hears your voice. Jennifer Akers area3yr@earthlink.net

Robby Johnson

Dec. 11, 2004, 05:11 PM

Just a note to say I swooned when the I saw posts from both canterlope and Area3Yr nearly back-to-back. What lovely, lovely ladies.

Robby

flutie

Dec. 11, 2004, 06:08 PM

Janie Atkinson lurks on the bb and has asked that two corrections be made. I hope this is the correct thread. The World Championships are not at Luhmullen but rather at Aachen in '06. Also, in addition to Rolex's low entry and stabling fees, through the generosity of Rolex, the competition is also able to offer a $500 travel allowance to each rider. Not too shabby!

Big thank you's and kudo's to Janie and to Rolex!

Flutie

JDufort

Dec. 11, 2004, 07:29 PM

Hi Jennifer - welcome to the (infamous) COTH BB world. And thanks for the info. I must say that we have been a "need to join" household, but this movement has inspired me to join USEA for 2005.

A few thoughts as the Mom of an ULR and owner of an ULH:

if the goddess of human and equine soundness smiles on us, Jo and Diamond will compete their first *** FEI events this year, and be ready for Rolex in 2006.

we're still digesting the (sad) news that there may not be a long format option available to us. We will be sending in a long format entry to Jersey Fresh, and hope that enough others will join us. If not, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Eventers are a hardy lot, and it will take more than this (temporary) time of unwanted change to throw us off course.

Denny, we're relative newcomers to this sport, but we stand with you. I am in awe of the classic 3Day horse and rider, and am proud that Jo has chosen this sport to pursue with full passion.

Meantime, having just crossed the bridge into "early retirement", I now have time and energy available to help give back to our sport. Wondering how to be useful...

Bensmom

Dec. 11, 2004, 08:51 PM

And I'm just jumping in to say hi and welcome to Jennifer <wave> http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And thanks for all you do and for "listening" (actually, I guess it is reading, not listening http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) -- it really is appreciated.

And, congrats to JDufort on having acheived early retirement! So, how long before we see *you* on course?! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Libby

cweimer

Dec. 12, 2004, 04:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by flutie:
Janie Atkinson lurks on the bb and has asked that two corrections be made. I hope this is the correct thread. The World Championships are not at Luhmullen but rather at Aachen in '06. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops, that was me - confusing my German sites/cities. I'm sorry!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Also, in addition to Rolex's low entry and stabling fees, through the generosity of Rolex, the competition is also able to offer a $500 travel allowance to each rider. Not too shabby! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is wonderful - I am amazed at what you are able to do in order to make this such a special venue! All the more reason for the rest of us to make sure that WE are doing everything we can to help keep it that way!

Robby Johnson

Dec. 12, 2004, 05:09 AM

A few other matters of fact that I'd like to pass on, based on conversations I've had with Jane Atkinson:

1. The rules/specs for a short format three-day event are the same as those for a long format. This means the same number of jumping efforts/distances/pace can be set for either format. It has NOT become a shorter, twistier type of track.
2. CMP is not paid by the USEA - he has been paid by USET and is now paid by USEF High Performance. USEA only contributed money to the Course Advisor program and Phillips is one of those, and so was paid in part with USEA funds as well as USEF funds.

3. You can certainly contribute to Equestrian Events, Inc. (EEI), the arm that organizes the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event. Visit www.rk3de.org (http://www.rk3de.org) to obtain that contact information. Any contributions will ensure the 2005 RK3DE *will* be the most highly-anticipated three-day event in many, many years! I hope to see you all there!
4. Like many, Jane said publicly in SFO that she believes the eventual research that will be obtained (and which I believe will be obtained at the risk of the horses) will certainly favor the traditional ABCD format.

Also, on my own personal note, Julie Richards told me via email that she would be willing to have a conversation with me to discuss the formats. I was inspired by her email as she said, "I think many of us can tell you why we favor not having to do the steeplechase on our horses, but I do feel it's critical that we find a way to keep Phase D as the most influential part of the sport."

I will let everyone know the outcome of that conversation.

Robby

RunForIt

Dec. 12, 2004, 05:13 AM

Along the lines of being grateful for Jane and Rolex...its been so neat having Foxhall in my own backyard - have scribed at the dressage each year (except last year when a work commitment kept me at school and I had the dubious assignment of jump judging the Steps Up on XC day) and been in absolute "little kid" awe and excitement on Cross Country day - cheered for all the riders as they trotted by on Roads and Tracks (its great - they all wave back!). SO WHAT HAPPENED - WHY THE SHORT FORMAT AT FOXHALL? I'm having second thoughts about volunteering this year - need more information now before I'll do it.

denny

Dec. 12, 2004, 05:46 AM

It will be of mild interest to learn why so many of them (current upper level riders) don`t want to do steeplechase with their horses, but it won`t change my mind one iota. Curmudgeon, and damned proud of it!
It`s a fact of history that Bruce Davidson, Ginny Leng, Ian Stark, Lucinda Green, Mike Plumb, Phyllis Dawson, Stephen Bradley AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS have, over the past FIFTY YEARS been able to CHOOSE, TRAIN and COMPETE horses capable of not only meeting the qualifications of the ultimate test, but mastering and conquering that test. Hell, I did.
So the standard of courage, soundness, stamina, endurance, generosity, all the virtues of the cross- country warrior, is RIGHT THERE in the face of these current riders. Are they up to the task or aren`t they?
A big part of the problem, literally, is that our leading big name riders are getting OLD! They felt differently, I`ll bet you, when they were 18. They HAD THEIR SHOT, and now they want to deny that chance to the kids coming along. This, above all, is what PISSES ME OFF!
Also, while I`m at it, how many of us go every year to Rolex because it`s the splendid pinnacle of American eventing. Now our own coach, with what must be the tacit permission of the USEF leadership---they hire the guy, after all---is undercutting that event. How long have we been allied with that fabulous company, Rolex Watch, how much time, passion and energy has been spent building that relationship, and now our best riders are being advised to skip Rolex and go compete in Germany instead. HOW CAN THEY BE SO STUPID?
We, all the thousands of American event riders and enthusiasts, have a right to be involved in the direction we want our sport to go. We are in the process of exercising that right. We won`t be told to shut up and mind our own business, because we ARE minding our own business.
I don`t think passion and disagreement are necessarily a bad thing.We can take this IOC and FEI idiocy and use it to become more strong and more unified as an eventing country. That`s the challenge, and we have to keep trying to figure out HOW to meet it.

nature

Dec. 12, 2004, 06:19 AM

If the short format is cheaper, why is the Foxhall cup this April cost so much? $550 to enter,$250 for stabling and FEI is taking %4.5 of the $50,000 prize money? Did the FEI always take some of the prize money or is this new? Does this happen at Badmitten, Burghley and Rolex?

RunForIt

Dec. 12, 2004, 06:56 AM

Robby,
It WILL be interesting to find out why Julie Richards is opposed to running steeplechase (good for her that she's willing to discuss her views publicly)...I'd like to hear the same from Kim, Karen, John Williams, and the rest of our ULRs...I cannot imagine being willing to go somewhere other than Rolex come spring. I'm not saying that out of "national spirit or pride", but because through the work of Jane Atkinson and her staff Rolex has evolved into such an incredible event! How can anyone want to ride anywhere else or AGREE to do so?

jreventer

Dec. 12, 2004, 07:39 AM

Thanks to everyone who is standing up for the long format.

I do not have the time to read all 17 pages of this thread. If you all are going to organize a research study and need vet students to aid, conduct part of the research please email me. I am a first year vet student at NCSU and can aid in getting that going. boodonoho@hotmail.com

california rider

Dec. 12, 2004, 07:56 AM

Denny wrote: "A big part of the problem, literally, is that our leading big name riders are getting OLD! They felt differently, I`ll bet you, when they were 18. They HAD THEIR SHOT, and now they want to deny that chance to the kids coming along. This, above all, is what PISSES ME OFF!" END

-WOW- OK so while I had been thinking of all sorts of reason I had not thought that the riders so many young riders looked up to could be behind such a heinous crime against the desires of the up and coming to achieve level ground with the greats of the eventing world.
What better way for our aging great to remain "IMMORTAL" so to speak, anyone that comes up and gains any kind of following will always receive the caveat from the now geriatric greats "that well in our DAY of REAL Three Day we walked to school uphill both ways in the snow and did steeple chase to boot you young whipper snapper" interesting idea.

The other thing I think a lot is that some of the young folks (that have been to world cup and competed at the top) out there are falling in line with their idols. Why make waves. I have finally made it and do not want to be a outcast.

While in my heart I know I will most likely not go beyond the ** star level at my age and affirmatives I still dream at night and enjoy watching those with big enough you know what's to make it all the way.

Ellie K

Dec. 12, 2004, 01:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nature:
If the short format is cheaper, why is the Foxhall cup this April cost so much? $550 to enter,$250 for stabling and FEI is taking %4.5 of the $50,000 prize money? Did the FEI always take some of the prize money or is this new? Does this happen at Badmitten, Burghley and Rolex? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FEI levies the prize money for every FEI event. For events without prize money or beneath a certain amount, they charge a flat fee. All part of the expense of running CIs, along with needing foreign officials, an FEI vet delegate, etc.

Janet

Dec. 12, 2004, 04:43 PM

"Did the FEI always take some of the prize money or is this new? " Yes, they have always taken it. No, it isn't new.

Laurie@CBF

Dec. 12, 2004, 06:08 PM

Well if we donate money for additional prize money for the long format - is there any way to protect it from the FEI % "tax"?

Maybe it will have to be paid out as a bonus from a separate group - can that be done?

Cospi

Dec. 12, 2004, 07:26 PM

From Mary in Area 1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> My husband and I have recently purchased a large piece of property in Vermont (very close to you, Denny) and are currently considering whether to construct an event course on the property. My ultimate dream would be to hold a 3-day there someday, and the course-builder we have hired to consult and plan with us thinks it would be a possiblity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, PLEASE say you will have an event! I know it is off topic, but I just had to encourage this event!

Mariequi

Dec. 12, 2004, 07:48 PM

You go, Denny. This is all making me very sad. However, those in my own sport didn't fight for me when I felt I had to leave the Fed. That was disheartening.

I certainly understand not wanting to risk losing the sport in its entirety, but to not support the excellence and efforts and history Janie and Mick and EEI puts forth for Rolex is incomprehensible.

canterlope

Dec. 13, 2004, 12:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Laurie@CBF:
Well if we donate money for additional prize money for the long format - is there any way to protect it from the FEI % "tax"?

Maybe it will have to be paid out as a bonus from a separate group - can that be done? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Laurie@CBF, yes it can. Gnep and I are currently working on organizing two Challenges, one in the east and one in the west. In a nut shell, any rider who competes in a Three Day Event with Steeplechase will be eligible and points will be awarded based on their performance in those events. At the end of the year, the rider with the most points will be declared the winner and will receive a cash prize along with any material items that have been donated. If enough support is found, awards will also be given to owners, grooms, etc.

Both Gnep and I have pledged $1000 each to get the ball rolling and hope to raise enough money to provide a big enough incentive that riders facing the choice between running in a Three Day with steeplechase or one without will choose the former. Since the Challenges will be separate from any one event, the FEI will not be able to get its hands on any of the funds raised and/or awarded.

I am currently investigating the possibility of running the donations through the USEA since it is a not-for-profit entity which will enable any donation to be tax deductable. However, even if this is not doable, the Challenges will still go forward. Either way, there will be a separate group that will be paying out additional prize money for the long format. Any support given to this effort would be very much appreciated.

RunForIt

Dec. 13, 2004, 02:19 AM

Gnep and Canterlope,
thansk to both of you for this effort...I think a message needs to be sent to the ULRs who do/do not choose to run the long format events...is there some way that everyone's name who contributes (small and large)be included as part of the award? it has also occurred to me that our BNR/ULRs ought to be busting THEIR butts to keep eventing from going down the tubes! They didn't get where they are by running "mini-events".

What is currently happening at Badminton and Burghley in terms of keeping the long format? Is the whole thing determined by sponsorships or the FEI or what over there? Feel stupid for not knowing.

Again, I'll NEVER support any rider who chooses to run the short format supported/promoted by CMP in Luhmuhlen rather than running Rolex. I can totally understand our Team riders wanting to compete at the top, against the best - but I also know that if as a group the US riders decided to ride long format events (not so much against the short format but FOR the long by entering only long formats) an impact would be made in the larger, global world of eventing. I seriously doubt that the BNRs would be out giving clinics and lessons if they didn't need to do so for economic reasons. Us LLRs need to "help" them understand WHY we spend our extra $ (in my case, made thru LOTS of extra WORK outside of the classroom) with them...I realize I'm rambling a bit; the whole thing is so damn frustrating - so few people controlling so many-

Janet

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:33 AM

Tax deductability-

Another option might be to run the funds through the American Horse Trials Foundation.

canterlope

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
Tax deductability-

Another option might be to run the funds through the American Horse Trials Foundation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, that is Plan B.

tle

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:33 AM

My apologies in advance... this is going to be quite long since i've been away for the weekend and part of that was a discussion with john Williams.

First... to catch up a bit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>originally posted by Reed:
According to Dr. Kohn, the short format horses were significanty impacted.

"My first personal experience with the new format was at the Rolex CCI***
before the Olympics this year. As many folks have mentioned, many horses
became fatigued at about the 7 minute marker and quite a few finished
unacceptably tired. I am not sure why this occurred; I do think that a 10
minute XC at the **** level is NOT a horse trial. Some horses may not have
been fit enough, the test might have been too great, and riders may have
been going too fast (ie the time was too short for the test). Since then, I
have seen the short format work very well at the Olympics, where the XC test
was much less demanding. Horses finished well."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting that her comment included the 7 minute time. It was mentioned a couple times this weekend, both in private and later in a public forum (so I think it's safe to repeat without names attached), that a certain upper level rider was quoted as stating during a committee conference call that something had to be done because (this person) had never had so many horses "hit the wall at 7 minutes" as they did at Rolex and Fairhill -- yet in public LAST weekend at the USEA Convention, this person supported the short format at the 3 and 4* levels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>originally posted by flutie:
Janie Atkinson lurks on the bb and has asked that two corrections be made. I hope this is the correct thread. The World Championships are not at Luhmullen but rather at Aachen in '06. Also, in addition to Rolex's low entry and stabling fees, through the generosity of Rolex, the competition is also able to offer a $500 travel allowance to each rider. Not too shabby!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea to Rolex and Janie!!

However, another note from discussions this past weekend regarding Aachen. In a sidebar discussion with John, his comment was "there should be an international lawsuit with regards to the 06 WEG and Aachen." Reason being that when Aachen submitted their bid, it was well known within the FEI that the bid was falsely presented -- that the land promised for R&T and Steeplechase was not available. Yet the FEI accepted the bid and granted the WEG to Aachen. It was only after they gave Aachen the WEG that Aachen publicly said "oops, sorry... turns out we can't have that land afterall... guess we'll run the short format" yet it was fully known PRIOR to awarding them the WEG that the FEI knew the bid was false. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>originally posted by Robby:Also, on my own personal note, Julie Richards told me via email that she would be willing to have a conversation with me to discuss the formats. I was inspired by her email as she said, "I think many of us can tell you why we favor not having to do the steeplechase on our horses, but I do feel it's critical that we find a way to keep Phase D as the most influential part of the sport."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>originally posted by denny:
It will be of mild interest to learn why so many of them (current upper level riders) don`t want to do steeplechase with their horses, but it won`t change my mind one iota. Curmudgeon, and damned proud of it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John kind of brought this up during his talk and several of us in the audience (including me sitting the front row with my Save the 3-Day shirt on) ran with this and got him to talk about it just a bit. As noted above, I also had a private conversation with him after the fact. Ann can correct my memory on the public stuff if I'm a bit off.

1. He feels it is important to stay in the Olympics -- despite several times being asked why when it's only 5 people every 4 years. No real answer

2. He stated that the FEI has made teh changes and there is no way they will be changing back.

3. He said that the ULRs *will* have to find a way to make this new system work, but again, the FEI has made the decision and now their only course is to work within the changes.

4. He was asked about his warmup for the Athens XC and basically he talked about hacking and breezing. Which in my mind means what others have said, that horses will still need to have the ABC effort but now in an uncontrolled manner.

5. I honestly can't remember if it was John or someone else, but someone over the weekend stated that statistics show that most horses who hurt themselves at a 3-day do indeed do it during steeplechase. However when asked why not just slow it down a bit or shortenen it, there was no answer.

I'm trying to remember other things he said, but the memory is a bit fuzzy at the moment as it was a LONG weekend. He did say that he had not completely decided and very well may be going to Germany instead of Rolex. Cathy W. supported his comments about "making the best of what the situation is now" which made me REALLY sad. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I had several people comment to me about the Save the 3-day stuff over the weekend -- including the current Worth the Trust adult winner who said I was her "hero". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Not sure about that status at all, but hopefully she'll get involved as well.

I haven't read canterlope's challenge stuff yet, but from what I'm gathering here, it sounds fantastic! I also think that we do need to keep fighting. If we can't convince the FEI to STOP bastardizing the sport, we need to convince the USEF that THEY need to support THEIR members by offering what we want -- a traditional 3-day. We also IMHO need to start convincing them that we want our NATIONAL 3-day champions to be true 3-day champions -- which means winners of TRADITIONAL 3-days... not this short sh#t. I think the USEA is going to be a LOT of help in this and hope to contact Jo and Kyra to see what directions they see as ways to make sure we're heard. I still plan on attending the USEF convention (although I just realized that early registration ended yesterday -- UGH!! so much for the $70 discount) and I have a few thoughts for some people that I know need to hear our point of view AGAIN.

Janet

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> However, another note from discussions this past weekend regarding Aachen. In a sidebar discussion with John, his comment was "there should be an international lawsuit with regards to the 06 WEG and Aachen." Reason being that when Aachen submitted their bid, it was well known within the FEI that the bid was falsely presented -- that the land promised for R&T and Steeplechase was not available. Yet the FEI accepted the bid and granted the WEG to Aachen. It was only after they gave Aachen the WEG that Aachen publicly said "oops, sorry... turns out we can't have that land afterall... guess we'll run the short format" yet it was fully known PRIOR to awarding them the WEG that the FEI knew the bid was false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was my understanding that the FEI REALLY REALLY wanted the WEG at Aachen, and that ONE of the reasons for promoting the short format was "so we can run the WEG at Aachen, which doesn't have room for A,B,C."

tle

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:46 AM

Oh, one more sidebar comment from John... he did mention the WB Breeders "lobbying" the FEI and does think that has something to do with it to some extent.

Hannahsmom

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tle:
Ann can correct my memory on the public stuff if I'm a bit off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you captured it except that it was also stated that it is up to the course designer to still offer challenging (but safe) XC courses to keep it the defining phase of the Olympics. And that the riders and researchers will need to figure out why the short format is causing the difference and will then adjust their training and warmup to account for that.

deltawave

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:21 AM

Mentioned this a few pages back, but it got lost in the shuffle.

IF riders really are concerned about the safety of steeplechase and IF research indicates that that' where injuries are occurring, why NOT shorten/modify the steeplechase, allow riders to choose their pace, etc?

I *know* my horse will have trouble with steeplechase speed at a CCI* at her age. I really don't think I want to do the requisite hard, fast speed work to get her there, knowing I'm walking a line between "overtraining" and "underpreparing". My choice will probably be to take the time penalties, but I don't want the choice to have to be "sorry, you can't do a one-star". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Harbour's Mom

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:26 AM

Gnep and Canterlope,
If there is anything I can do to help from a college dorm room please email me. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When my mom took me to watch the first Rolex 4* it wasn't the cross country course I wanted to watch and take picture of it was the riders on roads and track and steeple chase that I had to be dragged away from. And I'd hate to think that some other little girl isn't going to have the same chance to watch her favorite riders and horses trot by while she stands on the 4 board fences in the KHP - feeling so close to the special relationship a horse and rider must have in order to tackle one of the biggest courses in the World.

slp2

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:46 AM

I have several questions regarding the way that they run a modified format:

1) On x-c day, is there any check on the horses, by a vet, BEFORE they go out x-c?

2) If not, does that mean that the first time a vet sees a horse on x-c day, is in the vet box AFTER they are done with x-c?

3) And, if a horse comes off of the course stressed and not recovering sufficiently--can the horse be pulled by the vet from the rest of the competition? Or do they just wait and see how they "come out of the stall" the next morning?

Just wondering!

Janet

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:52 AM

They definitely have the same first jog before dressage.

I am pretty sure the recovery vet box procedures are the same - the vet can make recommendations, but I don't think a horse can be officially spun (in full OR short format) before the "mirning after" official jog.

flutie

Dec. 13, 2004, 01:01 PM

My eyes are crossed from reading all these pages. (Santa, oh Santa, puleez bring me DSL!)

My objection to the way this has all come about is that the Short Format was shoved down our throats without any prior information about the effect it would have on the horses running it. There are lots of theories about the "seven minute mark exhaustion" noted at Rolex - footing, poor prep, adrenalin, etc. but they are just that - theories not backed by hard data.

What if USEA could be persuaded to fund - or cause to be funded - a study on all this? They did the bit study and toyed with the footing study. This would seem, if legally feasible, a more productive use of donation money than setting up championships for competitions that may not even be by the time the funding gets off the ground.

Just a thought!

Flutie

(Janie reported that EEI has established a fund for prize money, and should one want to donate to it, it could be earmarked for full format only. EEI is a 501 C 3 corporation.)

Mariequi

Dec. 13, 2004, 02:41 PM

If I could bring you DSL myself I would, Flutie. I know it's saved my blood pressure.

GotSpots

Dec. 13, 2004, 03:15 PM

In terms of putting a study together on effects of short format versus long format and/or getting it funded: what about Morris Animal Foundation? They fund a large number of grants for research relating to animals, and I know have supported some solid equine research by reputable vets. I've not researched all of their background, but a couple of research vets I know speak pretty highly of them.

Clouds_Girl

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:35 PM

This thread has been very interesting. An important point about the effects of changing (from my point of view) is that we are likely to never again see something as spectacular as the cross country round that Ready Teddy did to will his Olympic Gold. It was totally poetry in motion.

Why not? Because horses that have the ability to make a cross country like that look easy are usually a bit hit and miss in their dressage. In the past, the full format 3day has required first and formost a jumping horse - one that can run and jump all day. On a good day their dressage is spectacular too, but not always.

You have all mentioned the great riders of the past, but what about all those great horses? I personally feel sad that the great achievements horses the likes of King William, Ready Teddy, Charisma, Delta, Messiah, and co will be lost to future generations.

To see a horse love what s/he is doing so much that the would try again after doing 30 odd kilometres of hard work is wonderful - to have the pleasure to ride a horse like that across country is unspeakably magnificant.

deltawave

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:39 PM

Yes, the true eventing "greats" are always remembered for making the XC look easy, as it should be, but I think there are many horses that excelled (and still excel) in all 3 phases. There is no sport that's JUST cross country (unless you do team 'chasing or something) so a true "superstar" eventer MUST be stellar in all 3 phases. IMO.

Sannois

Dec. 14, 2004, 05:45 AM

Well I dont have much else to offer.. But I am trying to figure out if I am going to Rolex this year.. is it the long and the short format?? Is anyone else going to change there plans and not go?? I havent been since 2000.. It was awesome then! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

deltawave

Dec. 14, 2004, 05:57 AM

I will always go to Rolex. This year, in particular I think they need our support! A record crowd would be yet another message to the idiots-that-be about the popularity of the "real" 4-star.

Plus the trainer who's taking Bonnie for the winter is hoping to ride at Rolex this year, (on another horse, LOL) so I want to cheer him on! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

tle

Dec. 14, 2004, 06:06 AM

Rolex will remain a long format 3-day in 2005.

Janet

Dec. 14, 2004, 06:57 AM

Rolex is DEFINITELY full format in 2005.

But it MIGHT be your last chance to see it in that format. Janie said that Rolex will run full format "as long as the riders enter it".
And no one knows how long that will be.

I would say if you are hesitating, this WOULD be the year to go.

denny

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:08 AM

Food for thought---
World Championships, Burghley, Eng., 1974

Phase A, roads and tracks,--6,240 m,at240 meters per min, opt. time 26 min
Phase B--steeplechase,3,795 m, at 690 m/min, opt. time 5 min, 30 seconds.
Phase C--roads and tracks, 10,800 meters at 240 m/m (no rest hold), opt. time,45 minutes.
Phase D, X-C, 7,695 meters at 570 m/m, opt time 13 min, 30 seconds

That`s 17.7 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes.

As Joe Friday used to say "Just the facts'.
Those were the facts of that era. Anybody got the time or resources to trace the diminuation from that standard to the present?
When Leslie Law can look Bruce Davidson in the eye and tell him that his 2004 Olympic gold is a more significant win than Bruce`s World Championship gold, and convince all of us of that fact, then, no doubt, that will be the day we all embrace the short format.

Janet

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Food for thought---
World Championships, Burghley, Eng., 1974
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Denny,
Was that the era when you actually got "bonus points" for going FASTER than optimum? I forget when that went away.

Magnolia

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> That`s 17.7 miles in 1 hour and 30 minutes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. And with some big obstacles in the way. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

I never really thought about the distance involved - just the jumps. The distances are pretty stunning..... especially when you add in the jumps. Taking distance out of the equation really changes things....

denny

Dec. 14, 2004, 09:49 AM

Yes, Magnolia, it really is different sport altogether, the short format. To me, and to most of us, the term "Three day event" has a definite meaning, which includes a speed, distance, and stamina component. The French term, and, ironically, therefore the FEI term, is concours complet, the complete test. I think it`s pretty obvious that once you take out the heart of the speed-stamina-distance component, it`s no longer a CCI, because it is no longer complete.
It seems that one solution is to simply admit that the 2 sports are different sports, call them by different names, and let people pick and choose which sport they want to do. THE REALLY BIG "IF', though, is whether 2 full sports can survive.
Hence all the fuss!!!
Denny

Ellie K

Dec. 14, 2004, 10:05 AM

I am still not understanding how the steeplechase came to be used as a welfare issue. The safety committee's report, which is what I thought started this whole ball rolling years ago, said nothing about the steeplechase or the endurance factor, if I remember correctly. The #1 concern (obviously) was to stop horses from falling. Is there data to support the idea that fatigue is a primary factor in falls? It seems like it would be pretty easy to compare CICs to CCIs and see (I think) that endurance is not a factor.

Denny, since you have been involved in endurance, do you know if the powers that be ever looked at the endurance concept of 'fit to continue' as something to incorporate into eventing? The 10 min box of course is the same concept, but in endurance, it goes further, you don't win until the vets say you did. Meeting veterinary criteria after completion is required in order to win. I have often thought that might be a good thing to have on cross country day, if the issue really IS PR and animal rights. Maybe it really wouldn't be that useful, I don't know. Just wondering if that concept was ever tossed around.

Mariequi

Dec. 14, 2004, 10:17 AM

Come on down, folks. How about an all out support of Rolex in 2005? Those who haven't been - ever or for a long time - perfect timing.

slp2

Dec. 14, 2004, 10:56 AM

Ellie: THAT was some of the point of my questions that I posed in my post a few pages back.

I mean, if this is for the welfare of the horse--there are actually LESS checks on the horse in the modified format (on x-c day). At least in a "full format" you have a vet check in the 10 minute box before the horse proceeds on x-c. If the horse is showing signs of stress--the vets can pull the horse then (just like an endurance race vet check). But with the modified format--a rider can do their own "free form" warm up and head out on course without any vet approval. They can also run the horse to the ground on course and they can't be officially "spun" until the jog out the next morning. You'd think that to increase welfare--they'd establish some parameters of acceptable recovery for the vet check at the end of x-c. If the horse does not meet those parameters, you get penalty points added -or- the vet could eliminate you. This would ensure that the riders are conditioning the horses adequately. I know this is true for the 3-day events now too--there isn't the ability to penalize the competitor for a horse that comes in exhausted. But maybe there should be?

rebeginner

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:24 AM

EllieK and slp2, isn't the point being made here that
a) the R&T/Steeplechase is being eliminated in the name of horse welfare, even though there is scanty (or no) scientific evidence to support that horse welfare will be improved by its elimination,

b)no comprehensive scientific inquiry was made prior to FEI's decision to eliminate phases A,B & C, because

c)FEI is not making its decision based on horse welfare, but instead is based on the economic realities of the European countries whose land resources are limited, and European-minded riders and their trainers (I'm definitely including CMP here) who can ride more horses in a day/season.

This whole 19-page discussion is reminding me of the depressing state of American baseball, which may no longer be able to compare the performance statistics of current athletes with their predecessors because of the mania for using performance-enhancing drugs. One commentator said it would as if the athlete were competing in two different sports. In the case of eventing, instead of taking drugs to boost performance (BHoy's problem in Athens aside), the FEI is just lowering the standard so significantly as to create a new sport. (If you only had to hit a double to score a home run, you'd have a lot more sluggers with higher averages.)

Magnolia

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>the FEI is just lowering the standard so significantly as to create a new sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if it is "lowering the standard" so much as it is creating a new sport. By taking out the endurance portion, it creates a new type of horse/rider to excel.... it doesn't necessarily make it easier - it just changes the emphasis to a different kind of horse that could not have necessarily succeeded in the old way. You take out some of the conditioning/endurance and trade it for a better dressage test and a cleaner jumper. So you have a new sport all together with entirely different challenges.

And the new challenges aren't that exciting - we'll still see better dressage in the "real" dressage and better jumpers in the "real" jumpers so you just end up with some kind of a battle of the jack of all trades masters of none instead of a test of endurance and stamina.

slp2

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:53 AM

rebeginner: Ya, ya--knew that. I just was adding in the "well, if they CLAIM the new format is for the welfare of the horse then they'd better add THIS component into the formula" otherwise their claim is a bunch of hooey. But we already know it is anyway. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

fourhorses

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:55 AM

Sigh.... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
While I'm not an eventer I've always enjoyed the sport immensely and held the athleticism of horse and rider in high regard. I'm no fan of seeing horses or riders come to grief, and I do believe that eventing isn't just about the XC... haven't there been studies done which show that the majority of bad XC accidents happen at the lower levels, not at 3,4-star events (maybe the amount of publicity = public outcry??); that the major cause of problems has been riders overestimating they and their horses' abilities (something that usually isn't a problem at the 3 & 4 star level at all); couldn't it be argued that taking the long format away would cause an increase rather than a decrease in this? That it would also incite the breeding of horses (and training of riders) that would not be aimed at handling the endurance required for this sport? (look at what's happened to TB breeding since they started to phase out the longer races); couldn't it be argued that a person never could completely blow any phase and hope to place well in a group of competitors who were evenly matched (again, something even more likely found at the uppermost levels of the sport) so the "fairness" issue really hasn't ever been an issue....
Arggh, I'm rambling. I just hate to see 3-day turned into something other than what it was meant to be; especially since the measures are being instituted in the name of welfare and they really aren't doing anything but degenerating the sport.
Think I'll go to Rolex in '05... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

Ellie K

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by rebeginner:
In the case of eventing, instead of taking drugs to boost performance (BHoy's problem in Athens aside), the FEI is just lowering the standard so significantly as to create a new sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On that note, and also a welfare issue, is that it's a little coincidental that not long after the FEI started weighting the dressage more heavily, suddenly rumors of event horses being sedated for the dressage started flying around. I don't know that they've caught any, or enough, eventers specifically to make the rumors substantive at FEI level, but it was the eventing rumors that led to the FEI sharpening up their testing techniques, that led to the rash of positives and the whole Olympic doping debacle. So maybe they have reaped what they have sown. But of course, they'll never admit that. And if drugs are being abused, of course it is good for people to be caught and the IOC seems to accept that there will always be cheats, the important thing from their perspective is that the cheats get caught.

I wondered aloud before whether or not it's all about perception. The 'easy' way to make it more palatable for the animal rights crowd, and non-equestrians who might be concerned about them (ie. the IOC), is to say they've made it easier on the horses, even if it really isn't. It's EASY to make a non-horse person conclude that it MUST be easier/safer etc. if it's SHORTER. Because without any technical stuff to confuse them, that makes sense to the uninitiated. Just like if you have horses occasionally collapsing in endurance rides, the easy argument for the uneducated is to say 100 miles is too long and limit rides to 50 or 75. I don't know the stats, but I would put my money on a horse bred, trained and conditioned to go 100 miles before I'd put it on a poorly prepared horse going 50 under a rider that doesn't know what he is doing. But the public maybe couldn't understand that. They'd conclude that shorter is easier, hence their first reaction would probably be to just shorten everything! So I wonder if this is how the powers that be think they can get rid of the animal rights issue...in which case I think it's misguided and not likely to work anyway.

I know some of you have raised the same issue, I guess I'm just disappointed that still no one seems to be able to tell us "why" and back it up.

Magnolia

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I guess I'm just disappointed that still no one seems to be able to tell us "why" and back it up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have to hanker a guess it has a lot to do with land availability and the Olympics than "animal welfare". I believe Denny said a long format covered 17+ miles - that's a pretty big track to build and get proper footing in 4 years... and then only use it once. So it probably is quite expensive to put that on unless you already have that facility. Take out the endurance, you need less space, it's cheaper, so more Olympic venues can handle the event.

So I think there is some validity with amending the event to make it easier financially and logistically on Olympic venues, and I suppose standardizing things makes it easier for the teams etc...... not that it's a good idea, but it sounds somewhat valid....

rebeginner

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

because

c)FEI is not making its decision based on horse welfare, but instead is based on the economic realities of the European countries whose land resources are limited, and European-minded riders and their trainers (I'm definitely including CMP here) who can ride more horses in a day/season.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to be cynical, but that's my point: the "horse welfare" argument is merely smoke and mirrors.

JER

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:39 PM

Even Capt. Mark Phillips knows there's no hard evidence:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>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 Etherington-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?

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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Yep, that's CMP, writing in Horse & Hound in November of 2003. We can add his name to those signing the 'death warrant'.)

It comes down to this: The Infanta doesn't like steeplechase and there are enough FEI members who want to kiss her royal behind, presumably in the name of animal welfare.

tle

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Magnolia:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I guess I'm just disappointed that still no one seems to be able to tell us "why" and back it up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have to hanker a guess it has a lot to do with land availability and the Olympics than "animal welfare". I believe Denny said a long format covered 17+ miles - that's a pretty big track to build and get proper footing in 4 years... and then only use it once. So it probably is quite expensive to put that on unless you already have that facility. Take out the endurance, you need less space, it's cheaper, so more Olympic venues can handle the event.

So I think there is some validity with amending the event to make it easier financially and logistically on Olympic venues, and I suppose standardizing things makes it easier for the teams etc...... not that it's a good idea, but it sounds somewhat valid.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then (AGAIN) why not develop a CIC**** instead of trashing the whole freakin' sport?!?

JER

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:45 PM

The FEI voted not to develop a CIC4* in March 2004, stating "there was no real necessity (for a CIC4*) with the introduction of the possibility to organize a CCI 4 star without steeplechase."

The idea, it seems, was to make the CCI4* into a CIC without rearranging the letters.

tle

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:49 PM

I understand what they did...just can't seem to figure out the complete and total lack of logic behind WHY they did (are doing) it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Ellie K

Dec. 14, 2004, 01:06 PM

The Infanta is also an IOC member, and probably knows next to nothing about eventing so as to be able to respond intelligently to direct pressure from that end. And being Spanish, I'm sure Barcelona is something she still hears about to this day. Additionally with a Spaniard no longer being president of the IOC, that was a very nice connection the FEI has lost. The FEI has term limits on everything except the presidency, and of course, the only qualification for that office seems to be a royal title. It would be nice if some of the NFs had the balls to propose changes to the FEI statutes to require a term limit on the president, but I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

I agree JER, what was proposed initially was to make the Olympics a CIC 4-star. During all of that time, I think communication was good, there were I think 4 or 5 open forums all over the world and I think everyone accepted that change at the Olympics would have to be made. Even this was very hard for a lot of people to accept but they did so, because staying in the Olympics seemed to be a worthwhile thing, so people compromised. But then it just went crazy. They butcher the CCI and then say "oh, we don't need a 4 star CIC because now we have this other thing." That is what smells really rotten. It just seems entirely manipulated.

bambam

Dec. 14, 2004, 01:24 PM

Am I the only one that found the President's letter in my winter issue of Eventing mag really interesting and a bit heartening?
It was nice to have the commitment that both the USEA and USEF eventing committee will support the full format for as long as the membership does. Not that this solves the issue by any means but it is nice to see their support and I think it is crucial.
The letter also mentions creating a fund for grants to organizers committed to keeping the long-format and asks if we are interested in helping. I personally think this is a great idea and I think we should let USEA know that we do support the format and anything USEA can do to save it. I will definitely donate if they set that up and will tell them that.
As an aside, it was interesting to me that that survey last year USEA did of the membership and its support for the long format was sent to FEI. I was wondering if they did anything with it.

fourhorses

Dec. 14, 2004, 01:30 PM

Not to get off this topic, but this is starting to sound hauntingly like the "happy dressage horses" mandate proposed by the FEI. Is there some type of conspiracy out there to eventually end all horse sports, or have I been watching too many Oliver Stone movies?

Ellie K

Dec. 14, 2004, 02:14 PM

JER your resourcefulness is impressive...thanks for posting that article by CMP. He has been severely criticized but I think just about every notable person involved in eventing in this country fought this thing hard for years, but they (Denny excepted!) have gradually had to concede that there was no stopping it and that they had to work with it. I think that's all people like CMP and Roger Haller and the BNRs are doing.

Also I have to add how thoroughly impressed I am that Dr. Haring manages to run not only the most powerful national federation in the world but the FEI as well. I propose they just consolidate things in Warendorf and save everyone a lot of money. The savings could then be used to purchase land and build full CCI courses all around the world.

frugalannie

Dec. 14, 2004, 03:00 PM

While I was out finishing barn chores, I got to wondering... Does anyone know how other previous Olympians (Denny and Jimmy have made their opinions known, of course) feel about this whole thing? It would be interesting to find out where Mike Plumb, Torrance Watkins, Don Sachey, Tad Coffin and others are willing to say publicly. Does anyone know how to reach them to ask?

Meanwhile, I do think it's important to know how the active riders feel and why. I know Robby was going to contact someone, and through Janet, we know how Gillian feels. But if anyone can access an ULR, even if it requires the promise of anonymity, and post the reasons for their positions, I think it would be as valuable as the members of the Hall of Fame.

By the way, I'm not sure where Bruce fits in this as he's sort of in both categories.

tle

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:01 AM

frugalannie... please read my previous post to see what John Williams has said on the subject.

Other than the new way of conditioning (which at the moment sounds an awful lot like the old way just with no restrictions), I just don't get why our governing body is so willing to give up on the traditional format IN THIS COUNTRY! Why are we crowing USEF eventing champions from the short format for starters? Why CAN'T both formats be run?

Sannois

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:50 AM

LOL Maj's mom you might be right!! I about choked about the Happy Athlete in the Dressage world. Again the FEI is behind it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Sannois

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:52 AM

What the HECK does Donna Pilar have against steeple chasing??

Debbie

Dec. 15, 2004, 01:26 PM

You guys have inspired me. I've followed this thread since Heather's original post (thanks for your bravery Heather), and thanks to the constructive ideas and thoughtful discussion put forth here, I've gotten off my butt. I joined the USEA after being absent in recent years and while still being a couple of years away from being back in the sport as a competitor and I just made my hotel reservations for Rolex to support the long format. Okay so that second part is hardly a hardship, but I haven't gone in recent years but my vacation dollars are pointed that way. (Hopefully not as a last opportunity to see our sport at its finest and most challenging.)

As a confirmed lurker, I challenge any others to come out of lurkdom and take part any way you can. Call me a smurf will ya...

frugalannie

Dec. 15, 2004, 02:23 PM

Thanks for refreshing my memory, tle. Holiday preps have a way of making me very fuzzy brained!

But if I read your post correctly, JW gave no real reason for preferring the short format, just said it was the hand that was (and will be) dealt. Am I reading that correctly?

asterix

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:45 PM

Hey, what about bambam's pointer to the President's letter in the Eventing mag? He suggests a fund for supporting long format organizers/competitions...
aren't we talking about a fund to reward competitors, too?
Can these efforts be consolidated?

deltawave

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:53 PM

I asked Bruce Mandeville (Canadian Olympian) what he thought about the format change and he said "I'm not sure anyone really knows what they're doing making the change". He was one of the first of the BNR's to sign the petition, BTW. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EventGurlie

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:23 PM

Wow....I have been out of the loop since Ive sold my horse and been in college and have not competed since the summer of 2003...I did not realize that the Advanced three day long format was in such serious jeopardy. I guess i was just naive to think they would only use the short format for the olympics. My ultimate goal is to eventually ride an advanced three day...Sort of throws my hopes and dreams out the window http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif I guess if this all becomes reality I will have to remake my goals into a 2* and advanced horse trial as my goal...I can not believe that there aren't more upper level riders supporting the long format, although I can SEE their point of view, I guess I just dont understand it. Well I better get my tickets to Rolex this year, it may be my last chance to see the 4* long format. Such a shame...

JER

Dec. 15, 2004, 11:33 PM

Guess what? More reading material...

Telegraph on Hoy drugs decision (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2004/12/14/somott14.xml)

But the Telegraph is reg-only, so I'm re-printing here:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Drug riddle of the vanishing vet
By Sue Mott
(Filed: 14/12/2004)

The equestrian world is in uproar over the "inexplicable" exoneration of a horse that tested positive for a banned drug at the Olympic Games. It is a decision by the judicial committee of equestrianism's world governing body, the FEI, which plunges the sport into controversy yet again following the hokey-cokey method by which the medals were awarded in Athens. Curiously, and coincidentally, it involves the same rider.

Bettina Hoy
Crowning moment: Bettina Hoy when she won the gold medal

Bettina Hoy, of Germany, was memorable for winning, losing, winning and finally losing the same gold medal in the Olympic eventing competition due to an amateurish interpretation of the rules, whereby she was penalised for crossing the starting line twice. The medal went instead to Britain's Leslie Law.

Hoy is now caught up in further controversy, but this involves drugs. Her horse, Ringwood Cockatoo, tested positive in Athens for the antihistamine Hydroxy Diphenhydramine. At her hearing earlier this month, the German Federation mounted the defence that the drug had entered the horse's system via a cream applied to its back for the treatment of lumps, and that a veterinary official had approved its use.

The crux of her defence was that approval had been granted by a man she, and the German team, mistook for an official FEI vet. He appears not to have been. According to Ken Lalo, chairman of the three-man judicial committee who sat in judgement of her case: "He was a person in the right place at the right time. They received authorisation from someone who appeared to be a representative of the FEI. We do not know who it was.

"But he was in the veterinary clinic in the clothes of a veterinary representative and he came when summoned by the receptionist. We found, in this case, that there was 'deemed authorisation'."

It has to be said, beyond the four walls in Zurich where the decision was made, many people are wondering how this "deemed" individual, posing as an FEI vet, could have been allowed to make such a significant decision at the most high-profile event in the sporting calendar. The mystery man was not available to attend the hearing. When asked if the committee had assumed his existence, Lalo replied: "We assume, yes."

There is amazement and not a little anger that, following the violation of so many rules, Hoy has escaped without sanction. This decision is perceived to drive a coach, horses, riders, vets and federation lawyers through a clutch of articles in the FEI general regulations.

Article 146.1 insists that horses found to have prohibited substance inside them are automatically disqualified. Ringwood Cockatoo was not disqualified.

Article 146.3 states that written permission from an official FEI delegate must be obtained before treatment or medication is administered to a horse. No written permission was sought or obtained. There was a case this year of a British rider failing to obtain the correct written permission and being thrown out of a competition.

Article 174.2 forbids ignorance of the rules as an excuse.

To compound the confusion, Hoy's countryman, Ludger Beerbaum, gold medallist in the Olympic showjumping competition, also came up before the judicial committee after testing positive in Athens for a prohibited substance, Betamethasone. Same day, same offence, different result. The law of strict liability was applied - that which denies all excuses for drugs swilling round the system, including the ones that athletes try from time to time, like 'someone spiked my toothpaste' or 'I had too much sex last night, your honour'.

Beerbaum's horse, Goldfever 3, was punished under the law of strict liability and disqualified from the competition. His rider was fined 1,500 swiss francs and made to pay 750 swiss francs in compensation for the cost of the B test sample.

Thanks to the vanishing vet, the law of strict liability was not applied to Hoy and her horse. "There are fairies at the bottom of the garden," said Mike Etherington-Smith, a British representative on the FEI standing committee that runs eventing. It certainly represents a series of unfortunate events. One member of the judicial committee hinted that Hoy's exoneration extended from a desire not to cause her any further distress after the painful shenanigans on the night of the eventing final. Having gone through the start twice by mistake, she had points deducted by the ground jury, reinstated by the appeals jury, and finally had her gold medal stripped away much later by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

There is a persistent feeling that the FEI were never very happy about the CAS ruling. This may have been an attempt to redress matters. But in a sport that has already admitted a drug problem - it is now an accepted fact that some cheats are using illegal sedatives on their horses - it must be time that the rules on any drug violation are not left to the well-meaning whimsy of individuals.

It is also a fact that Beerbaum's disqualification led to the promotion of the USA into gold medal position. Presumably, there were some 1,000 Manhattan attorneys in the departure hall of JFK airport, waiting to roar into litigious battle had the German been found not guilty. In Hoy's case, her disqualification would not have led to an alteration of the medal positions. Some suspect this made her exoneration easier.

"This wasn't the decision of a professional sport," said Will Connell, performance director of the British equestrian team. "If we have reached the point where the rules are not enforced at the very highest-level competition of the Olympic Games, you might as well have a panel of men in bowler hats and tweeds saying: 'We think you tried your best, we'll give you a medal'."

Hoy herself is unrepentant. "The decision was right and to be expected," she said when contacted by telephone. "We had permission to use the cream. We knew the cream contained a prohibited substance but it is the same cream as other horses use. We got verbal permission but we didn't get it in writing. At the end of the day it was a bit of paper that was missing.

"It was an FEI vet that gave us permission," she added, but she was informed that this was not now the accepted situation. "I do not think you would have received that information from the FEI. Well maybe you have or maybe you think you have, but it was someone in the same clothing as all the officials of the FEI." She declined to say any more about the matter and hung up. It must be said, in fairness, she was trying to conduct the conversation in a shopping centre.

Certain members of the FEI are well aware that standards of procedure and governance are not being strictly applied. A meeting of the European Federation chairmen and chief executives in Amsterdam in October forced through the appointment of a six-man task force, including Britain's Philip Billington, to modernise the judicial system.

"We have signed up to the World Anti-Doping Agency code and we cannot be taking decisions that others would perceive as questionable," Billington said. "The whole of the sport is affected. The FEI are suffering in terms of credibility."

Etherington-Smith went further. "If people are mucking about with 'calmers' then we need, as a sport, to get on the case. If people are cheating, we need to get on top of them. I am sure there's stuff going on. I'm not saying this is the case with Bettina, but that's why, going back to the Olympics, the filling in of a form was so important.

"It's a no-brainer. Competitors know the rules. I'm afraid I'm black and white on this. And I can tell you, unequivocally, that the FEI eventing committee would agree 100 per cent. People who love horses should absolutely not muck around with them. The athletes who take drugs, they have to live with themselves. But you can't muck around with other living creatures. I don't mean to sound puritanical but that message has to get out loud and clear."

One message has distinct volume and clarity. The 21st century and the FEI are now on imminent collision course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! If we're supposed to think someone is out there dressing up as an FEI vet, hanging around the vet office at an event with billions of $$ of security, and giving permission to riders to use prohibited substances, then "fairies" (as Mike E-S puts it) is the only answer.

Except I think these fairies are almost certainly better known as "die Feen" -- German fairies. The FEI has shown unusual tolerance for fanciful thinking, like at the Olympics when they argued on behalf of ignoring Bettina's error and giving her and the German team the gold medals.

If Bettina Hoy was found guilty, she would have been disqualified from the individual competition and more important, Germany would have been disqualified from the team competition as only three riders completed. As Ellie K pointed out, the head of the German federation is also a top FEI official -- maybe there's a little conflict of interest here. Or more fairies.