I'm back--my report and thoughts

[Heather]

Hey all, I'm home, and working on a doozy of a sinus infection (always happens when I fly) so if this is too long or incoherent let me know.

I did stand up and read the petition, though I'll admit I ad libbed a few places for length and also because I wasn't brave enough to start singling out events in the national championship part with the orgnaizer sitting not five feet away. I felt a bit like the lamb to the slaughter I don't mind telling you, though I did recieve some nice applause, and I wasn't heckled form the floor. At the Board of Governor's meeting on Sunday morning, Kyra achklowedged the petition, and thanked me for bringing it, and I got some nice applause there too. I also had some dirty looks, and rolled eyes (not in the BOG from some riders after I presented it at the meeting). But I can probably live with it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

First, the good news. I feel confident of two things at the moment--one, the CCI* and CCI** are safe and have the full backing of the riders at every level, and the administration of our sport. Two, we have a fabulous new Board of Governors who are very interested in giving the membership what it wants.

Now, the bad news. The CCI***-long is dead. Period. Roger Haller told the board of governors on Sunday morning that the events committe will be telling Jersey Fresh to run theirs short format, and that we "just all need to understnad where the world is going." The CCI**** is in jeopardy. Real, palpable danger. It may be saved as a special, stand alone event, a la the Tour De France verus other bicycle racing competitions and the Olympics. But the FEI, and riders and coaches on an Olympic/WEG track, have thrown in the towel. The best we can do is support, financially, time wise and otherwise, those organizers still running the CCI**** long format (Janie Atkinson here for Rolex, specifically). If they give up, it's over. To slightly correct one thing Janet said about what David O'Connor said, he said in HIS OPINION the CCI**** should remain intact as the pinnacle of the sport. However, he believes that this will not happen other than by individual organizers doing it. He thinks the long is done permanently in terms of championships--because even if a given WEG organizer wants to run it long, he believes the majority of other countries will boycott, and the FEI will yank the WEG from said organzier.

I was very dissapointed in the riders, though I do appreciate their support for the one and two star in terms of it's importance to HORSES as well as riders. But they are not interested in research in my view, and some of them clearly believe that those of use who aren't riding at that level should pretty much butt out. One person in particular was very condescending on that point.

What was very disturbing to me though, was overhearing things put one way in private in terms of perhaps the short format not being all it's cracked up to be, but stated VERY differenty in public. After several days of digesting, my feeling is this: the riders have decided that the FEI has made up its mind, the CCI-long is gone forever, and they can either be Olympic and Worlds riders, or not. Therefore, they feel the duty to "sell" how great the short format is, because they would rather do it, than not be international FEI riders. In other words, evidence is less important than being able to ride in pink coats at Olympic Games and orld Championships. I actually don't think it's exactly team fever, or a directive from Captain Phillips, though clearly he cousles them on what to say, as much as a "we've got this thing and we need to make it sound good for the fans, potential and current owners and sponsors, etc." type of deal.

I also think, to be fair to the riders, that the dreadful expereinces at Burghley this year spooked a LOT of riders. I certainly can't argue the legitimacy of fears arising from that experience, I'm sure it was very traumatic. But David said repeatedly that we, on both sides of the argument, need to quit having knee-jerk reactions. I think that is wise counsel.

I am, more firmly than ever, dedicated to getting research done on the two formats. I think ultimately this is the only way we can go forward. it's our only hope, and even if the research comes out in favor of the short format, it's the right thing to do. Despite what was stronlgy implied both to my face and behind it this weekend, my primary concern ALWAYS is horse welfare. Prove to me the short format REALLY is better for the horses, and I'll shut up and go away.

I would also like to, again, commend Nathalie Bouckaert and Michael Pollard, who were the only riders in the open forum to attempt to speak up in favor of the long format, though they were clearly shut down and shut out. They are two very brave young people, and have my undying admiration for the risk they are taking in being remotely vocal on this issue.

There was a certain irony, imho, to the riders who were there vehemently arguing about having the horses around longer, making them stars, and heros giving them longer careers, etc., were riders whose long format horses have had careers into their late teens, with double digit numbers of long format CCI's under their belts, and whose horses would be recgonizable to a fan at 100 paces. I felt a little bit like asking just how long they'd like to compete them? Until their early 20's? Their 30's? The career of any one of the top horses of the riders in the room would be considered REMARKABLE by the standards of any other equine sport (when was the lst time the show jumpers had 16 to 18 year olds on their team?). While I'm not making light of the tremendous bond and magic between a horse and rider, there was a part of me that thought, you know, sometimes horses just get old. The short format won't stop the passage of time.

I'll be crafting a letter to the USEA with all my thoughts later in the week, I'll post it here when I'm done.

It was a great meeting, beautifully run, and it was fun to be "home" again. Some great educational seminars, although the ones on new findings of "issues" being discovered by new technology I started subtitling "Stuff that you now think might be wrong with your horse and will keep you up nights thinking about it". Especially the one on MRI, LOL.

[Heather]

Hey all, I'm home, and working on a doozy of a sinus infection (always happens when I fly) so if this is too long or incoherent let me know.

I did stand up and read the petition, though I'll admit I ad libbed a few places for length and also because I wasn't brave enough to start singling out events in the national championship part with the orgnaizer sitting not five feet away. I felt a bit like the lamb to the slaughter I don't mind telling you, though I did recieve some nice applause, and I wasn't heckled form the floor. At the Board of Governor's meeting on Sunday morning, Kyra achklowedged the petition, and thanked me for bringing it, and I got some nice applause there too. I also had some dirty looks, and rolled eyes (not in the BOG from some riders after I presented it at the meeting). But I can probably live with it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

First, the good news. I feel confident of two things at the moment--one, the CCI* and CCI** are safe and have the full backing of the riders at every level, and the administration of our sport. Two, we have a fabulous new Board of Governors who are very interested in giving the membership what it wants.

Now, the bad news. The CCI***-long is dead. Period. Roger Haller told the board of governors on Sunday morning that the events committe will be telling Jersey Fresh to run theirs short format, and that we "just all need to understnad where the world is going." The CCI**** is in jeopardy. Real, palpable danger. It may be saved as a special, stand alone event, a la the Tour De France verus other bicycle racing competitions and the Olympics. But the FEI, and riders and coaches on an Olympic/WEG track, have thrown in the towel. The best we can do is support, financially, time wise and otherwise, those organizers still running the CCI**** long format (Janie Atkinson here for Rolex, specifically). If they give up, it's over. To slightly correct one thing Janet said about what David O'Connor said, he said in HIS OPINION the CCI**** should remain intact as the pinnacle of the sport. However, he believes that this will not happen other than by individual organizers doing it. He thinks the long is done permanently in terms of championships--because even if a given WEG organizer wants to run it long, he believes the majority of other countries will boycott, and the FEI will yank the WEG from said organzier.

I was very dissapointed in the riders, though I do appreciate their support for the one and two star in terms of it's importance to HORSES as well as riders. But they are not interested in research in my view, and some of them clearly believe that those of use who aren't riding at that level should pretty much butt out. One person in particular was very condescending on that point.

What was very disturbing to me though, was overhearing things put one way in private in terms of perhaps the short format not being all it's cracked up to be, but stated VERY differenty in public. After several days of digesting, my feeling is this: the riders have decided that the FEI has made up its mind, the CCI-long is gone forever, and they can either be Olympic and Worlds riders, or not. Therefore, they feel the duty to "sell" how great the short format is, because they would rather do it, than not be international FEI riders. In other words, evidence is less important than being able to ride in pink coats at Olympic Games and orld Championships. I actually don't think it's exactly team fever, or a directive from Captain Phillips, though clearly he cousles them on what to say, as much as a "we've got this thing and we need to make it sound good for the fans, potential and current owners and sponsors, etc." type of deal.

I also think, to be fair to the riders, that the dreadful expereinces at Burghley this year spooked a LOT of riders. I certainly can't argue the legitimacy of fears arising from that experience, I'm sure it was very traumatic. But David said repeatedly that we, on both sides of the argument, need to quit having knee-jerk reactions. I think that is wise counsel.

I am, more firmly than ever, dedicated to getting research done on the two formats. I think ultimately this is the only way we can go forward. it's our only hope, and even if the research comes out in favor of the short format, it's the right thing to do. Despite what was stronlgy implied both to my face and behind it this weekend, my primary concern ALWAYS is horse welfare. Prove to me the short format REALLY is better for the horses, and I'll shut up and go away.

I would also like to, again, commend Nathalie Bouckaert and Michael Pollard, who were the only riders in the open forum to attempt to speak up in favor of the long format, though they were clearly shut down and shut out. They are two very brave young people, and have my undying admiration for the risk they are taking in being remotely vocal on this issue.

There was a certain irony, imho, to the riders who were there vehemently arguing about having the horses around longer, making them stars, and heros giving them longer careers, etc., were riders whose long format horses have had careers into their late teens, with double digit numbers of long format CCI's under their belts, and whose horses would be recgonizable to a fan at 100 paces. I felt a little bit like asking just how long they'd like to compete them? Until their early 20's? Their 30's? The career of any one of the top horses of the riders in the room would be considered REMARKABLE by the standards of any other equine sport (when was the lst time the show jumpers had 16 to 18 year olds on their team?). While I'm not making light of the tremendous bond and magic between a horse and rider, there was a part of me that thought, you know, sometimes horses just get old. The short format won't stop the passage of time.

I'll be crafting a letter to the USEA with all my thoughts later in the week, I'll post it here when I'm done.

It was a great meeting, beautifully run, and it was fun to be "home" again. Some great educational seminars, although the ones on new findings of "issues" being discovered by new technology I started subtitling "Stuff that you now think might be wrong with your horse and will keep you up nights thinking about it". Especially the one on MRI, LOL.

[bambam]

Thank you for both reading the petition and giving such a nice summary of what happened and your thoughts.
Your account, however, just makes me sad http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I had hoped the deed (the loss of the 3 and 4 star) was not done yet.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> To slightly correct one thing Janet said about what David O'Connor said, he said in HIS OPINION the CCI**** should remain intact as the pinnacle of the sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is what I thought the first time he said it. But then when I asked a question referring to "your proposal to keep the * and **** as long format" he interupted me and said "it isn't 'my proposal', it is what I think will happen".

[bambam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
I started subtitling "Stuff that you now think might be wrong with your horse and will keep you up nights thinking about it". Especially the one on MRI, LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't need any new information to suffer from that disease http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[deltawave]

Blecch, I'm very disappointed in our "courageous" event riders. It's OK to feel political pressure, but to not even support RESEARCH on what is best for our horses? Hmmm, sounds very much like these ULR's are in danger of losing that for which we admire them so much : their regard for the horses they ride. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

[Heather]

He meant the one star, Janet, in terms of what will happen (and the "not my proposal" part is required from him due to his position as president of the USEF--he can't propose anything, officially), he was very clear he doesn't think the four star has a chance from the FEI/championship perspective when speaking with him at the reception later.

[3dazey]

Thank you Heather, from the bottom of my heart. I am desolate at the thought of so many of the riders I once admired not standing up for the long format, especially if they are in favor of keeping it when discussing the issue "in private". I guess they are human with flaws and foibles like the rest of us, but this leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Thank you, again, for being brave and eloquent in your presentation and in your recounting of the discussion at the meeting, and thank you for giving us reason for hope for the future of the sport, be it long or short, in the form of Nathalie and Michael and their courage to take a stand.

Okay, so you're my hero for the day. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[wanderlust]

Heather, thank you for the great (or not-so-great in terms of a continuing a full 3-day format) recap.

It is fabulous to hear that Natalie and Michael, 2 people who I consider to be the future of our sport, are in support of traditional 3-day, and are not afraid to speak up and out.

I'm quite disappointed in those folks like Karen O (but unfortunately, not surprised) who have rolled over and said "well, its shorter so its easier on the horses, they'll have longer careers". When has the point of a 3-day ever been to "easier" on a horse. If I wanted "easier on the horse" I'd do low jumpers and forget about the XC altogether. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
He meant the one star, Janet, in terms of what will happen (and the "not my proposal" part is required from him due to his position as president of the USEF--he can't propose anything, officially), he was very clear he doesn't think the four star has a chance from the FEI/championship perspective when speaking with him at the reception later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, so yet another case of saying one thing in public and another in private. Oh well.

[Backstage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
I am, more firmly than ever, dedicated to getting research done on the two formats. I think ultimately this is the only way we can go forward. it's our only hope, and even if the research comes out in favor of the short format, it's the right thing to do. Despite what was stronlgy implied both to my face and behind it this weekend, my primary concern ALWAYS is horse welfare. Prove to me the short format REALLY is better for the horses, and I'll shut up and go away.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooooo, because I have no idea about this type of thing, how does such a project get off the ground?

[Heather]

Cathy Kohn started something at Fair Hill. I would imagine the model we need to inspect and follow would be those used by the folks who got the weight rule rescinded, and who did all the studies on heat effects before the Atlanta Games. There were studies done on both of these issues, that lead to changes and hard data.

Anyone here work with Carol Kozlowski? She spearheaded the weight rule changes including a study of the effect of carrying dead weight. If anyone can give us some ideas it'd be her.

[Backstage]

Thats who I thought of, not by name since it didn't come to me, but because of the weight project. I just think it would be a super interesting project, and if something ends up happening I would definitely like to stay 'in the know'. And find out if they need assistants, I'd be seriously willing to take time off school, though it could probably be worked into my Bsc.

[GreyDawn]

First of all Heather did a great job standing before the crowds and presenting. She needs to be commended for her presentation and her bravery!! I assue you she may have seen some rolling of the eyes but I oberved people nodding yes as she read the petition.
I think her assessment of things is accurate. Yet I do think the "house is still divided on the short versus long format issue". However I think one of the best things to come out of the petition and its presentation is that it adds to the discussion and let's eveyone know there are many people that do support the long format. Information presented in the membership open forum states that 95% of the USEA members are riding at the novice and training levels. So our opinions do count!!We need to respect the Upper level riders as their opinions do matter but I am not sure they even know for sure if the short format is better due to lack of experiences in riding it. Darren C made the comment that he was "leaning toward the short format' but had not fully decided. I heard this from other riders who are on the winter trianing list and even some said they wanted the option for both formats as they have horses that a good for either format. So does this mean time will tell which is best and the riders really do not know for sure???
Also I agree with Heather that many of the top riders supported the short format at the *** and **** levels for various reasons such as safety,longivity of the horses, marketablity of the sport and the fact that many other countries do not continue to support the long format. However not all the riders openly stated thier opinions. There were top riders there who said nothing. I was discouraged yet I do feel that there are many "important" people in the sport that do support the long format but are reserving judgment until the short format has been tried for a while. A noticed that the ULRs that spoke in favor of the short format made statements"that my horse just felt better after running the short format".That is importan but not reaech!! Also comments were being made that the speed of the a *** and **** levels are issues that effect the horse longivity which is different for the * and ** star levels. Mark Phillips remarked that the British are suporting keeping the long * and ** as riders need to know how to ride forward to go on to the upper levels.
I really sensed that the changes to the long format happened faster than anyone expected,that Wayne Raycroft of the Evenitng committee had been given alot of pressure from other countries to agreed to changes and that there are 165 other countries with opinions regarding equestrian sports that make for many challenges in the FEI, that marketablity of equestrian sports in general is a real issue, and that efforts to have evenitng as viable as Dressage and showjumping requires us to adhere to the ways of the rest of the world.
I know this is long but despite my frustration as I listened I did get a message that the jury is still out of the effects of the short format on the sport and the horses and that we need more experience riding the short format before deciding which is best. Did anyone else hear that or am I making something up?
Finally the politics of it all is overwhelming. i think time will tell so in the mean time people should feel good about continuing to call for research and for supporting the long format or at least until it is demonstrated through experience or research that the sort format is trully best for the horses. Hopefully the pettion drive can be kept alive and another presentation with many more signatures can be presented at then USEF annual meeting.Attention to the issue needs to be a priority. I am also interesting in hearing from others who were at the UsEA meeting. Many of the Cothers were there so what did you all hear???

[denny]

Thanks Heather. Brave you!!!
While we`re at it, why don`t we lower the fences at the Maryland Hunt Cup, shorten the Tevis Cup to 75 miles, and shorten the Belmont to one mile? Why not just get rid of those pesky old high standards, since they`re so hard to achieve.

[Heather]

I would agree greyDawn, that more ULR will not speak at all publicly on the issue. So, in that sense, I give a lot of respect to those who are willing to state an opinion and put their name behind it, even if that opinion is contrary to my own.

The politics is overwhelming and not to be taken lightly--those riders are being judged on some level, at all times. The thought of that pressue is mind boggling to me. Because of the sort of personality I am, I'd like to believe that that pressure wouldn't deter me from saying what I believe--but I don't think anyone can say for sure how they would hold up under that pressue.

That being said, I have a confession to make. I didn't want to be the one up there being the face of this petition. I actually swore to myself on the plane out there, that it WOULDN'T be me. I was feeling that way, right up until the open forum it was implied to me that as a non-advanced rider I had no right to make a fuss, or have an opinion, and that I couldn't possibly understand. Then, I got mad. Really mad. I'm like Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda. . . don't call me stupid. If that hadn't happened, I honestly would have provided the url to Kyra privately and gone on about my business. But I was PO'd. So I took a stand.

[fooler]

Bravo Heather!

It can be lonely out there on that limb http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Agree with others that the next step is push for the research.

And Denny - why don't we drop the 1 & 2 tempis (sp?) in Dressage and lower the Show Jumping heights to no more that 4'6". Just to make certain no one is left out or abused.

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Real, palpable danger. It may be saved as a special, stand alone event, a la the Tour De France verus other bicycle racing competitions and the Olympics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a funny story - my brother does Ironman Triathalons, which are a great deal more strenuous than the Olympic length triathalon (now, anyone who does a triathalon of any length is uber cool in my book), but my mom made a funny comment this summer - "Well, the Olympic triathalon isn't a "real" triathalon, the Ironman is."

I bet the FEI would be disappointed if we all thought of The Rolex **** and the others as the "real" Three Day Event.

I mean, c'mon, who do we know better, the winner of the Tour DeFrance or the winner of the shorter Olympic version? The winner at Wimbledon or the Olympic tennis gold medalist? I think with some branding and sponsorship, the winner at events like Rolex could be better rewarded and known than those at the Olympics.

[3dazey]

Thank God someone made you mad! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I would have been beside myself. How lucky that I wasn't in your shoes...I might be cooling my heels in an SF jail cell...

As to recommendations for who might assist with the research, Carol is a GREAT idea and would be an invaluable resource as to how to go about this, and there are a slew of folks here in Area III who were involved with the heat study before the 96 Games. (gee, a long format in Georgia in the summer...and they all survived, actually looked pretty darn amazing.) Pat Maykuth springs to mind, she is involved in academia professionally, and I'd hazard a guess that she's strongly behind long format. But either way, she would know how to proceed with the research.

[denny]

Yes, and tranquilize the bucking broncs, lower the baskets in basketball, the possibilities are really endless. Do we -hell, do they- really think that the legacy they leave behind, riding in a bunch of horse trials, will be looked upon in the future as anywhere nearly as meaningful as the accomplishments of Bruce, Lucinda, Mike P., even of some of they themselves, in their earlier careers?
Isn`t this really much of what we are all lamenting, yet another lessening of yet another high and difficult standard? Don`t they get that point? OF COURSE easier is easier. Does easy move your soul? Does it move theirs? I can`t see how it possibly could, and yet it must.
What don`t I get?

[elf3v]

I would be VERY interested in helping get a research project started...

I am new enough to eventing that the weight rule change was before I knew that a coffin isn't just for dead people http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, so I don't have a lot of background, but I'd definitely be willing to try and get it off the ground. And this is jumping ahead, but I could possibly also be available this summer if we end up doing an actual project.

I am in awe of everyone here who is standing up for the long format...way to go. Just as a side note, one thing that also saddens me is the feeling that I get, as a lower level eventer, that my support and opinions don't matter.

"But they are not interested in research in my view, and some of them clearly believe that those of use who aren't riding at that level should pretty much butt out. One person in particular was very condescending on that point."

I agree that I have NO IDEA what it is like to ride a CCI****, but I feel that as the vast majority of USEA members, a significant portion of the income of most riders who train/teach professionally, and the real backbone of the sport, I should not be treated like some sort of third class citizen. We are the people who pay to watch you ride, pay to learn to ride like you do, and in the end I think we deserve to have something to say.

I realize this is pretty much what everyone else has said too,and exactly what the petition was about, but Heather's report really kind of made me mad all over again. Sorry to be repetitive.

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> some of them clearly believe that those of use who aren't riding at that level should pretty much butt out. One person in particular was very condescending on that point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. That's an interesting thought that we should butt out. Perhaps we should stop contributing money to USET, buying tickets to Fairhills and Rolex, and not bother tuning into the Olympics. After all, none of those things are our business. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[cinnabar]

Well done, Heather! I'm glad you got mad enough to stand up, and how dare someone imply that you had no right to make a fuss, since YOU weren't one of THEM.

Am I remembering correctly that Hilary Clayton worked on the weight-carrying study?

[Heather]

It won't come as a suprise to anybody that I'm no scientific mind, so I've not the foggiest how these sorts of things get set up. It also occurs to me that Europe may be doing some sort of study already, good to know. Perhaps the way to approach it is to ask Carol what she did, find out if Dr. Kohn would be interested in spearheading a study from the science side, and what she would need (money, etc) to get that acomplished, and see how it can be sorted out.

Let me be very blunt and upfront here--I'm not going to be able to run with this ball very far--I'm about to be unemployed and am going to need to really concentrate on getting a job and not on a non-paying reasearch study. But I am happy to do what I can and, bring parties together, and be a general PITA to the powers that be to find funding.

But if we are going to be serious here--I'm going to need some help.

[Backstage]

I have no knowledge about how this type of thing would get started, but am dead serious about helping in any way I can, both with the actual study in some sort of way and with fundraising if it comes to pass (the $93.58 in my bank account isn't likely to help, but I'd be willing to scout out possible avenues for funds).

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
Thanks Heather. Brave you!!!
While we`re at it, why don`t we lower the fences at the Maryland Hunt Cup, shorten the Tevis Cup to 75 miles, and shorten the Belmont to one mile? Why not just get rid of those pesky old high standards, since they`re so hard to achieve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And while we are at it, make the Triple Crown "best two out of three"!

[elf3v]

Okay. I have to get through these exams, but then would have some serious time over my Christmas break to devote to seeing how we would get a research study started.

So I read a couple names floating around - do we have contact info for these people? Do we want to get about 3-5 (or more) of us together to kind of spearhead the idea?

So far I've seen mentioned: Carol Kozlowski, Dr. Krohn, Pat Maykuth (plus Area III people involved in research re: the Atlanta games)...

[Duramax]

Heather, I just wanted to thank you for standing up and doing what you did. It means a lot to us! Thasnks for your report as well. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[Janet]

SOMEONE is doing some sort of analysis. Gillian said that, when she did her final course walk at Fair Hill, there were people timing when each horse passed specific points on the course. She said they were going to be correlating that information with the condition of the horse at the finish, and with the type of warmup/preparation the rider did.

[MischiefMaker]

I'm not really sure where this really belongs so I'm going to tack it on here. I'm sure for the most part that ULRs are great trainers/instructors, but I think now I might have have little trouble riding with those who obviously don't want the sport at the highest levels to be the "best of the best". Why ride with someone whose goals for their horses are now mediocre (in comparison with those who want the full three day) and no longer want to see the sport at the upper levels be at the highest quality it can be? Or why put your horse in training with someone who now doesn't want try to take him/her to the VERY top, better yet lets just do shorts and then we can make him a mediocre star! I have much more admiration for those horses that can do the full format. I just see the short format as glorified HT and well there are lots of horses that can do upper level HT but obviously all of them don't get to the ***/**** level, the short format takes away the prestige as far as I'm concerned. I'd much rather ride with someone whose aspirations are for the pinnacle of the sport. I applaud those upper level riders who are standing up for the full format (or atleast want to keep it around even if there is also a short format), those are the type of people I want to ride with.
Sorry if that makes little sense, I'm having trouble figuring just what I want to say. Am I the only one that feels this way?

[wanderlust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
Do we -hell, do they- really think that the legacy they leave behind, riding in a bunch of horse trials, will be looked upon in the future as anywhere nearly as meaningful as the accomplishments of Bruce, Lucinda, Mike P., even of some of they themselves, in their earlier careers?
&lt;snip&gt;
What don`t I get? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Denny, the only thing I can think of when I hear that the folks who have been doing this for a long, long time are supporting the change of format is that they must be growing old and tired. If it will be easier on the horses, it will be easier on them. Lets make no mistake that this is about creating super-star long-careered horses. It is not. It is about helping THEM, the riders, prolong THEIR careers beyond an age/time where they wouldn't be able to handle riding multiple horses in a full format ****.

If you knock out the roads/tracks/steeplechase, it is HOURS less that they have to sit on each horse. Hours less for that arthritis to bother them, hours less required of their cardiovascular systems, hours less work in preparation... I think you see where I am going. I don't believe it is easier on the horses. I believe it is easier on the riders.

This is why I believe you see the youth and future of the sport sticking up for the full format, and the veterans going along with the change. Nathalie and Michael are up for the challenge, hungry for the challenge, and physically capable of the challenge. Karen and others are in the twilight of their competitive riding careers, and if the short format will prolong that career and potentially keep them on the top of the game for that much longer by being easier on them (and they perceive on the horse), why not?

The move to and support for the short format isn't really about the horses. It is about personal gratification, be it in the competitive arena, the sales arena (warmbloods) or the PR arena. For too many of them, horses stopped being a passion and started being a job. Who doesn't want an easier job?

[Hilman Farm]

I participated in a study that Carol did when she was fighting the weight rule. We jumped a 3'7" table that was on the local recognized Prelim XC course with and without lead. I *think* we jumped it 5 times both ways (with and without lead). The arch of takeoff and landing was measured for each horse as well as stress levels etc by licensed vets. I know prior to this study there was a petition. I think there was more analysis done at actual three day events - I was a young teenager at the time and my memory is poor.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
Does easy move your soul? ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denny, you may be an essayist and ranconteur at heart, but you might have a future in sloganeering. Those five words sum up to me the appeal of three days as well as any. Something to strive for. SOmething out of reach of most, yet possible. Mount Everest for equestrians.

[RAyers]

The current studies are good starts but not definitive. One can not equate times/HR/warm up with out significant numbers (1,000s of rounds) as well as traking specific horses throughout thier careers. In other words such work is going to take more time than we have. We can do significant base studies with few horses but tightly controlled conditions.

I would be quite happy to put together proposals to study the effects of long and short formats. I have put together proposals for studying equine joints and the like and have been cultivating resources within the funding organizations. It will take numerous researchers (deltawave, IFG, Pat Maykuth and others come to mind) to do this and it will take a STRONG push from the members of USEA to get this funded. The proposal would be best done through the collaboration between USEA and Grayson as we can tie track training in with this as well as being tied to universities where equine research is ongoing. I can utilize my contacts and position at CSU to submit the proposal.

We may even be able to fold in the non-starter idea for examining the sudden deathes of event and hunt horses.

Reed

[Heather]

Reed are you familiar with Dr. Kohn? She is the "somebody doing something" Janet alluded to. Could you two work together, if we could get the funding together? Ballpark on the time frame (2 years? 5?) and amount of money needed to having meaningful results.

[DizzyMagic]

I too am bitterly disappointed in this assessment. Bitterly. All we want is some damn research... They cannot say (and I don't care WHO they are) that it is better for the horses, because they just don't know for sure. A rider might feel it was better for the horse they were on on that particular day. I'll accept that. But leave it there and stop with the blanket "better for the horse" statements. Especially as there are a significant number of riders feel that it was worse for their horses.

Part of me (a very big part) wants to call it quits and walk away from this sport. Maybe a true split would be the best thing - the "lower levels" and the 1 and 2 star levels can go off and be their own sport, and it can be fun again. The "elite" riders can go off to the USET and tell each other how special they are. We can get out of each other's hair.

The problem is - (stream of consciousness here) - I really don't think our little sport can withstand a split. And I really don't think that the two star in particular will hang around very long with the demise of the 3 and 4 stars. As tle (I think) said so eloquently on another post "sh!t rolls downhill".

Sigh. Very bummed indeed!

Emily

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magnolia:
I mean, c'mon, who do we know better, the winner of the Tour DeFrance or the winner of the shorter Olympic version? The winner at Wimbledon or the Olympic tennis gold medalist? I think with some branding and sponsorship, the winner at events like Rolex could be better rewarded and known than those at the Olympics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>During the open forum, David asked, with a show of hands, who thought it was important that Eventing remain in the Olympics and who thought it was not. Approximately twenty-five percent of the forum attendees indicated that it was not important for Eventing to remain in the Olympics. I was one of that twenty-five percent for three reasons.

First, as Magnolia pointed out, the Olympics are not the "pinnacle" for many sports. I think it is safe to say that Eventing is one of these sports (used to be, not any more). We already have events such as Rolex that are the pinnacle and can be used to create branding and promote sponsorships. I'm just not that interested in spending so much time focusing on Hamburger Helper (the Olympics) when we have Chateaubriand (Rolex) waiting to be served.

Second, the horse sports in our country that have the greatest levels of participation are not those that have representation in the Olympics. For example, the National Team Penning Association has almost three times the members that the USEA has at present time. The APHA horse registry now annually exceed that of the Jockey Club. And attendance at the Morgan Grand Nationals, AQHA Congress, Shelbyville, etc. continues to increase each year. If these horse sports can elicit this type of participation without the "allure" of being an Olympic sport, the sport of Eventing should be able to do likewise.

And third, we have already given up a huge part of our sport to stay in the Olympics. Now that we have shown we are willing to go down that road, the pressure to "bend over" will continue. How much more are we willing to give before we completely lose the essence of who we are?

[Hannahsmom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magnolia:
I mean, c'mon, who do we know better, the winner of the Tour DeFrance or the winner of the shorter Olympic version? The winner at Wimbledon or the Olympic tennis gold medalist? I think with some branding and sponsorship, the winner at events like Rolex could be better rewarded and known than those at the Olympics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! Thank you for stating what I have been thinking.

[colliemom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isn`t this really much of what we are all lamenting, yet another lessening of yet another high and difficult standard? Don`t they get that point? OF COURSE easier is easier. Does easy move your soul? Does it move theirs? I can`t see how it possibly could, and yet it must.
What don`t I get? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever it is, Denny, I don't get it either. As you are pointing out, though, it's another instance of a common problem, the "dumbing down" of everything around us. We are living more and more in a bland, pasteurized, homogonized world of franchises, where you aren't even supposed to discipline children because it might damage their self-esteem, and where the rules for everything including education are made easier so that everyone can "participate".

What ever happened to working hard to achieve a goal that was not necessarily attainable by everyone, but by that very definition was more rich and meaningful once attained?

I'm disgusted by the whole thing.

I do, however, want to add my humble thanks and congratulations to heather for presenting the petition at the meeting. I can't even imagine being in your shoes, and we all owe you a deep debt of gratitude.

And remember, the Jockey Club Gold Cup used to be 2 miles, and is now a mile and a half... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

[cweimer]

Heather, you have my thanks too for standing up and presenting. I'm glad you're angry http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I am too.

Here's my question: okay, we are keeping long-format for * and **. Who, pray tell, is going to teach those of us gearing up for * and ** how to properly prepare for long format? If ULR emphasis becomes short format (and why wouldn't it, in this scenario), who will maintain the expertise to PROPERLY prepare upcoming riders for the * and **? Seems like this is a death knell for those as well, just a few years off.

[RAyers]

Heather,

I am downloading Dr. Kohn's recent publications as I write this. I will send her a message.

Reed

[Heather]

cweimer that's been a point of mine for a whiile, though I do think slightly longer timeframes that what you list.

If a 16-year-old-this-year-YR is going to be our next karen O'Connor, but never rides at the upper level full format events becuase it's not what international track horses and riders do anymore, then what, exactly will she teach her students 15 years from now?

[Jupes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
And while we are at it, make the Triple Crown "best two out of three"! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Janet: Good one!

Heather: Thank you!

Everyone: Based on what took place at the meeting, do we want to change the ad for Eventing Magazine? Add things? Emphasize or de-emphasize anything different? That ad is due next week, and I'm not done fighting...

[frugalannie]

Great job, Heather. In addition to your ****-worthy courage (demonstrated by standing up and reading the letter), you are an articulate spokesperson for all of us who aren't ULR. Thank you so much!

I'm a bit ignorant so I'm going to ask what else does the FEI control besides the Olympics? Even if eventing was no longer an Olympic sport, what influence would the FEI stand against 3 and 4 *s have?

[IFG]

Reed,

Nice of you to think of me! I would be interested in helping design a study. I am swamped for the next month or so, but if I can finally get this phase of my study moving, I may even get some time to write a paper or two, so why not a research proposal?

Mark me down as in,

IFG

[gahawkeye]

Good bye Olympics ---- Hello X-Games!!!

[denny]

Let`s say you are 16 years old and have a burning desire to be an all time great 3- day rider, like, say, Bruce, Mark Todd, Ginnie Leng, Lucinda, Blyth, Pippa.
To prove that you MUST HAVE the SAME Mt. Everest that those riders had. You can`t be a Mt. Everest rider on Mount Ascutney (an easy day hike near where I live). It is ALL ABOUT standards.
Lower the standards, crush the dreams and goals of our kids.
That, for me, is the great shame in all of this travesty.

[Gry2Yng]

First, I want to add my name to the list of those who commend Heather for her bravery. I was sitting next to KOC during the meeting and the pressure to keep seated was immense (I did ultimately stand up)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> During the open forum, David asked, with a show of hands, who thought it was important that Eventing remain in the Olympics and who thought it was not. Approximately twenty-five percent of the forum attendees indicated that it was not important for Eventing to remain in the Olympics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was one who put my hand up that is ISimportant for eventing to remain in the Olympics. But I make this post because I think it is brings up the important point of "HOW YOU ASK THE QUESTION." Yes, I believe it is important that eventing stay in the Olympics. I do not believe it is important enough to make these sweeping changes to the sport.

Had DOC asked me whether I would rather keep the long format CCI**** or keep the sport in the Olympics I would have responded that I would rather keep the long format CCI***.

That straw poll was used in a few other closed session meetings that I attended and I jumped down the throats of those who tried to say that the general population would rather be in the Olympics than have the long format. I think Caterlope was there on one of those occasions.

Statistics can be made to say just about anything you want them to. I hope the USEA and USEF do not use that show of hands as an indicator. They have a petition in their hands with over 2,000 signatures.

[NMS]

It takes a person with great horsemanship skills to get through a full three day. What a shame to lose that as well.

Nancy

[GreyDawn]

Sounds like we have research experts among us which is great and a real plus.. Another idea for study help..vet school students. Don't they have to do research studies as part of their graduation requirements? A vet school student project along with our epxerts in the vet world?

And while we are discussing I have a couple of questions? Heather did anyone sign the petition at the meeting? I noticed several people stand when you asked who had signed the petition that I know for a fact have not signed the online petition. Maybe i should send thme the petition again.
Addressing the issue of who will teach the long format in the future..in the young riders open forum the long format seemed to be favored although a young rider or two said they could understand the issue the advanced riders had about saving their horses. Howard Simposn gave comments on the reasons we want to contiue working favoarably with the FEI but I cannot remeber what he said now.Rats!!I do know he was reponding to a young rider who said she thought the Young Rider championship should let go of the FEI and do it onw thing so more Young Riders could ride in the CCI* as there are now age restrictions for those in the 18-21 years old group.
I really want to hear what the ULRiders have to say and appreciate their input but if any of them want to be cocky I will tune them out. I felt like one or two had a somehwat know it all attitude and that is what made me feel angry. Just because we ride at a lower level does not make us uninformed or dumb!!One rider made some comment like" well we don't read the coth board but we know they are talking about us!" WELL DUH! You want to be in the limelight then expect someone to talk about you good or bad. Maybe some of the ULRs should tune into the discussion board and what is going on about our sport in general so they can be more in tune with what everyone thinks about eventing on all levels whether they agree or not or ever choose to respond online. As for needing more super star horses I think that is great to market eventing with superstars just like Smarty Jones and others have done for racing or Michael Jordan has done for basketball etc. I just have to wonder if everyone can ride in a 4 star and everyone can play tennis at the US Open or run the Ironman then how does a sport have an elite group. Also if a sport does not have the support of fans or those who particpate at the lower levels how can there be superstars and how does the sport have furture sperstars? Our upper level riders need to realize they need us to support them in their endeavors and to bring up the next level of advanced riders. And gee while I am ranting let's just make everything we do easier so I can stop telling my students they have to work hard and that when things get though the though get going. GRRRR!! The whole reasoning behind this short format business makes me mad! When it is all said and done all I want to know is Who decided do make the changes, What were the TRUE reasons for the changes and how is this better for the sport, the riders and the horses? Is it marketing issues, safety issues, better for the horse issues? What is it? Research can open the door for some of the answers but not all of them.At least a project could begin to address some of the reasoning behind the changes. Can you all tell when I get mad I talk and type alot!!!!!

[Cospi]

If we do want our voices heard, we do need to "hit them where it hurts", the pocketbook. I refuse to spend my money with people who don't have the same ideals as I do. I am not saying they don't have a right to their opinion, but I don't have to spend my money for their benefit. I will only support riders, events, sponsors ,etc. that support the long format at all levels. And yes, I have (for the first time in 25 years of eventing) thought of quitting because it is no longer the sport that I enjoy.
The irony here for me is that after over a decade of unsuitable mounts, financial concerns and major moves; I finally have a horse that I think can take me back to the upper levels. My goal would be the CCI***/**** with this horse. Well, that dream was ripped out from under me again by the sport itself! Discouraged, Disappointed, and Deflated are my feelings right now, but I am NOT DONE fighting yet for the sport I grew up loving and admiring. The past greats such as Mike Plumb and Better and Better or Blue Stone, Torrance Watkins and Poltroon, Southern Comfort and Finvarra, Ginny Leng and Priceless and Nightcap, Ian Stark and Murphy Himself, Oxford Blue and Sir Wattie, Bruce Davidson and JJ Babu, Might Tango, Eagle Lion, and Dr. Peaches, Blyth Tait and Messiah and Ready Teddy, Mark Todd and Charisma, etc. etc. I could go on and on about the past greats of our sport, most of which horses competed at the highest level well into their teens. I admired the courage, stamina, heart and their horsmanship. I don't want to lose that.

[TBFAN]

Normally I just lurk here, but this whole thing is so terribly upsetting to me. I just can't believe how quickly they can fundamentally change the sport without any research or proof on how the short format affects the horses.

I wasn't able to attend the meeting, did anyone who did hear comments on why we couldn't have the Olympics just be a horse trial? Is there an individual(s) who is actually pushing the short format at that level, or is it all happening by default and because not enough people are standing to oppose it?

I signed the petition early on, bought stuff on the CafePress site, and would like to donate what I can to the research. Please let me know where to send the check.

Thanks Heather for standing up for us!

[slp2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There was a certain irony, imho, to the riders who were there vehemently arguing about having the horses around longer, making them stars, and heros giving them longer careers, etc., <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh. I highly doubt that the ones who will be achieving "Star Status" with the dumbed down format will be the horses. It will be the riders. Right now, the BNR's already have been known to ride 2-3 horses in the long format at Rolex. If it becomes a short format--they'll ride 5. So, who will be the celebrated hero? The rider who has 5 placings at one horse trial? Or the horse that was 1/5th of the equation? We had one HT locally that ran an Advanced division this summer. One BNR rode 5 horses there. I remember that the BNR was there, and that he placed well--but I can't honestly remember the names of the 5 horses he competed.

I think one of the sad things is the disconnect that appears to be happening between the elite riders and the LLR's over this issue. Eventing is not a mainstream sport that you have enough fans that simply love to spectate. I would hazard to guess that 95% of the "groupies" for any given BNR are lower level eventers! Once you start to have a disconnect between the "fans" and the "players" it becomes a wedge in the sport. We have had some ugly examples of a serious disconnect between "fans" and "players" in recent weeks (the Detroit Piston's debacle).

Anyway--it seems that this issue is destined to be devisive. And that can really only be detrimental to the sport because it isn't big enough or popular enough to be split into two factions. I applaud Heather for her tenacity and bravery--I speak in front of groups for my job and yet I would've found myself absolutely petrified to stand up in front of THAT group to serve as the "voice" for the supporters. Thanks again.

[rebeginner]

Cross-posted from another thread:

"As a point of clarification, I signed the petition because of my concern that not enough science had gone into the decision to abandon the long format.

From what I've read and understand, the short format was jammed down the throats of the eventing community without any meaningful studies on recovery rates, percentage of injuries, etc. to horses attributed to either the long format or short format. If, indeed, the short format is better for horses, then I'm hard-pressed to oppose it. I don't want the sport to be changed for any reason other than the welfare of the participants of this sport who do not have a voice. So, I can't agree to send my money to a fund that supports events running the long format. I would happily send money to fund research comparing the two formats."

And where do I send a check?

[Heather]

No one physically wrote their name on the pile of paper I had on Saturday, No. But, we did have at least one person come and get the url from janet so she could sign, and how many may have sorted it out on theirown and signed during the conventionI don't know.

One other issue, I meant to add on an earlier post but kept forgetting (hello lowgrade fever, LOL) was that one issue we do need to overcome here, is there a perception among the riders, and some other that this petition is a bunch of Chronicle BBers--they haven't take the time to note the braod base represented in the singnatures (when Roger Haller made his pronouncement in the Sunday meeting, he said to John Strassburger "With all due respect to the Chronicle and it's bulletin board, this is the way the world is going. . .")

It's easy to dismiss us as a bunch of internut nut jobs, LOL, how do we prove we are more than that?

[subk]

Dr. Pat Maykuth was the driving force behind the Atlanta "heat research." As I understand it she is/was a partner in a firm that does scientific reasearch. That firm designed, managed (whatever it is that is involved) all the work and it did so as a pro bono effort and she was the head over sight person. I am sure there were some costs involved but I beleive much of the expense was absorbed by that firm.

It would probably be smart to get her opinion and involvement at least in an advisory capacity if she is willing as soon as we can. I'd love to know what her opinion is!

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
cweimer that's been a point of mine for a whiile, though I do think slightly longer timeframes that what you list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I'd heard it somewhere. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[tle]

Haven't had much time to comment as I'm swamped with work and with getting all the final details done for this weekend's Area 8 meeting and really want to think about how to comment on this distressing news. But I did want to make this one comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
One other issue, I meant to add on an earlier post but kept forgetting (hello lowgrade fever, LOL) was that one issue we do need to overcome here, is there a perception among the riders, and some other that this petition is a bunch of Chronicle BBers--they haven't take the time to note the braod base represented in the singnatures (when Roger Haller made his pronouncement in the Sunday meeting, he said to John Strassburger "With all due respect to the Chronicle and it's bulletin board, this is the way the world is going. . .") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm... with over 2000 signatures representing 16 countries... I'd say we ARE the world.

[JER]

There's some short-format vs. long-format reserach going on in the UK. At an eventing forum in February 2005, Dr Ellen Singer, part of the University of Liverpool Research Group, will be revealing the results of a British Eventing funded comparative study at Weston Park CCI** on the effects on the horse of the long and the short formats.

For more on the forum, see The Open Eventing Forum (http://www.openeventingforum.com/). There's a brief bio of Dr. Singer on the site but no further info on the study.

I think she'd be a good person to contact.

[Pol]

Heather, you rock. I can't imaaagine standing up in front of that hostile crowd. Who is tougher than an eventer, I ask you! Except maybe a whole room full of them. Thank you.
As for you, Denny, how come, when listing the long time slightly aged generation of Old School Eventers, you repeatedly leave your own name off the list? I'd say you have a pretty good reputation...Seems to me you got the whole ball rolling on the East Coast back in the 60's http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
As for the dumbing down of life in general, shortening the Tevis, the Belmont, the CCI, I might as well not bother to muck any more stalls and paddocks. They are just going to be dirty again tomorrow.
This whole state of affairs is really discouraging. If I can be of any help with the research, let me know. Want me to get ahold of Carol? Denny, why don't you give her a ring? We could have an Area 1 pow-wow...now that its dumping down freezing rain. Snow at your place?

[denny]

I guess the biggest reason this whole deal has me so frustrated is that I have no idea how these current riders think. Ok, I`m 63, not 33, but to feel I`m so totally on a different planet from these kids? Where is their pride? Don`t they welcome challenge, don`t they want it to be hard? What moves them?
I rode in the Tevis Cup this summer, and finished after 23 hours, over 21 hours of actual riding. If I`d gotten there and been told, "lucky you, it`s been shortened, and the worst hills have been taken out", would I have been glad? Of course not. The whole point was that it was touch and go whether I`d be able to do it.Most of us on this bb think the same way, and have the same philosophy toward risk and struggle. The hell with Roger Haller and his patronizing attitude. What the hell did HE ever accomplish on a horse?
That I`m so out of touch with the 20-40 year olds mystifies me. When did it all change? Is it all people that age or just eventers? I really don`t get it.

[SwizzleStick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The hell with Roger Haller and his patronizing attitude. What the hell did HE ever accomplish on a horse?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denny, then tell us how to beat him at his own game. Right now, Roger has the power to let an event live or die in many areas. I don't disagree with you. I just don't know what to do about it.

[Robby Johnson]

Heather is amazing. I don't blame her for not wanting to be the face of the movement ... I don't either. Which is why I sat beside her and poked her with sticks until she read it, then went for the world's best margaritas afterward.

I raised my hand for NOT caring if eventing is in the Olympics. I don't care. I don't care that our organization has bent over backwards and kissed its ass to accomodate, ultimately, five people per team every two years.

So the first year Rolex isn't a long-format, you can bet I won't be traveling and spectating.

The first year the AEC offers a CCN* and CCN**, you can bet I'll be putting my energy and efforts there.

Never in my life - high school even, for God's sake - have I felt so dismissed and talked down to by a group of people. The drama level was high - meeting had gone on for half an hour and in walks the "Active Riders" who march in like it's Planet of the Apes and sit on this row, and seriously speak to the membership as if they're a bunch of social lepers ... well, you get the point.

I have never in my life seen a group of individuals in such denial as this. One of them did make it a point to speak collectively for the group and said, "we don't read those bulletin boards." As if reading thought-provoking conversation was something only band geeks do.

Robby

[Robby Johnson]

p.s. Thank God for Jimmy Wofford.

[Duramax]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
Let`s say you are 16 years old and have a burning desire to be an all time great 3- day rider, like, say, Bruce, Mark Todd, Ginnie Leng, Lucinda, Blyth, Pippa.
To prove that you MUST HAVE the SAME Mt. Everest that those riders had. You can`t be a Mt. Everest rider on Mount Ascutney (an easy day hike near where I live). It is ALL ABOUT standards.
Lower the standards, crush the dreams and goals of our kids.
That, for me, is the great shame in all of this travesty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denny, you rock. Thats all there is to it. Can you put that excerpt in your next Between Rounds or in a letter to the USEA news?

And like Pol said, how come you always fail to mention yourself when referring to the "long time slightly aged generation of Old School Eventers"? You're an eventing god. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I remember when I was 15 years old and had my very first eventing clinic, and it was with you! It was a very big deal to me, as in my mind you were some sort of Super-hero! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Clinic with Denny (http://community.webshots.com/photo/228903578/228904433MrWTjh)

[BarbB]

First off, Kudos to Heather.
And Denny, you are my hero.
(and not just because you said nice things about my horse once at a clinic http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif)

I find it disturbing that the Chronicle petition is apparently being dismissed as being from a bunch of 'not-involved-in-this-decision' people.
Who do they think make up the majority of the members of the USEA? It's not the famous faces, they are just a handful.
EVERYONE who is involved and wants to be involved in changes to this sport should be heard. OK, so I am never going to compete in a three day, long or short. But one of the reasons I am involved in the sport is that THAT is the pinnacle, that's what one COULD be.

I agree totally with Denny that the greatest wrong being done here is to the future riders.
What about all the up and coming young riders who aspire to be the next Ian Stark or Phillip Dutton or Ginny Elliott?
Should they just abandon their dreams and years of hard work and watch the prize, the goal, just disappear before their eyes?

I think this is all sad, political and there may be decisions made that the sport will never recover from. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

[RAyers]

Hold it, Denny, I'm 40 and sure as hell think the same way you do. For me, I think a lot comes from growing up with a bunch of very old school trainers (e.g. Wilson Dennehy, Dion Dana) folks that taught and rode with Bill Steinkraus, Jimmy Williams, Billy Robertson, etc.

For me the way to beat whoever makes these decisions is with cold, hard facts. I know there are other ways but I suck at the game politik.

I see the trend as one towards 4"*" horses and World Cup/Olympic/Advanced HT horses. Just like there are speed horses, A/O horses and GP horses in the jumpers. It is an increase in specialization that will ultimately lead to the demise of the sport.

I also see an entrenched clique of people that for some reason or another have hitched on to ideas put forth by a world body that is more personality driven than actually interested in the sport.

Reed

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gahawkeye:
Good bye Olympics ---- Hello X-Games!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't finished reading the rest of the thread yet, but had to comment on this because it literally made me laugh out loud! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

It's interesting... I have always been one of the ones saying I wanted eventing to stay in the Olympics. Mostly because I distinctly remember watching the '84 three-day in Los Angeles and being all revved up to go out bombing around novice on my Appy pony. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I'd hate to think that today's Pony Clubbers and up-downers aren't really going to see that.

But hell, maybe the X-Games WOULD be a better fit... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

[3dazey]

"Elite" eventers are unlike elite athletes in any other sport, and they best not forget it. Most, if not all, derive some part of their income from coaching and selling horses to the rest of us lower-level "swill". No one playing on the PGA tour needs to coach a bunch of duffers, so they can thumb their noses at the rest of the populace if they want, it's not going to affect their share of the purse. Not so, you URLs. If you think I'm going to take your crap and come back for more, think again.

I am appalled and offended by the description of the active riders' behavior at the USEA meeting. When hell freezes over will the guilty parties get another dime of my money. (With apologies to deltawave for stealing her "voting with my pocketbook" theme.)

As to RH, he can take a flying leap. Several years ago, a well-known organizer in my area offered to host a * and ** when the three-day in Texas was abruptly cancelled. This was out of the goodness of one person's heart, it would have been a herculean effort at that late date, but it would have been a godsend to many who were trying to qualify for various other things, or who had planned and trained for a 3-day only to be shut out. Well, RH said the organizer's property was "certainly no venue for a 3-day" and promptly squashed all hope...not to mention in a most rude manner. Let me say, that venue is most DEFINITELY a top-caliber venue for a 3-day (if you care about horses, footing & lovely courses). BITE ME, RH, you rude and evil creature!!!

How did this beautiful sport come to fall into the hands of such bad caretakers? Sweet Jesus, maybe it's time for me to move to Great Britain.

[Gnep]

In a way this could be a great chance for our Sport.

We all know that things have gone kinde in the wrong direction, Atlanta, Jerez, Burlington 2004, or Rolex 2 years ago.

Erin I was in LA to. That was a very nice course extremly challenging, but so very ridebal.

I understand that the officials and oh so top rider are scared, those courses just suck and are in bad weather extremly dangerous to ride, some are criminal even in good weather.

I think it is up to us riders to make a point. If we can get the CCI* and CCI** healthy with a lot of entrances than we can put enough presure on organizers and officials to get a CCI***. Money talks, always and shit walks, always.

Since I am a mere youngster, as Reed can confirm, I plan to ride a ton of CCI. Any CCN would have my instant support.
I will not enter in a CCI-M no matter what.

One little thing we could do is trying to ad a One Star and a Two Star to the national champion ship.


Reed I am still going to beat you to the 2 Star, 4 years to go, 3 to 1 Star.

[Laurie@CBF]

Kudos to Heather for reading the petition. The fact that there was some "hostility" only points out that this group is being heard. Take that as a compliment to a job well done so far!

I agree that it is very disheartening to see the disconnect between ULR and LLR. As many others have mentioned even if we enjoy this sport soley as spectators - we do deserve a voice. Our little spectator dollars are important to the sponsors (afterall).

We need to start thinking about the "Field Of Dreams" philosophy.

Build it and they will come.

If we can figure out fund raising opportunities/sponsorships to support the full format 3-day organizers as well as increase (substantially) the prize money awarded at the ***/**** levels - competitors will support these competitions - regardless of the FEI opinion.

[RAyers]

Gnep, yeah we are but mere pups. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bring it on, buddy. Shiver is back to work and this month I hope to head to Texas (if it ever stops raining) for a couple of weeks to get some winter training time! We won't be ready for the CCI at HP in May but hopefully we will be tooling around in the OIs.

Reed

[Heather]

Just want to point out, before it gets out of hand, LOL, that MANY people and ESPECIALLY the BOG of the USEA and Kyra in particular were VERY supportive and "get it". The hostility and dismissal comes froms SOME of the elite riders. Not all of them. There were several who managed to disagree with my viewpoint without being insulting. Not all of them, however. I also do not want to villify Roger Haller in this--I actually think he is in favor of the long format, and his wife Anne wanted to know where to sign. I took the way he phrased that as more of an indicater that we still have some perception issues of just who the petition folks were, not that he personally was dismissive of the cause. And, he doesn't sit alone on that committee and as much of a victim of the riders desires as the rest of the sport.

[ss3777]

Heather, the stars really aligned when you became the "savethe3day" ambassador. Thanks for all that you have done and your continued efforts to try and understand all sides to this story. Your strength and courage is greatly admired.

- a big fan

[emf]

Heather, THANK YOU for having the courage to stand up and lend a voice to our signatures. Margaret Mead was right in her statement to the effect of "never underestimate the power of a small group of determined people to change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Unfortunately we supporters of the long format are on the receiving end of this one. I appreciate your efforts to turn it around!

And Robby, great observation on predicting the rise of CCNs--you've actually given me a glimmer of hope!

[Heather]

Also want to say I am positively red as Rudolph's nose with all the kind words and praise. This was not meant as a thinly veiled attempt to gain praise and admiration, LOL. But thanks anyway. I'm sure many people could have done what I did, and did it better.

Like I said, they made me mad. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Gnep]

One more thought,

What the top officials and, according to Heather and Robin, Riders think about us little riders is pretty much clear.

Hit them were it hurts, the pocket book.

Each of us gets every year those letters requesting donations to the National Team, or support the USEA, or US equestrian. There is always the call for donations.
Quit donating if they don't support you.
Take that envelop and insert the petition or our ads and mail them back. They get 2000 of them mailed back, or more, they will understand.

Those people who down dressed Robin, they need us, if they want to go to big events overseas.
In the end it is us who pay for al of that.

Quit paying. If they are for the short format, don't go to their clincs. IF OC does not support, put him on the list, if Kim does not support put her on the list, if " The Captian " does not support put him on the list.

There are others that support, support them. Just go through the list of signatures if they are not on it, give them a chance to sign, if they don't, don't go to their clinics.

[Gnep]

Heather

Bull S......

It takes a lot of guts and you earned al the praise.

Reed I am bck to Novice this Spring, but hope to be at Training at HP, even if we have to trot in front of the jump. But I bet you my girl will go prelim in Galway 2005.

[Heather]

As centerlope did on the other thread, let me just askgently to direct your ire away from the USEA, and in fact guide your pocketbook TOWARD them. These people ar on our side, AND have the ability to save the three day if no one else wants to. They and their endowment fund can and will do great things for the sport, not the least of which will be provide funding for long format events. So keep them on your Christmas giving list, as it were.

[deltawave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gnep:
There are others that support, support them. Just go through the list of signatures if they are not on it, give them a chance to sign, if they don't, don't go to their clinics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As of about a month ago, this has become my official policy. It's a good thing my favorite trainer signed it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Gnep]

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee,

I want this to be put in the official Coth cronical.

Deltawave and I have agreed, Dezember 7 2004, 18:51 MT

[wanderlust]

Is there any way we can send the Captain back to England and lure Jimmy Wofford back from the Canadian team? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Barnfairy]

As a teenager, I idolized Ginny (Leng) Elliot and Lucinda Green, recognizing in awe the full depth of their accomplishments.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That I`m so out of touch with the 20-40 year olds mystifies me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For what it's worth, Denny, I'm 34, and find this "lowering of the bar" in the sport --and the dumbing down of our society in general-- very disturbing.

It would seem, however, at least in reading the several "save the 3 day" threads on this forum, that there exists a substantial support base overwhelmingly in favor of the long format.

So what gives? Where is this push for the short format really coming from? Smells fishy, if you ask me.

[Lisamarie8]

Heather,

I know you're already crimson, but thank you a million times over. I would have had to have the margaritas with Robby prior to the reading of the petition and he would have had to poke me with way more than sticks... more like a needle followed by a large dosage of compazine.

so again, thank you. Between School FT, searching for PT work and BREA year end stuff I can't offer ALL of my time, but please don't hesitate to gimme a holla' should the need arise and i will give you ALL that i can. (Elane, that goes for you too http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

you're the hizzle,
Lisa D

[deltawave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gnep:
Deltawave and I have agreed, Dezember 7 2004, 18:51 MT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Isn't that somewhere in the book of Revelation? Should we be expecting plagues of locusts next? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[tle]

Ok... taking a short break from stuffing award bags for Saturday.

Heather - you done good, girlfriend! I'm glad they made you mad and that you were there. I'm sure you got the point across to those who actually have something of an open mind that hasn't been completely brainwashed. Thank you. I hated missing the convention and not being there, but I'm glad you were.

Denny - please don't lump all us 20-40yos in one basket!! As a 30-something, you know how I feel about all this. Example exist throughout history where a group has given an inch here and there and soon find themselves in a hole they can't climb out of. It is much easier to eliminate than it is to add. If we give up the fight now, as hard as it may seem, I fear once (as someone quoted me) the "sh#t rolls downhill" it will be a million times harder to get it back.

I was thinking about this whole thing on my drive home tonight and contemplating what I'm going to say (and to whom) at the USEF Meeting next month. Still not sure who the "whom" is -- if anyone has any specific ideas after this past weekend please let me know. But anyone who knows me knows I love quoting movies. This conversation, specifically some of the things Denny has said, brought to mind a quote from A League of their Own...

Of course it's hard! It's SUPPOSED to be hard. It's the hard that makes it great.

If we lose the hard in our sport -- the traditional 3-day -- what will make our sport "great"??

[tle]

PS. I'm still livid as h#ll at the thought that our "National Champions" will be crowned from a freaking glorified horse trial (Fairhill/Foxhall). I understand why you didn't say anything Heather, so please don't take this as a vent AT you... it most certainly isn't. But it bugs the snot out of me that while the FEI has mandated all "championships" be short, why can't we crown OUR national champs from a long format???

Ok... I need to stop and get back to work or I'm going to be up til 1am again tonight.

[ExclusiveKiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gnep:
There are others that support, support them. Just go through the list of signatures if they are not on it, give them a chance to sign, if they don't, don't go to their clinics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As of about a month ago, this has become my official policy. It's a good thing my favorite trainer signed it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wholeheartedly agree, and plan to do so also.

Heather - Thank You so very much for doing this for the sport.

[GreyDawn]

Whoa gang! Heather is correct the crowds at the annual meeting were not hostile. She was brave to get up and speak and I did not hear anyone attack her. Yes the issue has divided people but I thought in most of the meetings people were free to express their concerns, ask questions and to state different ideas.Yes even the ULRiders. So we need to be careful before we accuse people of hostility as a group or crowd. I went to all the open forums except the Board of Governors and in every one there were people passionate about some issue and at times emphatic about their point but I did not see or hear people angry or hostile. Or at least that is my perception. Every group had supporters who openly defended the long format. Robby is correct that some of the elite riders came into the USEA open forum late and filed in like a little clique and then a couple started giving opinions that seemd to represent the group. HOWEVER, there were more riders there in the "elite" category than those few and they were not openly defending either format. I agree with Denny that I do not know how the majority of the ULRiders feel about the formats. Unless people state their opinions we can only assume. Of the riders on the winter training list there were about 11 present unless I did not see the others and I would say I only heard what about half even give an open opinion and only 3-4 seemed to be definate about the short format. I think there are some fairly big names supporting the long format and they said so. Gee don't organizers, USEA officials, former eltie riders etc. count for something? I think so. And I can honestly say I heard a number of the ULriders making cooments in seesions about various other topics and they were intelligent and informed. I think there are many more riders to consider than the few that rode in the Olympics and quite honestly I never heard a couple of the Olympic riders say a word about the formats. Heather did most of then attend and speak up in the Board of Governors meeting and did I miss something? My point is there are big time people on both sides of this issue and we don't really know what most of the 3 star and 4 star riders really think. For what it is worth a large number of the Young Riders from ages 14-21 expressed a desire to ride the long format at the * and ** levels and beyond and I can tell you a few of them have the desire, the ability and the horses to go to the *** and **** levels. Whoever said if people keep riding the long format it has a better chance to survive. My concern is will organizers provide the long format and will people ride in it if offered.
Again that what the market will allow issue that David O frequently mentioned. I really think this whole mess started with issues with Federations from other countries for who knows what reason and now the USA has had to go along. Thus Roger Haller's comment about "this is the way of the future'. I know I heard support for the long format from USEA and that is reflected in those that signed the petition. Please can somone write some history for me so I can understand what stated this whole idea of a change. Was it the Olympics, funding or what?

[msghook]

Heather,
One small correction to your report. Roger Haller did not stand up in front of the Board of Governors on Sunday morning a say that the Eventing Committee would tell Jersey Fresh to run the short format.

The Eventing Committee will do no such thing. What we will do is accede to a request from Jersey Fresh that they be allowed to offer both long and short formats. It is their concern that unless they do so, many top riders will not compete there.

Malcolm

[ponygrl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Reed I am bck to Novice this Spring, but hope to be at Training at HP, even if we have to trot in front of the jump. But I bet you my girl will go prelim in Galway 2005. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so let the NM girls know when Wildfire is ready for her first 3-day ok!

[RAyers]

As I was jumping Shiver around tonight, this was the thought I had. Who gives a rat's ass if Eventing is in the Olympics! What do people remember Andre Aggasi for? His Olympic Gold or his Grand Slam efforts? Do you care that Michael Jordan played in the Olympics or that he lead the Bulls to 6 NBA championships.

The top of Eventing should be the Grand Slam (Rolex, Badminton, Burghley). If we can keep the sponsorship money going, hell even up it to $500K, then the Olympics become a fading memory. IF these venues can be convienced to keep their formats and to resist FEI pressure (hell again, even run them as "unrecognized" using the FEI 2003 rules), the competitors are still going to go because that is where the money is!!!!

Soccer has the World Cup; Golf has the the Grand Slam and the Ryder Cup; Tennis has the Grand Slam; Sailing has the America's Cup; Baseball has the World Series; Hockey has the Stanley Cup and so on. All of these are either in the Olympics or are considered for it and folks just really don't if they are because it is these other challenges that capture people's imaginations. Maybe it is time Eventing did something similar.

It is time the US, Australia, NZ, Britian, said to the FEI the same thing the fish on the plate said to the diner, "Bite me!"

Reed

[Peggy]

Perhaps the FEI dumbing down is not limited to Eventing?

From the December 2004 USDF Connection, p 44 in an article by John Winnett.

"Is the FEI lowering its standards for dressage performance. One is led to believe so from a recent wording change suggesting that the piaffe may now be performed with a hint of forwardness, in contrast to the old rule, which specified that the movement must be executed on the spot. ... Although a few horses are able to achieve this high standard, it should nevertheless be the goal of all riders and trainers. ..."

[denny]

I agree with those who think that, just maybe, Rolex is being handed a golden opportunity out of this fiasco. Just say that Badminton and Burghley DO hold on. Then the Grand Slam of the big three absolutely can become way bigger and more prestigious than any short format champioships, World Championships or Olympics.
Now lets say B and B fold.
Rolex can fold, too, and become just another horse trials, big, yes, but nothing all THAT special. But what if somehow Rolex DOESN`T fold, and remains as the sole pinnacle of world eventing, the "Mt. Everest" that any rider with a flicker of pride wants to "knock off", to quote Hillary.
Could that happen? Because if it could, Rolex would become the Tour de France, Wimbledon, whatever of eventing. It could become even bigger than ever Badminton was, in the 60s and 70s in the glory days of Frank Weldon.
Can we make lemonade out of this FEI lemon???

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAyers:
Soccer has the World Cup; Golf has the the Grand Slam and the Ryder Cup; Tennis has the Grand Slam; Sailing has the America's Cup; Baseball has the World Series; Hockey has the Stanley Cup and so on. All of these are either in the Olympics or are considered for it and folks just really don't if they are because it is these other challenges that capture people's imaginations. Maybe it is time Eventing did something similar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another sport (?) that I've been thinking about A LOT - that has a ton of support and sponsorship in this country is NASCAR. I don't think they really care if they become an Olympic activity - they are doing JUST FINE without. Not sure it's a direct parallel, but something that keeps popping into my head.

[asterix]

Denny, that's a very cool idea, but...
am I missing something?
If there are to be no more 3* events, as Heather suggests, then doesn't that by definition mean that the 4* will have to die as well?? Once the current crop of 3 and 4* riders AND horses retire, how will you prepare for a 4*?
Can you leap from a 2* long to a 4* long? From a 4* "short" to a 4* long??
Sorry if this is an uninformed question -- so far I am only personally experienced with "leaping" from Novice to Training http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Gnep]

Surprisingly Luhmuehlen, that is the Top Event on the Mainland Europe, has anounced that it will run a 4* in 2005.
But over al the trend in Europe is against Long.

I agree with Reed who needs that Olympic farce, except Corporate Sponsors. Just look at al the drug scandals.


Reed it is great to hear that cheevers will be back.

[Backstage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAyers:
Who gives a rat's ass if Eventing is in the Olympics! What do people remember Andre Aggasi for? His Olympic Gold or his Grand Slam efforts? Do you care that Michael Jordan played in the Olympics or that he lead the Bulls to 6 NBA championships.

The top of Eventing should be the Grand Slam (Rolex, Badminton, Burghley). If we can keep the sponsorship money going, hell even up it to $500K, then the Olympics become a fading memory. IF these venues can be convienced to keep their formats and to resist FEI pressure (hell again, even run them as "unrecognized" using the FEI 2003 rules), the competitors are still going to go because that is where the money is!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has been my opinion since this whole fiasco started. We are being bullied into submission and loosing part of our identity to stay in the Olympic Games. And the question is why? Why do we care? What does being an Olympic sport bring us? The only thing I can think of it money.

Every 4 years, we still struggle to get money together to get the darn horses to whatever location so they can run around substandard tracks. We fight to get television coverage so we can share our sport with the world. We fight to stay in the Olympics and give up part of what makes our sport such a feat. I think its time to stop fighting, and time to preserve our sport itself. I fully believe that this is not the end of the road with the Olympics, there will be compromises, more demands. We need to stop while there is still something left.

[BarbB]

Well, reluctantly I have to agree with the idea of just canning participation in the Olympics.
In all the discussions we have had over the years I have always been firmly in the camp that was in favor of Olympic participation and whatever compromises were necessary to keep the sport there.

HOWEVER, I was always in favor of keeping Three-Day Eventing in the Olympics, not some watered-down, politically-correct-for-all-nations, made-for-TV version of the sport.

Time to bail out of the influence of the IOC and save the sport.......or switch to the jumper ring.
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

[ball park]

I have thought on occasion that there is nothing wrong with not being in the olympics if the essence of the event is lost in the process. I admit, however, that I'm not convinced that the long format is sacred.

One reason advanced for eliminating the long format in the olympics is the extra cost. There should also be concern about running the event on a substandard track.

I think consideration should be given to having the olympic three-day run in long format at a facility that regularly hosts events, even if not in the country hosting the rest of the games. Why for instance, shouldn't the three day for the next olympics in China be run in Australia. The last one could have been held in Britain, Germany or France. For that matter, perhaps the whole equestrian competition could be held at a suitable facility if one were not available in the "host "country.

[JER]

Unfortunately, it's not just about the Olympics. Remember in 2002 how the FEI President Infanta Dona Pilar de Bourbon warned that eventing would have to change? She thought the XC courses were too expensive and she wanted to get rid of steeplechase (a phase which she seems to believe is cruel and unnecessary but then, to paraphrase denny, what has she ever accomplished on the back of a horse?).

The modified format was adopted for the Olympics but once that was done, the FEI let it be known that the short format was the future of eventing. Even if eventing leaves the Olympics, there's still the problem of the FEI.

The FEI, BTW, is the organization that frantically argued that Bettina Hoy should keep her placing at the Olympics, despite the fact that she clearly made a very fundamental error.

[KateDB]

Hip Hip Hooray to Heather!!!

I would be so interested to hear what the Aussie's and NZers think of the whole thing. They have only recently gotten their own 4**** on that side of the world. Will they be bullied into this capitulation? Do they have opinions on long vs. short. Afterall, a huge population of the upper level eventing enthusiasts hail from there. I look forward to my next clinic with Heath Ryan to hear his side of things.

btw gnep
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Surprisingly Luhmuehlen, that is the Top Event on the Mainland Europe, has anounced that it will run a 4* in 2005.
But over al the trend in Europe is against Long. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe that when Luhmuehlen announce the running of the 4****, they stated it would be short format, thus following the continental European trend.

[wanderlust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ball park:
I have thought on occasion that there is nothing wrong with not being in the olympics if the essence of the event is lost in the process. I admit, however, that I'm not convinced that the long format is sacred.

One reason advanced for eliminating the long format in the olympics is the extra cost. There should also be concern about running the event on a substandard track. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have heard over and over the cost/land argument for eliminating the long format from the olympics. We realized this year that the long format will probably never again run in the Olympics. What most of us are vehemently against is the bastardizing the traditional format three-day and turning it into the "modified" three day, when the appropriate option would have been to switch the Olympics from a full CCI-O*** to a CIC***.

The FEI/IOC has turned the CCI into a horse trials with a slightly longer XC. Why not at least call it what it is (an international Olympic horse trials), change the Olympic format to the proven parameters of a CIC, and stop messing around with the full-format, tradional three-day event???

I could care less if eventing remains in the Olympics. The Olympics is no longer the pinnacle of the sport... let the Olympics have Reining instead, and we'll have our Rolex/Burghley/Badminton/WEG and preserve the integrity of our sport.

[Heather]

Malcom, that wasn't how I interpreted what he was saying, but cerrtainly I was VERY short on caffeine while he was speaking and will defer to your wisdom on this one.

And Gnep, Luhmulen's (sp?) four star will be short format--and in fact is the competition I understand our team riders are being encouraged to attend instead of Rolex next year.

I too was somebody who firmly believed we should stay in the Olympics no matter what. But on Thursday I didn't raise my hand. I have, with a VERY heavy heart, come to believe that for the welfare of our horses, we shouldn't stay.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Remember in 2002 how the FEI President Infanta Dona Pilar de Bourbon warned that eventing would have to change? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, reading between the lines is several comments made at the USEA meeting, I think that a lot of the impetus for the short format DOES come from "the Infanta".

[wanderlust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) expects all those involved in international equestrian sport to adhere to the FEI’s Code of Conduct and to acknowledge and accept that at all times the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pulled straight from the first article of the FEI's code of conduct. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msghook:
Heather,
One small correction to your report. Roger Haller did _not_ stand up in front of the Board of Governors on Sunday morning a say that the Eventing Committee would tell Jersey Fresh to run the short format.

The Eventing Committee will do no such thing. What we will do is accede to a request from Jersey Fresh that they be allowed to offer both long and short formats. It is their concern that unless they do so, many top riders will not compete there.

Malcolm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for the clarification. My sister was quite concerned when I told her what Heather said. She is aimong for Rolex, but if their are any glitches in the preparation, she wants to have Jersey Fresh (LONG format) as a backup.

Now, we just need to make sure there are enough entries at the long format that the organizers RUN the long format. After all, at Fair Hill, they offered the long format, but not enough people (16?) signed up for it.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What most of us are vehemently against is the bastardizing the traditional format three-day and turning it into the "modified" three day, when the appropriate option would have been to switch the Olympics from a full CCI-O*** to a CIC***. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep. It looks like a horse trial, it acts like a horse trial, MAKE it a horse trial..

[JER]

The Olympic competition is supposed to be a CCI****. So why did hte FEI change to the modified format rather than simply make it a CIC****?

There is no such thing as a CIC****. The FEI Eventing Committee volted against creating the CIC**** designation, as recently as March 2004. The reason cited in the report was "there was no real necessity with the introduction of the possibility to organize a CCI 4 star without steeplechase." In more concise language, this means there's no need for a CIC**** because we now have the short-format CCI****.

This is the FEI, not the IOC, changing our sport.

[NeverTime]

Names, please
We are discussing the reaction Heather got at a public meeting, and a group of URLs have been brought up repeatedly, but not by name. I wasn't there and I would like to know who they were. They appeared at a public meeting, supporting one side of a mulitfaceted issue -- it's not as if any rule of conduct or BB etiquette precludes naming people who appeared at a large public forum in support of a position. I'd like to know who they are, whether I choose to "vote with my pocketbook" for or against them.

[wanderlust]

JER, I was under the impression that the Olympic competition is a 3*, not a 4*. Let me see if I can dig up the info.

[annikak]

Thanks Heather- from the bottom of my non ULR heart!

I have 2 questions that I would appreciate feed back on. Denny, I would love your opinion on this.

First- why NOT have the Olympics be an Advanced HT? Solves a lot of issues I would think. Maybe its then not the apex, but it would still be there for people to enjoy. And maybe because it is easier to understand, we might get more coverage? If there are 13,000 members of USEA, then why worry about the 5 that go? It is a group of people that want to support our team, but we are indeed a group. So what do the other 12,965 want? And would it not be easier (CMP might and I am sure would take exception to this...) to take a CCI horse and get them ready for the CIC then a CIC horse and get them ready for a CCI? At least with the CCI horse, we would know that s/he has endurance and soundness to back him/her up. And then the true ****'s could remain what they are...the true test. I am more in favor of keeping the **** then staying in the olympics, but maybe we can have both? (Yes, I love dessert before dinner!)


And here is the 2nd one....

Have the courses gotten that more more technical? And because as the sport has evolved and we ask more questions of the horses, is that part of the issue? IIRC, the courses that I loved to hear about and watch as a kid (LA for one but less so then others) were more galloping, go at it courses. The TB was champ, and the horses showed a true grit that I think of when I think of the long format. There were not as many questions, the horse was rewarded for jumping boldly and the rider for being a good horseperson. This is where Denny and others that rode those courses vs. the the courses now might have good input.(I could have ridden them...its not an age thing so much as a "i started later then most"- read- kids well into highschool" LOL ) Ralph? what does he think? Denny? Bruce? Torrence? Jane? Phyllis? What is the difference? Have the courses become much harder on the horses because of the questions that we ask now, rather the the test of courage and stamina that we want to ask of the horses?

Wayne Quarrels signed the petition I believe. He is the only other "I " judge besides Roger H I believe in the US. So, we have some pretty influential FEI people in our corner.

Annika

[annikak]

Wanderlust- You are correct; it is a ***. At some point in time, someone deemed it unfair, since the Olympics are a "level playing field" to make it a **** which is that much harder. Hmmmm...

[wanderlust]

Thanks Annika... I thought so. Looks like Sydney was the last Olympic ****.

So basically, we are dumbing down our entire sport so we can continue to participate in something resembling (or in the case of Athens, something easier than) an Advanced horse trials on a new, untested course in a different location every 4 years.

And our fearless leader, Captain Mark, is encouraging this??? Yeesh.

I too, would like to know what riders made Heather and others feel like they didn't belong or shouldn't have a say.

[deltawave]

If I'm not mistaken, the Adelaide **** was held in the short format this year, FWIW.

[BarbB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by annikak:

Have the courses gotten that more more technical? And because as the sport has evolved and we ask more questions of the horses, is that part of the issue? IIRC, the courses that I loved to hear about and watch as a kid (LA for one but less so then others) were more galloping, go at it courses. The TB was champ, and the horses showed a true grit that I think of when I think of the long format. There were not as many questions, the horse was rewarded for jumping boldly and the rider for being a good horseperson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have wondered about this also.
Has the sport already changed fundamentally from being the big bold galloping courses to being the technical courses we see now?
Are the ULRs just resigned to ANOTHER change?

I know when I watch old tapes of those courses and horses like Priceless I get chills and wish I could do that. The more modern courses, quite honestly, make me glad I'm not doing that.
Is there anyway to go back? Can the galloping tracks be defended as less dangerous than the modern technical tracks? Were they easier on the horses? Would they be easier to defend against a dumbing down of the whole upper level of competition?

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[retreadeventer]

Research: I would like to see TPR and blood gas panel/plus CBS/full panel inc. SGOT, etc. on all horses running at Advanced horse trials/cci, cic, whatever in the US. At 10 min. before off on XC; at finish of XC; and 60-90 min. AFTER finish of XC. I think these results would be simple to perform, easily logged and crunched and would be telling indicators of the competition severity, weather, and fitness from one end of the season to the next. And we would have the medical research. Next year do the prelim horses at both the cci's and horse trials. Then compare. It's my guess the blood and tpr's would look better at the end of the season. Reason: conditioning. Guess that's the bottom line. Don't need as much for the short as the long I would guess. Conditioning is time and money. Just my thoughts.

[Janet]

The upper level riders were all sitting together, and didn't stand up when they spoke. So, unless you knew thier voices well, it was difficult to tell who said what.

Karen O'Connor was particularly outspoken in favor of the short format. But I don't think she was the one who made the comment about people who don't ride at that level...

[free]

Well could you just tell us which ULRs were present? I know that Heidi White couldn't be there.

[Janet]

The members of the Olympic team were there, as was Gina Miles. Other than that, I am no good at recognizing faces. But some of them didn't say anything one way or the other.

[della]

If I remember correctly, alot of the hoopla resulted from the fact that to do a long format competiton, one needed ALOT of land as well as alot of money to stage it . This was a major concern to the Greeks and an even bigger one to the Chinese, who know nothing of the sport. It was and remains primarily a financial issue IMHO. Since the FEI has a boatload of Europeans on it-- they issued an edict and expected the world to just quietly accept it. No go amigos. I support telling the IOC bye-bye and staying with tradition.

[Sannois]

OK I think I asked this before, But My husband wants to know, if we dont do the Olympics WHY do we need the FEI???

[TheOrangeOne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gnep:
Hit them were it hurts, the pocket book.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oooh... I just got as glorious image of kicking mark phillips "where it hurts" *giggle* As for my opinion... Screw the olimpics. Screw the FEI. Bring on the X-games and the CCN's I am willing.

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by free:
Well could you just tell us which ULRs were present? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To the best of my recollection, the following ULRs were present along with some of the notes I scribbled as a few of them were talking. If anyone remembers what was said differently, please correct me.<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>David O'Connor (full format particularly at one and two stars, full format at four star) - creates something that is unique, unusual, and a destination event. <LI>Karen O'Connor (full format one and two stars, short format above that) - longevity of the horses, marketability of the sport, and qualifications necessary to advance up through the levels<LI>Amy Tryon (short format) - if horses are to develop a following of fans, they need to be able to stay in the sport for many years and compete many times each season<LI>Darren Chiacchia (short format) - welfare of his horses, people who don't ride at this level don't know what they are talking about<LI>Bobby Costello - riders still working on figuring out what works for their horses under new format<LI>John Williams<LI>Julie Richards<LI>Will Faudree<LI>Sarah Kozumplik<LI>Kerry Millikin<LI>Mike Huber<LI>Jan Thompson<LI>Kim Severson<LI>Gina Miles[/list]

[deltawave]

Umm, why do horses need fans? Yeah, I know the sport is trying to become "popular", but let's be real...it won't ever be "NASCAR". And do we want it to be? Yecch.

[3dazey]

Oh, I should have guessed it would be the most high holy chowchow who thumbed his nose at the LLRs. The same chowchow who, the weekend before the meeting, missed the finish flags at a preliminary event and had the balls to complain that they were placed unfairly (they weren't). http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What a piece of work.

[Sannois]

Amen Lynn, That is a SAD reason! I wont remember Short format horses, but I remember Grey goose, Poltroon, Bluestone, Might Tango, Priceless, Charisma, god the list is endless!

[Sannois]

OMG I just read that!! thats what DC said??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Nice! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

[slp2]

DW: I posted something earlier (pg 3?) that I highly doubted that the horses will be the celebrated heroes in the new, dumbed down format. More likely it will be the BN riders. After all--they can ride multiple horses in each event. In fact, they can ride more now that they don't have the "hassle" of the R&T and steeplechase. This may give some insight as to why these individuals would be in favor of the changes.

[Janet]

What canterlope said.

That is who I THOUGHT made the comment about "people who don't ride at that level". But I wasn't sure so I wasn't going to give a name.

Canterlope, who was the woman (sitting just in front of the team riders) who made the comment about "It can't be ALL about making it easier for the horses, otherwise we take it abck all the way to the lower levels"? I got the impression she was also an upper level rider. But I am no good at figuring out who is who.

[NeverTime]

Thanks for sharing the names and giving the rest of us an idea of what people said.
I'm all for horses' welfare, but to echo someone else, exactly how much longer would Karen O'Connor like her upper-level horses to last? Or maybe, her comments are telling about exactly what lengths (financially and medically) URLs go to to keep their top horses going. I once heard a URL comments about one of his top horses being "held together with duct tape," a reference to just how lame and arthritic it really was, but all the things being done to keep it going. Maybe not requiring them to contest so many 4*s would lengthen their HEALTHY competitive lives.
As for what Amy said about creating stars, I don't buy that. For another racing analogy, people know Smarty Jones because he won two jewels of the Triple Crown, not because he won whatever G1 Stakes races he also might have won.
I know who won Rolex and Foxhall; couldn't tell you who won the CIC*** at Galway, Rebecca Farms or NOrth Georgia. Not to take anything away from those events, but they're like G1 races -- a big deal when you are involved, but not a huge part of the public conciousness.
Maybe if the Grand Slam continues in the long format, it will become our Triple Crown and will grow in popularity, as Denny suggested. Then the Olympics can be a short-format horse trial that derives its prestige simply from being the Olympics, not from the true difficulty of the competition. It's like that already anyways, isn't it, in many sports including eventing?

[Janet]

We "need the FEI" for all International competitions. Not just the Olympics, but Pan Ams, World Championships, WEG, and ANY International competition.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the rules for Rolex, Burghley, Bromont, Punchestown, Adelaide, etc. were all DIFFERENT? And if you had to deal with all the (different) membership requirement of the national governing body in each country?

[bambam]

Well DC and CMP can establish their own little island kingdom where they sit around and tell each other how much better they are than the smurfs and while they are at it they can bite me!
Sorry I know that is not productive- Disagree, fine but don't dismiss us because of some misplaced sense of superiority- ok phew- that is out of my system now http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So how long is the Infanta in that position? Are there terms? And is it, please oh please, up soon?

[Robby Johnson]

Here's an idea too ... why not tap into the fast-gaining popularity of the World Cup (CIC*** format) and have the World Cup at the Olympics every four years?

I know it would violate major IOC rules, but why not remove the team competition from the equation and just let everyone qualified go to the Olympics/World Cup and compete?

That would certainly increase attendance and spectatorship!

Robby

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Karen O'Connor (full format one and two stars, short format above that) - longevity of the horses, marketability of the sport, and qualifications necessary to advance up through the levels
Amy Tryon (short format) - if horses are to develop a following of fans, they need to be able to stay in the sport for many years and compete many times each season
Darren Chiacchia (short format) - welfare of his horses, people who don't ride at this level don't know what they are talking about <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am so grateful that someone finally posted these perspectives, which I share.

I'd love to see the four traditional ****s (including the Aussie one) become the Tour de France of the sport, an analogy someone used very early on in this thread. But for the health and growth of the sport, I am firmly on the side of the short format elsewhere.

It isn't about shunning the traditions of the sport. It's about survival, growth and competition.

I would dearly love to see, as KO states, "stars" arise in our sport--but it is TRUE that event horses simply cannot compete that often at the "highest" levels that make them stars if those levels are the traditional three day. That was fine when things were more by-the-seat-of-your-pants: riding and organizing and promoting and affording the sport.

But now everything is becoming so much more sophisticated.

You know who I'd like to hear more from: the OWNERS OF UPPER LEVEL HORSES.

Yup, the HORSES, not the riders. I've met a few URLs and can't say I've fallen in love with some of their attitudes (some yes, some NO NO NO!), but they aren't really the ones footing the bill.

As an OWNER, I like the short format. I hope it will hold down the costs, allow my horses to develop with less wear and tear, give them more chances to compete, more divisions to compete in and more money to compete for. I hope MORE events originate at facilities which can integrate perhaps a shorter or more twisty track (hopefull, with good footing) and perhaps less stabling requirements. MORE events might mean more competitors--and more competitors mean more demand for event horses and the trainers, riders and breeders who produce them.

I believe, overall, the short format equals more opportunity.

I grew up in an area where you could hack for miles and miles. When I evented as a teenager, I never once thought about WHERE to condition. The fact that increasingly, riders have to actually ship their horses out to condition sufficiently (and I can only imagine how much more demanding that is for the **** and ***). All that shipping also a risk and stressful.

And I do think that that is what someone meant when they implied that you have to ride at that level to understand why some would prefer the short format. Sure, if you are in a horse mecca, it's a breeze. But what if you AREN'T?

If you aren't, then this sport is just not for you, is it? Not in its current format. So, like at the 2000 Olympics when every single rider on the team lived in or near Middleburg, VA, the current state of eventing simply excludes too many from reaching what is defined as "the top" of the sport--and that includes riders from other countries. Why should just the landed gentry have the pleasure of this sport? Why should only those with access have a shot at reaching "the top"?

Redefine "the top," which I think is what the short format is about at heart, at you open the sport up to more participants (horses, riders, owners, even sponsors--since who wants to sponsor a horse or rider who only competes once or twice at the "top" level--that's not much exposure for your product or business).

Why not support a "superhorse" special category of ****, but let the sport have its short format and GROW WITH IT!

[cweimer]

pwynn, what you're describing (to me, at least) sounds A LOT like horse trials - the good old CIC. Can you explain what you perceive the difference to be, and why you support the short format instead of the CIC?

[frugalannie]

(Frugalannie kicking herself because she promised to stay out of this one)

One question: If any ULRs thought the long format was detrimental to their horses, why the heck were they riding in them?

They could have been show jumpers or dressage riders or field hunters or drivers. Instead they chose to participate in a sport at the highest levels which they now say is too taxing, without any research supporting a change in their position.

Methinks something is rotten in the state of eventing!

[3dazey]

So it all comes back to $$$. If you want to compete at the top level, you need $$$...unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you're going to have to depend on a sponsor or an owner who want to see some return for their investment, horses need to run more often for more $$$, ergo the short format.

Too bad there aren't MORE wealthy owners and sponsors who have actually prepared a horse for and ridden in a CCI. That's when you know it's the pinnacle. That's when all the training, the hardships, the money spent are all worth it. There just is no other feeling like it and no sport we share with the horse even comes close. Now THAT's what moves me. Even when I was a kid and a 3-day was still just a goal in my future, I remember watching the steeplechase at a CCI* and I just had chills and tears in my eyes...it was absolutely the best.

Guess it's CCI for us amateurs and CIC for the pros. Too bad. I won't travel to see a CIC (whether you try to trick me by calling it a CCI short format or not). Tell me where to send my money to support Rolex**** and the check is written.

[GotSpots]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You know who I'd like to hear more from: the OWNERS OF UPPER LEVEL HORSES.
* * *
As an OWNER, I like the short format. I hope it will hold down the costs, allow my horses to develop with less wear and tear, give them more chances to compete, more divisions to compete in and more money to compete for. I hope MORE events originate at facilities which can integrate perhaps a shorter or more twisty track (hopefull, with good footing) and perhaps less stabling requirements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I've owned an Advanced horse, who was consistently in the ribbons at both Advanced, Intermediate, and at a two star. Did alot of his conditioning work too. As an OWNER, I can't say that the short format meant one bit of difference in cost, conditioning, or fitness work. Not one bit. Our horses, and those of others in the same program, went through essentially the same conditioning work for the short format as for the long format. We did the same schooling, swimming, and competitions to ramp up. And we did the same level of vet work to keep these horses fit, happy, and going. We weren't alone either. Maybe it'll change over time, but so far, it's pretty much a wash.

I don't, frankly, see the difference in cost as an owner. I do see the change in the sport, and I don't like it. And I do see an increased wear and tear on the horses from the idea that they can do more of these bastardized short-formats in the same period of time, rather than having a turnout/be a horse period after a real three day.

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One question: If any ULRs thought the long format was detrimental to their horses, why the heck were they riding in them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they had to?

Look, I'm not inclined to just IGNORE what some of these riders are saying and pretend that I know better--which is what I think some here SEEM to sound like they are doing. That might be why SOME (no, not all) of the URLs at the meeting may have had not the best attitudes about the petition (not that I agree with them having bad attitudes).

The problem is that, I think, we tend to be tunnelvisioned. Karen and Amy and Darien's comments show, to me, a willingness to see beyond the current to the what COULD be the future.

Everyone here can only see a future that is negative. I have seen not one person (who is against the new format) even TRY to address the advantages of that format. THAT is tunnelvision--whether you agree or disagree, it is healthy and more encouraging (for those who might want to communicate with you) if you can play your devil's advocate, see how the other side might see things.

One person's experience (like yours, Got Spots) is not evidence of any fact or facts. But when you hear riders who have developed not one, not two, not three, but many upper level horses (and it is their owners I'd like to hear from as well, obviously), you have to give them some respect (if you don't, sorry, but from my perspective, I loose respect for YOU--which I think, again, might have been what happened with some at the meeting).

One more thing: access doesn't necessarily mean money. Please keep in mind the kind of terrain and footing that is necessary to condition a horse to the top levels. A lot of people have no choice as to where they must live--having nothing to do with how much money they have. The fact is that the short format "may" (and I don't know either) require a more feasible conditioning routine than the long format...and prepping the horse "may" be possible under a different set of conditions.

I think it would be helpful with this issue for people jsut TRY to play devil's advocate. Just TRY. Maybe then, something constructive can come from this and not just a lot of anger and hard feelings.

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Because they had to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didn't - they could ride in horse trials.

pwynn, I'd still love to hear an answer to my question above. But if you don't want to answer, that's okay.

I DO think people are trying to understand the merits of the short format - hence the move to research. It is somewhat disheartening to many of us to see folks jump on the bandwagon of getting rid of true three day events WITHOUT doing any research. That's all.

But really, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the actual difference between a short-format and a horse trial - as an owner.

[Janet]

Conditioning.

I have heard two theories.

One is that youy need to do EXACTLY the same conditioning for a short format as for a long format. So no savings there.

The other theory is that you need to do less distance work, but more speed work- which translated to more trailer trips to the racetrack- and MORE expense.

I have not heard anyone suggest a LESS time consuming or LESS expensive conditioning regime for the short format.

And if you could, indeed, do more competitions per year, then, if you were going for year end standings, then you would NEED to do more competitions, (not less), and thus more expense.

All FEI competitions require controlled stabling - CIC and both long and short CCI- so no saving there.

And I don't see the organizers reducing the entry fees significantly for the short format.

Nope. No matter how I look at it, I see "same cost for the owner" or "higher costs for the owner."

[RAyers]

Janet is right on.

Dr. Kohn sent me a long and wonderfully detailed message explaining her experiences with long formats. I am still digesting all that she has said but from what she has said, it appears that the horses at the upper levels appear to need to just as fit as ever. The difference between the short format at Rolex and the Olympics was the course, not the horses. In other words, the short format may be just as HARD as a CCI but trainers are still figuring that out. At the same time, the "warm-up" strategy (Dr. Kohn's specialty) for the horses in short format has yet to still be defined. Again, this is something that trainers have to figure out.

From my perspective at the moment the implications are that the CIC/short format has little beneficial effect on the long-term training and use of the animal unless the courses are simplified. It sure does appear to me that horses will need as much conditioning and care.

Reed

[wanderlust]

Ahhh... a compelling vision supporting the short format from pwynn, who admitted last month that she didn't even UNDERSTAND the workings of a 3-day, and was a hands-off owner who hadn't seen her horse go in 2 years. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by pwynn:
You know who I'd like to hear more from: the OWNERS OF UPPER LEVEL HORSES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't, frankly, see the difference in cost as an owner. I do see the change in the sport, and I don't like it. And I do see an increased wear and tear on the horses from the idea that they can do more of these bastardized short-formats in the same period of time, rather than having a turnout/be a horse period after a real three day <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by pwynn:
One person's experience (like yours, Got Spots) is not evidence of any fact or facts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
She says she wants to hear from owners of upper level horses, but when Spot's position was different than what she was hoping for, she marginalized the response to "Well, you are only ONE owner." Janet's sister owns and rides a ***/**** horse- does her opinion not count either? Well, to extrapolate that, pwynn, not only are you only one owner, but your horse is only running prelim, so your opinion and experience REALLY doesn't count. Just ask Darren Chiachia. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Lets get some things straight, pwynn. First off, his name is Darren. Not Darien. Secondly, not all ULRs are behind this movement towards the short format. And I hold far more respect for the likes of Denny Emerson and Jimmy Wofford, legends of the sport and huge supporters of retaining the traditional 3-day, than I do for many of today's ULR, and that includes Karen O and Darren C. Third, these horses all run multiple horse trials and CIC's between the couple three-days they do a year- they are not sitting on the farm not competing for months on end.

So... since the short format takes the same exact conditioning as a full format, and most riders warm-ups including a good blow-out of a gallop to mimic what a horse previously did on steeplechase, are you really saving the horse any wear and tear? And should you really be running more modified 3-days than you would full three days? I would think not.

Ugghhhh.

[Laurie@CBF]

I think that a lot more research needs to be done before any statement is made that the short formats are going to be easier on the horses.

While the steeplechase can be considered grueling it is a course of similar jumps over relatively level terrain. A good horse can get into a nice rhythm and "cruise". Fast (fit) horses with an efficient galloping style are rewarded. Injuries are more often related to lack of fitness. I know that a major argument is that this phase adds to the fatigue factor for later phases - but the jury is still out - IMO.

The new formats of the CC phase require a lot of adjustments with dramatic changes in terrain as well as twisting tight turns. Adding a longer distance with more of these efforts could possibly result in different types of injuries - but may not reduce the number or severity as people now predict.

As a breeder and owner I want the option of having my horses compete at the ultimate level of Eventing.

[deltawave]

Where is the proof that horses doing exclusively short-format events will compete more frequently, and for a longer career, than horses who are currently doing long-format events? If the amount of conditioning is <span class="ev_code_RED">THE SAME</span> for each format (a number of riders have said as much) then how can horses doing short-format events compete more often? Arguably it is the CONDITIONING WORK that takes a toll on an upper level horse as much as the events themselves...are upper level owners going to put their horses in 3-4 CII****'s (concours incomplet internationale) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif a year just because they think they CAN? With NO RESEARCH? That is just plain crazy, and--dare I say it--probably ABUSIVE.

[RAyers]

I suspect Eventing will go through a couple of years with relatively large numbers of horses breaking down because we will all be trying to figure out how to train for these competitions. It is sad to think that horses will be sacrificed on the "alter" to gain this knowledge. In the end we will revert back to the standard training practices we use now for the CCI. I suspect the data after it get compiled and analysed will point out the same thing.

At least that is my hypothesis.

Reed

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
CII****'s (concours incomplet internationale) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

You win!

[deltawave]

Alas, I can't take credit for the pun...someone else posted it a while back. Brilliant, though, isn't it? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Gry2Yng]

wanderlust - my thoughts exactly.

[SwizzleStick]

It is hardly surprising that DC supports the short format given that his "superstar horse" has a tough time making it around a CCI long. Add to that the fact that his horse was hardly what one would call "sound" at the Olympics. Hmmmm. Which format would you support?

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
You know who I'd like to hear more from: the OWNERS OF UPPER LEVEL HORSES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pwynnnorman, I find it interesting that you say you want to hear from the owners of upper level horses, but when GotSpots (who does fit this description) gives you her views, you respond by saying that her experience is not evidence of any fact or facts. In my very humble opinion, you have just demonstrated a classic example of ignoring what some people are saying and pretending that you know better. Or is it that you really want to hear from the owners, but only those that happen to agree with your position?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I grew up in an area where you could hack for miles and miles. When I evented as a teenager, I never once thought about WHERE to condition. The fact that increasingly, riders have to actually ship their horses out to condition sufficiently (and I can only imagine how much more demanding that is for the **** and ***). All that shipping also a risk and stressful.

And I do think that that is what someone meant when they implied that you have to ride at that level to understand why some would prefer the short format. Sure, if you are in a horse mecca, it's a breeze. But what if you AREN'T?

If you aren't, then this sport is just not for you, is it? Not in its current format. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OMG! You mean that Eventing is not an entitlement. That in its current format, it takes dedication, hard work, sacrifice, skill, and the like to participate and be sucessful, and it's not going to be served to you on a silver platter. That just because you want to participate doesn't mean that the whole sport of Eventing is going to change and revolve around you. Well, just slap me silly and color me purple.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, like at the 2000 Olympics when every single rider on the team lived in or near Middleburg, VA, the current state of eventing simply excludes too many from reaching what is defined as "the top" of the sport--and that includes riders from other countries. Why should just the landed gentry have the pleasure of this sport? Why should only those with access have a shot at reaching "the top"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh give me a break, willya. The huddled masses clamoring to event are being oppressed by the landed gentry? I don't think so.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Redefine "the top," which I think is what the short format is about at heart, at you open the sport up to more participants (horses, riders, owners, even sponsors--since who wants to sponsor a horse or rider who only competes once or twice at the "top" level--that's not much exposure for your product or business). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I, for one, would much rather sponsor a horse who competes at the top of our game once or twice a year as opposed to a horse that gets pounded into the ground just for the sake of some egocentric idea that exposing him to the general public week after week will get him a following. Why? Because that horse doesn't give a d@mn about fame and fortune. It won't break his heart if he doesn't make the cover of Practical Horseman or Eventing magazine. It will break his heart if I, as the person who has been given the incredible honor of being his caretaker and in whom he has placed his trust, puts his health and welfare second to the fame and glory my business or product will gain at his expense.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why not support a "superhorse" special category of ****, but let the sport have its short format and GROW WITH IT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why not leave Eventing alone and go start some other sport for those who feel the short format better suits their needs? Then you could take your own advice and grow with it.

[wanderlust]

Amen, swizzle and canterlope. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[Heather]

Pwynn, as the owner of a pro's horse that we hope will be an adanced horse in the future, I've done a LOT of thinking about the other side of the argument. I've also been involved throughout the careers of other advanced horses, including one that I started riding about 60 days after it was broke, competed through the lower levels, and then became the groom while a "real" rider took him the rest of the way. The rest of the way was 10th at Rolex, BTW. I was there when his career ended too. I've groomed for several advanced horses in fact, at several CCI's. Been involved in every aspect of the sport, even if I'm not an ULR.

So, from that perspective, I COMPLETELY understand, and even applaud the desire of riders to preserve their horses, and know firsthand the heartbreak of that moment when you realize their time is over. I think it is always in the best interests of horseman to continually examine things which affect the welfare of the horses. That being said, since absolutely no evidence exists proving that one format is better for equine welfare, I don't know how anyone can possibly make a judgement one way or the other. You explain to me, as a college professor, how one can make statements of facts, without facts. If one of your students turned in a research paper with this total lack of research and fact, you'd bounce 'em out on their ear. Why not demand that same scrutiny for something this important?

And if, as the anecdtoal evidence seems to show, that isn't any easier, and is in fact more difficulton the horses, then I wonder if it's OK by you to sacrifice thehorses on the alter of progress.

In terms of the changes to the sport as part of some future vision of the sport--I got the same spiel from others. But you know who all this influx of marekting prowess and money benefits? The owners? Well, why not ask the show jumping owners. The ones who routinely pay 6 or 7 figures for top horses for their riders, 4 or five figures a month in training and boarding bills, and four or five figures in show entries. Sure, they have prize money, that must cover a whole eighth of their monthly bills. So, as an owner, I don't see any benefit coming to me--just increased costs.

No, the people that will benefit are the riders--the ones who will earn commisions on the sale of the six and seven figure horses, who will be able to charge 10x more for board and training, and be able to ride those top dollar horses. Of course, the pool of owners will be smaller, as the traditional event horse owners are driven out by the skyrocketing costs, but since all this marvelous marketing will be working, I guess the millionaires will be lining up to buy them horses.

I think the World Cup series is a fine idea. I think exploring other ways to promote the sport is a fine idea. I think ripping out the heart and soul of the sport to benefit a few people and in the name of expansion and marekting is an abomination.

[Gry2Yng]

FWIW, the biggest topic during the active riders meeting (after CMP schedule for Winter Training) was how to go about syndicating horses. Does that scare anyone?

[deltawave]

Syndication, television coverage, horses with fan clubs and national recognition...THIS is what we're shooting for in eventing? Ugh. If I wanted any of that, I would've stuck with the jumpers.

It sounds like a lot of today's BNR's are a little too self-satisfied, thinking that it's "their" sport and to hell with us lowly smurfs who dare to have an opinion. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif One can only hope that the careers of these a**holes will be a "short format" as well. I wish nobody any particular ill will, but it is to be hoped that these folks will get a wake up call as to who is buying their Blundstones!

I swear, every time I get an email or snail mail announcing a clinic from now on I'm going to pointedly send my regrets if the clinician is anti-long-format, and I'm going to say WHY I will spend my clinic dollars elsewhere.

I wish I'd booked a breeding to Windfall--I'd cancel it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[deltawave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Please keep in mind the kind of terrain and footing that is necessary to condition a horse to the top levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While most of us would give anything to have idyllic, rolling hills and miles of old turf, the fact is that horses are gotten fit in indoor arenas, if necessary. Eventing isn't about taking advantage of an ideal horse, barn, set of tack, or geographical location...it's about succeeding with the horse you have, with the talent you have (even if it's precious little, in my case!) and with the ingenuity that eventers are known for.

[Duramax]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
We "need the FEI" for all International competitions. Not just the Olympics, but Pan Ams, World Championships, WEG, and ANY International competition.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the rules for Rolex, Burghley, Bromont, Punchestown, Adelaide, etc. were all DIFFERENT? And if you had to deal with all the (different) membership requirement of the national governing body in each country? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... can we just universally get rid of the FEI and make our own organization to take over in its place? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[pwynnnorman]

I don't think I've as yet made any distinction between them. What I hear is that the short format will not pound the horses so much and thus they may last longer and thus also be able to compete more. I also hear that the short format will be less expensive to offer, and so there may, as a result, be more competitions available.

I most definitely, as an owner and a breeder, want event horses to have long, distinguished careers with many opportunities to shine. The people I try to involve in the sport also would rather watch and cheer for a horse in a sport whose scoring is simpler and challenges more visible to the uninitiated (it's tough for them to understand the "endurance" part of the three-day--WE know it, respect it, even love it for the way it enables the TB to excell, but outsiders don't quite get it (the "why" of roads and tracks and steeplechase, for example). All they see (my guys, not necessarily anyone else's) is more stress and strain on the horse--and hence more risk for their supporting dollars.

Sure, research will help identify whether the short format will cause more harm, but I doubt it because riders, in general, aren't stupid. They'll adjust. I think researching into the options for the short format, though, would also be appropriate. For example, I'd love to know more about what course designers are thinking when it comes to developing short format cross country courses that retain (or at least attempt to retain) the same weight (or something close to it) that x-c had with respect to stadium and dressage. I'm sure that if folks put their minds to it, the creative, think-out-of-the-box types will come up with a challenge that is worthy of the sport, including its traditional emphasis on x-c.

cweiner, if you think about professionals and the pressures placed on them to distinguish themselves and their horses (for their owners and/or for sales and/or for whatever reasons keep them in business), they often do NOT have a choice, not as individuals. Few can pick and choose to the extent that, say, Kim Severson does. If they have goals--or their owners have goals (that's the tough one, probably--they HAVE to do certain things. No, I know for a fact that sometimes, pros have very little choices in what they must do.

[wanderlust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
I wish I'd booked a breeding to Windfall--I'd cancel it! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hee hee... after I saw his name attached to the "you don't ride at this level so you aren't allowed an opinion" quote, I thought to myself, "Self, you will never again give Mary in Area 1 a hard time for any snide remarks she aims at Darren. In fact, you will chuckle along, knowing now that she's probably right." http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[deltawave]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I most definitely, as an owner and a breeder, want event horses to have long, distinguished careers with many opportunities to shine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define "distinguished". Does it mean lots of ribbons, or could it also be defined as "a horse that could handle the long format"? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The people I try to involve in the sport also would rather watch and cheer for a horse in a sport whose scoring is simpler and challenges more visible to the uninitiated (it's tough for them to understand the "endurance" part of the three-day...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno, I think maybe we need to give the "uninitiated" a little more credit. I didn't event until I was almost in my 30's, but even as a 4H kid who could barely post the trot I understood what a three day event was and how it was different than a Horse Trial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure, research will help identify whether the short format will cause more harm, but I doubt it because riders, in general, aren't stupid. They'll adjust. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But don't you think this is a little "bass-ackwards": doing the research AFTER the decision has been made? It absolutely floors me how much justification is going into the short format AFTER THE FACT, when just about NONE was provided beforehand. A fait accompli if I ever saw one, and now everyone's scrambling to make the square peg fit in the round hole.

[Duramax]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by pwynnorman:

I believe, overall, the short format equals more opportunity.

I grew up in an area where you could hack for miles and miles. When I evented as a teenager, I never once thought about WHERE to condition. The fact that increasingly, riders have to actually ship their horses out to condition sufficiently (and I can only imagine how much more demanding that is for the **** and ***). All that shipping also a risk and stressful.

And I do think that that is what someone meant when they implied that you have to ride at that level to understand why some would prefer the short format. Sure, if you are in a horse mecca, it's a breeze. But what if you AREN'T?

If you aren't, then this sport is just not for you, is it? Not in its current format. So, like at the 2000 Olympics when every single rider on the team lived in or near Middleburg, VA, the current state of eventing simply excludes too many from reaching what is defined as "the top" of the sport--and that includes riders from other countries. Why should just the landed gentry have the pleasure of this sport? Why should only those with access have a shot at reaching "the top"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that you support the "Equal Opportunity-izing" of the Olympics? So you end up with, for example what happend in a swimming event in Sydney, where an "Olympic" swimmer had to be rescued by a life-guard. (Thats something I never thought about... lifeguards at the Olympics!!) He was from a tiny little country in Africa, perhaps? Can't remember exactly. He had never swam in a real-life concrete lined pool where you couldn't touch the bottom. At home for practice he only had access to a murky pond. The lifeguard anyways, had to jump in and save him b/c he couldn't complete that lap. So lets throw qualifications and such to the wayside just so every little country can have a participant in the sport and not get its feelings hurt. While we are at it, lets lower the standards for the actual event so the participant might be able to do well so that we can all hold hands at the end of the day and sing Kumbaya together. And they all lived happily ever after, Tra-la-la-la-la... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif


Anyone who wants to ski in the winter Olympics probably doesn't belly-ache and b*tch about having to have access to a mountain with snow... its a given. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif So if you want to be competitive as an Olympic level event rider, its a given that you'll suck it up and go where you need to.

[Sannois]

Gee heres a question, Maybe someone from the Good ole days of eventing can answer it. Why were these concerns never adressed back in the 80's Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the bruce Davidsons and Torrance Watkins and Denny Emersons of the eventing world have horses that lasted well into their teens. And they were as strong and fit as any upper level horse today. Wasn't it one of Matt Ryans Horses, Khiba Tic Toc or one of those that was doing Badminton and Burley at 18?? Were they any less concerned about saving their horses?? This whole thing is lost on me. To me some of these riders who are following this direction are like lemmings ... Isn't it really about money?? I wish some had the conviction to stand up and say WHY its better! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[UNCeventer]

Wow- I am in the middle of finals and just got persuaded to read all the madness. I havent read through all of it, but have read the last 4 pages.

All I can say is that I am extremely disheartened at the outcome- and dim (and getting dimmer) light at the end of the tunnel.

I also wanted to add that I have just lost all respect for Darren C.!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[MischiefMaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by UNCeventer:
Wow- I am in the middle of finals and just got persuaded to read all the madness. I havent read through all of it, but have read the last 4 pages.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I too am in the middle of finals, and I should really being typing a paper (and I am intermitently)! But what am I doing you ask? Well, I'm obviously typing up and reading posts on COTH instead. I keep getting sucked back to see the new inputs and converstations going on in this topic!

[Mary in Area 1]

OK folks, I cannot keep my fingers quiet one more second!

First of all, thank you Wanderlust, for finally seeing the light. I've been SO wanting to say "I told you so" about Darren, but I've about burst at the seams.

Secondly, some of you may know (and many probably don't) that I was the owner and sponsor of an Advanced CCI horse for many years, and with two different riders. He won Morven Park, Fairhill and several other horse trials at the Advanced level, but it was his training, conditioning and competition at Checkmate, Rolex and Fairhill CCI's that we considered the pinnacle of his career.

I participated in his trot sets, gallops, and FREEZING cold full-day trips to gallop on the beach in NEW ENGLAND to get him ready for his spring 3-day. I groomed him for his trot-ups. I iced him in the vet box. I prayed for him at the finish line. I walked him for hours and hours. I poulticed his legs. And I cold hosed his legs for more hours than many of you have even sat on a horse.

When he injured his suspensory, it was whether he could come back and do another CCI that we really cared about. The COMPLETION ribbon from Fairhill CCI*** that he earned after his injury is FRAMED in my living room. I don't even know where his other blue ribbons are!

At one point in his career, I was offered a great deal of money for him as an equitation horse. My husband and I thought it over very seriously, then refused the offer. He was put on this earth to be an ultimate equine athlete, not Barbie's rocking horse.

This same horse (at 15.1 hands if his feet were very long) has completed two CCI* in his very late teens, and is still going sound and strong at 21 years old.

Pwynn--does MY opinion count???

[Arcadien]

&gt;&gt;This same horse (at 15.1 hands if his feet were very long) has completed two CCI* in his very late teens, and is still going sound and strong at 21 years old.
Pwynn--does MY opinion count???&lt;&lt;
***

Holy h**l, it sure does for me! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Coming into this late, but have to say,

Heather, you rock.

TLE, you know how I feel about you already http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (postive, in case anyone else is wondering)

Denny, you gain more points with me every day and your venerable voice on this sport holds such a huge weight that I can't begin to describe it...

It seems we're at a hugely important moment in the life of this beloved sport... I'm praying that logic and common rational voices will prevail, and vow to do my part to support this worthy battle.

Semper Fi
(Faithful Forever!! For those who don't know a marine)

Arcadien
arcadiafarm@juno.com

[DizzyMagic]

Three short "vents":

First, many of us do not oppose the short format at all costs - I count myself in the "show me that it's better for the horses' welfare" and I'll be quiet. I don't think I'll love it, but I won't oppose it.


What the OWNERS of horses think:

Petition Signature #1662 Richard Thompson, Malvern PA.
Owner of USEA Horse of the Century - Biko
(ridden by Karen O'Connor)
Also owner of Joker's Wild and Upstage, both 4 Star horses, also ridden by Karen O'Connor.


And finally, and I think this is my biggest vent: WHY do we keep making modifications to the sport to try and make it easier to understand the scoring? Does this line of thinking bother anyone else? Does anyone else think of the words "Figure Skating" when they hear this argument? That sport isn't hurting for spectators, and yet even INSIDERS don't seem to know how it is scored!

Emily

[DizzyMagic]

I don't think we'll get tons of support from Down Under... The FEI calendar for the next month shows a bunch of short format events in both countries, at one, two, and three-star levels...

I'd love to know if you hear something more optimistic!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KateDB:
Hip Hip Hooray to Heather!!!

I would be so interested to hear what the Aussie's and NZers think of the whole thing. They have only recently gotten their own 4**** on that side of the world. Will they be bullied into this capitulation? Do they have opinions on long vs. short. Afterall, a huge population of the upper level eventing enthusiasts hail from there. I look forward to my next clinic with Heath Ryan to hear his side of things.

btw gnep
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Surprisingly Luhmuehlen, that is the Top Event on the Mainland Europe, has anounced that it will run a 4* in 2005.
But over al the trend in Europe is against Long. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe that when Luhmuehlen announce the running of the 4****, they stated it would be short format, thus following the continental European trend. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DizzyMagic]

Ummmmmm.... I thought I was finished venting, but I was wrong. WHAT the HELL is this??? Our team riders are being EXPORTED to another country next year? Are they TRYING to break eventing in this country?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
And Gnep, Luhmulen's (sp?) four star will be short format--and in fact is the competition I understand our team riders are being encouraged to attend instead of Rolex next year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MischiefMaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DizzyMagic:
Ummmmmm.... I thought I was finished venting, but I was wrong. WHAT the HELL is this??? Our team riders are being EXPORTED to another country next year? Are they TRYING to break eventing in this country?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
And Gnep, Luhmulen's (sp?) four star will be short format--and in fact is the competition I understand our team riders are being encouraged to attend instead of Rolex next year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aren't they being encouraged by CMP to do this also? If I'm wrong I apologize in advanced.

[Erin]

well, if Rolex is only running the long format, then it makes sense for the riders who have a short-format championship as their goal to go to an event run in the short format as a prep... can't fault them for that.

[DizzyMagic]

But what will it mean for Rolex if the Team hopefuls are not there?

I just feel so behind the 8 ball so to speak, like this has happened so fast or so much behind closed doors... like I woke up one day and the sport was different... I was off for an injury for awhile, but I didn't think it was that long...

It was just a few years ago that we brought the 4 star to this country so our folks could compete over the most competitive tracks without shipping to England. Now, to be considered for a team spot, they have to be able to afford a "European vacation" again!

I'm sorry, but the way to create a following for our horses and riders is NOT to ship them overseas where most American eventing fans will not be able to see them compete.

[tbpalsx2]

An owner here of two intermediate level horses with * and ** experience and I have co owned a ***/**** horse that competed at Fairhill and Rolex. I have no scientific proof of anything to support short over long format. My riders have mixed feelings and agree that the short format needs to prove itself as better and do not want to give up their option for the long format. They in fact see the long format as necessary at the * and ** and are still prefering the long format until they can ride the short format and determine if and how it is better. They would love and so would I some research. And as far as traveling to condition their horses for competitions..they travel to wherever the best footing is or the hill work, prep competitions or whatever is needed for the particular event they are preparing for. So it does not matter if it is a CCI short or long, CIC etc. if it is a 3 day they travel to prepare. And after every 3 day the horses rest. As for the cost the bottom line is eventing puts wear and tear on the horses at all levels but more so at the upper levels. I spend considerable amounts on preventive and vet maintanence because I choose to and sometime have to. I cannot imagine the short format costing any less than the long particularly if the horse competes more often at the short format. In fact it could cost me more because plain and simple before each competition I have the works done to my horses before and after. I really like the option of resting my horses after a 3 day and I am not convinced that I want my horse to run more often just because they could do more short formats. In fact I am not certain doing a CCI with steeplchase is more stressful than doing more freguent short formats. My number one priority is the safety of my riders and my horses. I am in this sport for more reasons than ribbons or awards. In fact the horses have won their share of awards all at the long format and I really felt like they had accomplised something special. This may sound a bit hookey but as far as I am concerned any horse that has the heart and bravery to compete at any level year after year is a hero/superstar. We have alot of superstar horses in this sport and I don't think running horses more often is what makes them a superstar.In fact some horses are sperstars because they simply have what it takes and a rider that can make it happen. Call me stupid but how does competting/ showing more often at the upper levels make a horse a superstar? Wouldn't it be better to do well at several destination events a year than multiple short formats just to gain points? Someone needs to demonstrate to me that the short format is best for my horses, for the sport, for eventing in general before I give up my support for the long format.

[Hannahsmom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
But don't you think this is a little "bass-ackwards": doing the research AFTER the decision has been made? It absolutely floors me how much justification is going into the short format AFTER THE FACT, when just about NONE was provided beforehand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh DW, quit trying to confuse us with the facts. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I like it, why don't we do this in the human health care world rather than doing all those years of research and testing? Would save so much money. Oh darn, we have lawyers willing to step in and sue if there wasn't years upon years of research done first in the human health care world.

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
I don't think I've as yet made any distinction between them. What I hear is that the short format will not pound the horses so much and thus they may last longer and thus also be able to compete more. I also hear that the short format will be less expensive to offer, and so there may, as a result, be more competitions available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, the thing is, I think we already have this - in a horse trials. And not that long ago, Horse Trials were scored such that the XC was still a significant weight. I will argue that I don't think that's AS MUCH the case now at the lower levels, but I think it still weighs in more than you might think.

But I think our difference in opinion lies here:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> cweiner, if you think about professionals and the pressures placed on them to distinguish themselves and their horses (for their owners and/or for sales and/or for whatever reasons keep them in business), they often do NOT have a choice, not as individuals. Few can pick and choose to the extent that, say, Kim Severson does. If they have goals--or their owners have goals (that's the tough one, probably--they HAVE to do certain things. No, I know for a fact that sometimes, pros have very little choices in what they must do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every professional horseperson that I've worked with, I've chosen because they are just that: a horseperson. Over and above everything else, they value the good of the horse. And I work with them because they know when to call it a day. They are not interested in continuing to drive the horse, because that does not benefit them in the long term.

I do NOT think that a professional should feel "driven" by an owner to achieve something DESPITE the best interest of the horse. If the horse needs a break, it needs a break. If the owner can't accept that, the owner should go elsewhere. The professionals that I have worked with have all worked that way. And, yes, they are well known, respected ULR's. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Interesting to me too, the way you describe a short format course, as shorter, more twisty, etc - things that to me would signal a HIGHLY DANGEROUS cross country course. I would not want a *** or **** course to have nowhere to gallop on. Not safe.

If the championships were horse trials, and three-days were just that - three-days, would you feel differently? Would you feel like we needed to go short format?

And, uh, by the way? There's an "m" in that there name. Little sensitive on that one. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DizzyMagic:
And finally, and I think this is my biggest vent: WHY do we keep making modifications to the sport to try and make it easier to understand the scoring? Does this line of thinking bother anyone else? Does anyone else think of the words "Figure Skating" when they hear this argument? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I think of the pairs diving that I watched during the Olympics this year. Two weeks of watching that, and I still couldn't explain the scoring! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[frugalannie]

CweiMer, thanks for taking my point and running with it.

I'm in total agreement with the idea that IF the short format is shown to be better for the horses, we do it. But I don't understand how it can be better at some levels and not at all of them. Perhaps research will clarify things for me. I must have gone to the Deltawave school of facts, proof and logic! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And Mary in Area 1, thank you for sharing the story of your horse. Next time I see you, I'll tell you so to your face!

[Mary in Area 1]

Thanks Frugalannie. But I thought you only "came out" to Pol! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[KellyS]

First of all, let me give a belated to thanks to Heather! Thank you so much for standing up and reading that petition! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif I completely understand that feeling of getting angry enough to do something - I'm normally a pretty low-key, quiet person, but man, if something gets me riled, watch out! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I feel like I'm joining the party "late," but I've been avidly keeping up (i.e. lurking) with all the "Save the Chase" threads. Everyone has been so articulate and well spoken, and you've voiced everything I've been feeling. I have never seen such a united effort before - it is just amazing how so many different people from so many different "walks of life" have been brought together by this BB.

I'm a "new comer" to eventing, having just been introduced to the sport four years ago. I will always be a LLR - my biggest goal in life is to complete a one star someday. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What pulled me toward the sport was how it was different from all the other disciplines I've been involved with. To me, a "long format" three day is the absolute pinnacle of equestrian sport.

However, it is so sad to see this sport heading in the same direction as the others - more competitions for horses, riders with a whole "string" of expensive, imported dressage/show jumping specialists, pressure to compete on the "European" circuit in order to be internationally competitive, and a focus on "big money" for the riders/coaches/owners.

Now, yes, these are generalizations, but the essence of eventing is being lost, and it is so frustrating to see that the ULRs are so willing to support something that has not been fully researched, something that simply seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to keep eventing in the Olympics and allow others countries to be more competitive by lowering the standards. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bravo to everyone who played a role in getting the petition, ads, merchandise, and website up and running - you are inspiring! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Please keep in mind the kind of terrain and footing that is necessary to condition a horse to the top levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can think of at least 2 barns within one hour of Charlotte NC that are both affordable and offer ideal conditions for this type of work. I know of at least 2-3 near Cleveland that offer similar facilities. There are race tracks in many places. There is no shortage in this country - except maybe in the northeast, of farms with adequate facilities to do conditioning.

[pwynnnorman]

Back...

I'm thrilled to be hearing from owners. (BTW, Con is has done quite well several times Intermediate and new coach KO thinks he should go Advanced in the spring). For some reason, you folks seem to think that "wanting to hear from" someone means expecting them to agree with you. I never said that, jsut that I wanted to hear that perspective--and, no, ONE perspective doesn't cut it for me. Indeed, thanks perhaps to the fact that I asked the question, that perspective (of owners) is now entering the discussion.

Oh, blast. Time for my 9:30 class. Gotta run. Will return!

[slp2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Interesting to me too, the way you describe a short format course, as shorter, more twisty, etc - things that to me would signal a HIGHLY DANGEROUS cross country course. I would not want a *** or **** course to have nowhere to gallop on <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more. From what I understand when the horses are galloping between fences it is essentially a "resting" period for them and and it allows them to recover for their next effort. A course with jumps in quicker succession and more technical combinations is actually much harder on a horse than a big gallopy style course. Yes, galloping may put some pounding on them--but whew--cranking them in, turning them tightly, having them bounce through some tight combination--that's REALLY hard on a horse!

As for DC's comments--he had already held the "esteemed" reputation of being the one that many "love to hate" and this only solidifies that position. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Hilary]

Three days away and I've got 9 pages to read!

How much more of a star does KOC want Biko to be? I think star status is already acheived by plenty of **** horses.

Pwynn - If the conditioning is the same, and there are more competitions, even if each competition is slightly less taxing (and this is up for grabs) how does this equal less stress on the horse??

I have to repeat what others have asked - how much longer should Prince Panache, Custom Made and Giltedge have to compete! For pete's sake, these horses competed at the **** level in their mid to late teens.

And, again, someone else has said this, but for years, the courses were made harder and harder -the tests got more and more complex and people got excited about this. Suddenly we are supposed to aboutface and do something easier because of "the horses"?

This whole thing is so full of dead-end logic I am dumbfounded.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MischiefMaker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DizzyMagic:
Ummmmmm.... I thought I was finished venting, but I was wrong. WHAT the HELL is this??? Our team riders are being EXPORTED to another country next year? Are they TRYING to break eventing in this country?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
And Gnep, Luhmulen's (sp?) four star will be short format--and in fact is the competition I understand our team riders are being encouraged to attend instead of Rolex next year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aren't they being encouraged by CMP to do this also? If I'm wrong I apologize in advanced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And so we go full circle.

YES. At the riders meeting at Fair Hill, Mark Phillips SPECIFICALLY said that anyone who hoped to be on a future team should do Luhmulen (sp?) instead of Rolex (and give up any plans to go to Badminton).

That is what started this whole thing.
Here is the first thread
Future of "With Steeplechase"? (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=2096094911&m=478208224&p=1)

[Mary in Area 1]

Well, this is easy then.

We just don't give them the money to go to Luhmuhlen.

Then Eventing will REALLY be a sport just for the rich.

Let's throw the Captain overboard.

[Janet]

Whoever said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Interesting to me too, the way you describe a short format course, as shorter, more twisty, etc - things that to me would signal a HIGHLY DANGEROUS cross country course. I would not want a *** or **** course to have nowhere to gallop on <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you. You saved me having to go back and find where she said it.

"More twisty courses" take a MUCH greater toll on the horse's soundness than almost anything else.

If the choice is between "steeplechase" and "twistier courses", I don't think you will find ANY vet that will say that the twisty course is less damaging.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Janet's sister owns and rides a ***/**** horse- does her opinion not count either? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks.

Gillian is an EXTREMELY cash strapped owner. Believe me, if the short format were going to cost less, she wouldn't be so unequivically in favor of the long format.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deltawave:
_Where is the proof that horses doing exclusively short-format events will compete more frequently, and for a longer career, than horses who are currently doing long-format events? If the amount of conditioning is <span class="ev_code_RED">THE SAME</span> for each format (a number of riders have said as much) then how can horses doing short-format events compete more often?_ Arguably it is the CONDITIONING WORK that takes a toll on an upper level horse as much as the events themselves...are upper level owners going to put their horses in 3-4 CII****'s (concours incomplet internationale) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif a year just because they think they CAN? With NO RESEARCH? That is just plain crazy, and--dare I say it--probably ABUSIVE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gillian ran Fair Hill CCI *** (full format) in 2003. In 2004, she entered the CCI*** (full format) but since "not enough" people enterd the long format (I have heard numbers from 6 to 16) she had to run the short format.

I specifically asked her about this (a shorter recovery period after the short format, and thus more competitions for the horse). "If they think that, they are going to break their horses. Then they will stop doing it."

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by pwynnorman:

I believe, overall, the short format equals more opportunity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please explain.

This<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I grew up in an area where you could hack for miles and miles. When I evented as a teenager, I never once thought about WHERE to condition. The fact that increasingly, riders have to actually ship their horses out to condition sufficiently (and I can only imagine how much more demanding that is for the **** and ***). All that shipping also a risk and stressful.

And I do think that that is what someone meant when they implied that you have to ride at that level to understand why some would prefer the short format. Sure, if you are in a horse mecca, it's a breeze. But what if you AREN'T?

If you aren't, then this sport is just not for you, is it? Not in its current format. So, like at the 2000 Olympics when every single rider on the team lived in or near Middleburg, VA, the current state of eventing simply excludes too many from reaching what is defined as "the top" of the sport--and that includes riders from other countries. Why should just the landed gentry have the pleasure of this sport? Why should only those with access have a shot at reaching "the top"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is equally applicable (or not) to the full and short formats. (Firefighters are not usually considered "landed gentry".)

[bambam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mary in Area 1:
Let's throw the Captain overboard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif I wholeheartedly agree Mary http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif
In terms of the superstar horse- among eventers that are spectators and fans, it seems to me the superstars are the ones that do the 4*s (real ones that is not CIIs http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I think Winsome Adante (and Kim) is amazing because he won Rolex as the long format twice. I have not a clue (nor do I really care) what horse trials he has won. I can tell you who won each of the Grand Slam Events this year, but not who won the short format at Fairhill (and I was there) because those are the results that impress me, wow me about a horse, and make me love this sport. Winning those is special becauseit is so hard and does not come often. I think the decision-makers may be misjudging if they think more results at easier events is going to make superstar horses with a following. Give me Charisma, Custom Made, Biko, etc any day- those are the stars IMHO.

I am wondering if the ULRs that were vocally defending the long format at the convention were doing so because they (1) think the deed is done and the short format is now it and (2) they actually recognize that they need our support in terms of ownership and clinic $ and the rest and are concerned that it will go away unless they convince us that this is a good thing. And I am not saying this because I think it is impossible to prefer the short format on its merits, but as to maybe explain why they seemed a combination of defensive and selling it (when no one really knows what it means).
I also suspect that there might have been miscalculation all along. I think it is possible that the reason it seems like this decision was made quietly and behind closed doors and presented as a fait accompli is that the decision-makers and ULRs thought the decision was theirs to make (as the ones competing in the long format at the international level) and did not think they needed to explain it to the rest of eventing populace and that we would just follow along. I suspect it may be a rude awakening that we care so much about a level of competition (3 & 4 stars) that most of us will never compete at (and for me- do not even aspire to). Just a couple of theories about why there is all this unsupported, after the fact rationalizing and attempts to sell it. Anyone think that is possible or am I out in left field?
Not that it changes where we are but trying to understand what happened and how we got to this point is something I would dearly like to understand.

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, like at the 2000 Olympics when every single rider on the team lived in or near Middleburg, VA,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just for the record, not every single rider on the team at the 2000 Sydney Olympics lived in or near Middleburg VA unless you think Bobby Costello (Southern Pines NC), Julie Richards (Newnan GA), and Becky Douglas (alternate from Mendotta Heights MN) don't count. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Also, just for the record, the "DC" in question in this thread is Darren Chiacchia, not me. I've already received an email asking me how I could possibly make such a comment during the open forum at the USEA Meeting. Same initials, but so not the same person. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

[Mary in Area 1]

Vive la difference!

[Robby Johnson]

Canterlope's chest is much less hairy! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I personally think the comment on making our horses stars by showing them more is assanine. As Heather pointed out - My Beau has done nine advanced three-day events, Poggio II has done about the same ... how sound are they? What makes them famous?

Making the horses/sport famous is a charge in and of itself. There are intrinsic communication challenges within each format but, where I'm concerned, a horse who has achieved more by working harder will always sell news more than the opposite.

Robby

[BBowen]

Heather, I am another one chiming in late, but all of us and the sport owe you a a debt of gratitute.

Since I am only a smurf, and a sidelined one at the moment, I cannot attest to training and conditioning of an upper level horse for the short or long format. However, at Rolex this year, it was very obvious that many horses were struggling at the end of the short format, more so than those coming off the long format. That in itself made a huge impression on me. I know it was only one competition and conditions were not ideal, but it did not make sense to me. I too believe those horses need to gallop between fences to lengthen and stretch their muscles before shortening and preparing for the fences.

I do believe that some horses may be better suited for the short format, but the short format is not the pinnacle of the sport like many others have said.

Shame on the ULRs that look down on the masses of smurfs. You would think they were in the NBA. How soon they forget that not too long ago, they were smurfs as well.

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I just feel so behind the 8 ball so to speak, like this has happened so fast or so much behind closed doors... like I woke up one day and the sport was different... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is surprising how quickly these URLs moved to accept the short format and then rationalize it with arguments that are either unproven (longevity of horses) or delusional (the need to create "hero" horses).

The transcription of the Rolex Eventing Forum 2001 (http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/inter/FEIEventingForum.htm) is still available online and makes for some interesting reading in light of this discussion. It's basically a Q&A on the future of eventing between the FEI Eventing Committee and US-based URLs and UROs. The FEI folks are saying change will happen no matter what due to "huge pressure, both from the IOC through the FEI", despite the fact that some of the changes (getting rid of steeplechase) run counter to known safety factors (steeplechase makes Phase D safer).

After facing a stream of well-reasoned objections about why change is necessary, FEI committee chair Wayne Roycroft says it's all about staying int he Olympics: "I believe that our sport would die very quickly without participation in the Olympic Games."

[RunForIt]

in reply to Wayne Roycroft's remark that without participation in the Olympics,our sport would die...the Olympic 3-day was incredibly BORING because Cross Country was so below the standard for a ****course - I hope I never have to watch fine horses and riders pretend to really be competing at **** level - what a sham.

Which is the perfect segue into the sham of BNRs saying that they want to have more "star-hero" horses; I think that perhaps the "more" is more likely directed at themselves. I ran marathons competitively before coming to eventing. It wasn't the marathons themselves that ever produced my injuries...it wasn't the distance work, it was the SPEED work (was determined to be able to run in the Olympic Trials). If the XC jumps remain just as technical, if the courses are as twisty, and the times are as fast, its SPEED that is going to take its toil on the short format horses, THAT AND NOT ENOUGH RECOVERY BETWEEN EVENTS. If the idea is to be able to run more events, and the need for speed and recovery increase, where will be the gain for the HORSES? Properly trained and maintained 3-day horses should not break down any more frequently than the mythical (and right now with no proof the better-off short format horse IS a myth) short format horse. Politics and money my friends; that's what's driving this sport. Take your money and run.

[Magnolia]

So, BNR and BNT's want to do more events per year? Maybe they should go visit their HJ cousins and see what showing all the time does to the horses and the people. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif I don't think the sport is going to get anymore popular by having more events to watch the big names at. You are going to get people (in the US) out to one, maybe 2 big events per year, where we will be willing to pay to watch people ride. You are going to find sponsors for one or two big events per year.

[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?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 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.

I’m finding a lot of arguments expressed against the change to conflict with each other.

And lastly, way back somewhere, someone said this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's easy to dismiss us as a bunch of internut nut jobs, LOL, how do we prove we are more than that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, how about more ad hominem attacks? Like this one:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not support a "superhorse" special category of ****, but let the sport have its short format and GROW WITH IT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not leave Eventing alone and go start some other sport for those who feel the short format better suits their needs? Then you could take your own advice and grow with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sure those who aren't fond of BBers are very impressed by this sort of thing.

[wanderlust]

Really interesting reading, JER. Really interesting.

First, I want to know WHO decided after Sydney that steeplechase is abusive and needs to be removed. Wayne Roycroft keeps mentioning "they", but he never explicitly states who "they" are.

Secondly, how did we go from TALKING about reducing steeplechase by 30 seconds, and "eventually" moving to a CIC format for championships including the Olympics, to completely throwing out phases A-C and modifying the XC requirements with NO supporting research in the 2 1/2 years since this conversation occured?

Third, how does Wayne Roycroft get the unilateral authority to make this decision? Does it come straight from the crazy Infanta? Not to mention that he is insane if he thinks the sport will die without Olympic participation. Seriously, how many riders ever make it even past training level, at least in this country? I think the figure quoted was 5% of USEA membership competes at Prelim or above. I would hazard a guess that in the ballpark of 150 riders in the US are competing actively at advanced. That would be ~1% of USEA membership. And how many of those have the hope of ending up on a training session list? maybe 15 or 20? Now we're down to fractions of percentages of total membership.

Yet the sport keeps growing at the lower levels. These folks aren't going to peel off and take up reining if eventing makes a graceful exit from the Olympics. It is a hobby, it is fun, they enjoy the challenge, they enjoy their horses. The Olympics is not necessary for the life of the sport. Just look at the Hunters/Equitation in the US. Not an Olympic sport, will never be an Olympic sport, and it has an absolutely enormous participation level. Completely dwarfs that of eventing.

My last comment... someone please explain to me how the suggestion made by ULRs of keeping a full * and ** will prepare a horse and rider for the modified ***? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[bambam]

JER- thank you for posting that link. The juxtaposition of that discussion with where we are now and the positions being taken is deeply disturbing (at least to me) but also informative.

[denny]

I`ve been thinking about the "whys" of this a great deal, as we all have, and have a theory, which may or may not be accurate, but here goes. Remember "Chariots of Fire", what a grand and splendid ADVENTURE it all was? When I went to Burghley 30 years ago, and we won the gold medal, it was EXACTLY like that.It wasn`t about how many new clients we would get if we did well, or whether we would please an owner, or how it would affect our clinic schedule, whatever. It was a bit like they say about the Iditarod, "a glorious madness", in no way a commercial venture, but, to paraphrase what is also said about the Tevis cup, "a journey, also, of the spirit."
At least it was for me, and, I think, Don Sachey, Beth Perkins, and Caroline Treviranus. Maybe not so much for Mike Plumb and Bruce Davidson, but still a quest and an adventure.
It was so much that way because it was so unattainable-seeming. The second day was just a whisker under 18 miles, we were on British turf, as total underdogs, and even now, 30 years later, that whole thing is etched in my memory more tha anything I`ve ever done, except for the Tevis Cup last summer, equally "impossible-seeming", so equally significant.
Don`t blame these current riders too harshly for being children of their era. Commercialism is normal to them. For many, horses are a job. If those horses last longer, it`s better for the bottom line. It used to tick me off, the whole business of amateurism in the Olympics, which I considered hypocritical nonsense. Now, in a way, I get it. "SPORT", quote, unquote, is meant to be about more than sponsorship, tv opportunity, a chance to pay your bills. This is an INCREDIBLY NAIVE outlook to our current crop, but it isn`t their fault, too much, because they are products of their society. A long, hard, dangerous and demanding quest, like a classic 3-day, of the old school, may inspire the soul, but it doesn`t pad the pocketbook.
So, make it easier. It`s the sane, reasonable thing to do. Only one problem to people who feel as we do---it doesn`t have as much meaning.
Does any of this make sense?
Denny

[Hannahsmom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by teacher2nd:
Politics and money my friends; that's what's driving this sport. Take your money and run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the thing that keeps crossing my mind also. For the owners like Pwynn...they would like to have a new market for their breeding programs. Some have said the short format plus the new dressage and show jumping favor the warmbloods. I have no idea if this proves true, but maybe this is the market Pwynn wants also for the prospects that can't cut it as either dressage or hunter/jumper prospects. I'll admit, I've looked at her website and I can't afford her ponies, she'll need a different brand of eventer than me, someone who makes a whole lot more money.

For CMP, his job is to win the Olympics, not to save the soul of eventing. Like all our other basketball, football, etc. coaches, if he isn't winning, he will be out of a job. Of course he will favor anything that helps them win. The USEA will have to change and take Olympics out of the job description if that is to change.

For the rider, well they are paid employees of the owners and the FEI and anything else that keeps them in the limelight. They need horses, they need exposure, the Olympics has more exposure than other areas. So for them, it means a better paycheck. After all, those riders need to make a living. If their owners are the ones like pwynn and others coming from the show jumping or dressage world, the old ways are such a different world and one that doesn't seem to appeal.

Someone said on one of these threads, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. For years, the people have been trying to figure out how to get more exposure and television and prize money. Well, is everyone happy now?

For CMP and the riders going to Luh. to qualify, all I can say is good luck, and enjoy the FEI. For me, my dream is to spectate at Badminton as a long format, not the Olympics.

[Hannahsmom]

Denny, I posted while you were posting. Your points are exactly what I was thinking. I also think we need to really give heartfelt thanks to the sponsors, donors, horse owners of that era. What wonderful sportsmen and women they were.

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because it will.

There's a reason why it's called the "concurs complet". Now, obviously the best horsemen will usually succeed in any competition, so I don't think the point is really that horsemanship will be "lost"... but a short-format CCI is definitely not "complet" as it was originally intended. We're lowering the bar and making things easier... at least, if we're still considering eventing to be the same sport.

Now, maybe a short-format CCI can be considered "harder" in that the questions could be more technical or show jumping or dressage could be more difficult. But that's not the heart of what we've all grown up considering eventing to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But course designers have spent YEARS learning how to design courses for the traditional format. All of a sudden, in the span of a year, the game has changed, and the learning curve is going to happen IN COMPETITION.

Y'know, there have been a lot of GOOD changes going on in eventing in the last decade or so, but they were all moving in the same direction along the continuum. We got rid of the weight requirement, thanks to research that showed "dead weight" adversely affected the horses. We did the heat studies prior to Atlanta, and now are able to take much better care of our horses after XC. We have (unfortunately) had to take a good long look at safety due to some very tragic accidents, but those accidents have led to some good improvements. We got our first four-star, and the entries in that four-star have increased considerably every year, and that four-star was on NETWORK TELEVISION for the first time this year.

All of that was a logical progression, making minor changes within the well-establihed framework of a sport that has been rolling just fine for decades in this country.

It's just this stupid short-format stuff that seems to be taking a flying leap off into an unknown direction without much foresight or planning.

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wanderlust:

My last comment... someone please explain to me how the suggestion made by ULRs of keeping a full * and ** will prepare a horse and rider for the modified ***? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been wondering the same thing. Somehow I feel like they're saying the one- and two-stars are safe just to placate us "smurfs" who might actually have a shot in hell of doing them.

But it doesn't make any sense at all to come up through the lower levels essentially competing in a completely different sport. What about the NAYRC? Will that stay a long-format CCI? And does it seem completely pointless to anyone else that once a YR has come up through the ranks and completed a two-star, they're going to have to learn how to do things completely differently in order to move up to the next level?

[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:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the market Pwynn wants also for the prospects that can't cut it as either dressage or hunter/jumper prospects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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?

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.

And to you, Denny, yes, it is all sad, but its happening throughout the horse industry, not just in this sport. What we have to do now is accept change and find ways to make it work. You can't hold back the tide, but I have no doubt that we have the kinds of minds that can build wonderful surfboards.

[Oh, yuk, that was baaad.]

Anyway, I suspect that whipping up the waves at this point is probably pointless. As much as some folks here want to think so, this issue is NOT about "us", it is about a whole lot of outside forces that "we" can do nothing about.

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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).

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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the concerns over conditioning came out of the idea that you could do MORE of the short-format, MORE OFTEN, than with the old system. If it DOES take the same amount of conditioning, then you probably won't be able to do MORE. Doing more short formats would likely entail more wear and tear (assuming, again, for the sake of the argument that the conditioning required is the same) than doing one or two long formats a year. That's where the horsemanship thing comes in, for me at least.

Long story short, many of us are simply questioning why the change is being made - with the argument that "it's better for the horses", when we just don't know whether it's better or not. Personally, I don't like the idea of longer seasons, more events, etc. etc. It's just not a good thing in my personal opinion. If someone is getting into eventing for the fame, glory and cash - I have to question how much research they did before they chose this sport.

*I* chose this sport because I believe it is the best framework for developing young horses. Would I like to win? Yes. Would it be great to earn my entry fees, etc. back? Yes. Will I leave the sport if that doesn't happen? No. Will I leave the sport if it no longer supports my goal of raising happy, healthy, sound, athletic horses and having fun doing it with people whose opinions I respect and company I enjoy? You betcha.

Frankly, I'm having a very difficult time distinguishing and explaining the difference between a CIC and a CCI-short/modified. It seems like most of the arguments in support of short should lead one to simply emphasize Horse Trials vs a CCI. That's all. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regarding survey research, I seem to recall that the USEA did do a survey of their membership a year or so ago, when all of this was going on. And IIRC (which I might not be), the membership voted very much on the side of keeping the traditional, long-format given what we knew about both formats at the time. Who else should we survey?

As for being impressed by BBers, well, you know, whateva. I think that's why many of us will continue to talk about this outside of the BB, and begin to make some very real-world contributions.

[Hannahsmom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:

I've been wondering the same thing. Somehow I feel like they're saying the one- and two-stars are safe just to placate us "smurfs" who might actually have a shot in hell of doing them.

But it doesn't make any sense at all to come up through the lower levels essentially competing in a completely different sport. What about the NAYRC? Will that stay a long-format CCI? And does it seem completely pointless to anyone else that once a YR has come up through the ranks and completed a two-star, they're going to have to learn how to do things completely differently in order to move up to the next level? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Erin. Why bother to keep long format for the 'lower levels' of upper levels. Seems like a waste of time. Placating these pesky LLR's and the internet jockeys. Two sports entirely. I would like to send my membership money to that other organization, the one supporting long formats all the way.

And we all need to remember, if we want to truly induce change, time to get off the computer and work thru our local organizations. Remember the elections, it's all about door to door and getting the common vote out.

[Janet]

For years, those of us in the sport have been asked (by those less familiar with it): "what is the difference between a "Horse Trial" and a "3-Day"?"

The anser has always been two fold
1) A 3-Day has roads and tracks and stteplechase before cross country.
and
2) A Horse Trial is a test of skill and training. A 3-Day is a test of skill and training AND ENDURANCE.

The "short format CCI" is NOT a "3-Day" by the traditional definition. Not only does it not have the R&T and Steeplechase, it ISN'T A TEST OF ENDURANCE.

Tests of endurance are BY DEFINITION hard on the competitors. I don't care if you are talking about the 24 Heurs du Man, or the Tevis Cup, or a Marathon. It is INTENDED to "see if it will break".

From all I have seen and heard, the "short format" is as hard on the horses, WITHOUT being a test of endurance. The worst of both.

If you want to test skill and training WITHOUT testing endurance, that is great (in fact that IS what _I_ want to do). That is called a Horse Trial, or a CIC.

But if you say you want to compte at a 3-Day, you are saying you want to participate in a TEST OF ENDURANCE.

Horse Trials and 3-Days are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And the "short format" is neither.

If you want to make it "easier", to make it "not a test of endurance", then compete in Horse Trials and CIC.

[Hannahsmom]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the market Pwynn wants also for the prospects that can't cut it as either dressage or hunter/jumper prospects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An event horse deserves to be considered as FAR FAR FAR MORE than a failed dressage horse or hunter jumper!!! . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I agree with your point that an event horse is far far more than a failed dressage horse or hunter/jumper. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I guess my words 'cut it' were what you took offense to. What my point was (and I didn't mean this how you took it) was that it is a new and different market. With the emphasis on dressage and show jumping scores compared to in the past, you have to agree.

I was actually not slamming the 'new' owners and the world we live in today. I was accepting it but realizing the eventing world I loved is probably gone. It's okay, maybe it's time to move on.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What about the NAYRC? Will that stay a long-format CCI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It already ISN'T a long format CCI.

The ** will get the title of NAYRC, and be run as a short format.

The * will be run as a long format, but is not allowed to oficially call itself a "Championship".

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
Remember "Chariots of Fire", what a grand and splendid ADVENTURE it all was? When I went to Burghley 30 years ago, and we won the gold medal, it was EXACTLY like that.It wasn`t about how many new clients we would get if we did well, or whether we would please an owner, or how it would affect our clinic schedule, whatever. It was a bit like they say about the Iditarod, "a glorious madness", in no way a commercial venture, but, to paraphrase what is also said about the Tevis cup, "a journey, also, of the spirit."

So, make it easier. It`s the sane, reasonable thing to do. Only one problem to people who feel as we do---it doesn`t have as much meaning.
Does any of this make sense?
Denny <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, yes it does. I was talking about this with the farrier this morning, in a strange sort of way. We got onto the subject of the h/j world, and (at least percpetion is that it used to be this way) how having the right trainer would get you the win, and it all came down to who was willing to spend the most money.

To me, being the best at something that everyone can do is one sort of achievement. Finishing something - first, last, or anywhere inbetween - that only a very few people can finish is something else entirely, and honestly, I'd be hard pressed to compare the two achievements.

For me, I'm all about the journey. Denny, I get the feeling that long-distance riding may soon see an upsurge in interest and entries. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My last comment... someone please explain to me how the suggestion made by ULRs of keeping a full * and ** will prepare a horse and rider for the modified ***? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actaully, they did explain that. They (in particular Mark Phillips and David O'Connor) said that doing the * steeplechase taught the horse and rider to "be really forward" in preparation for the ** and *** cross country.

I THINK what they are saying is that it is good to learn to take steeplechase fences "at speed" before learning to take mor techincal fences "at speed".

I am not sure whether I bieve them or not, but they DID give a concrrete explanation.

[MischiefMaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What about the NAYRC? Will that stay a long-format CCI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It already ISN'T a long format CCI.

The ** will get the title of NAYRC, and be run as a short format.

The * will be run as a long format, but is not allowed to oficially call itself a "Championship". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a YR, I have to say that just makes me sad! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Magnolia]

Janet-
GREAT definition of 3-Day - endurance.

Endurance is a great thing and should be rewarded. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif It is VERY psychological and brings a need for extreme mental toughness (hence the emotion associated with just COMPLETING a test of endurance).

Why are they not interested in rewarding endurance any more? Has that question been asked?

[bambam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
this issue is NOT about "us", it is about a whole lot of outside forces that "we" can do nothing about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I disagree that this is not about us- it is about us because it is about our sport. It not only about us, however.
As for the second part of that comment- the whole point of what is going on here with the petition and other efforts is that we hope there is something we can do about these forces. We may not be able to, but I think it would be sad if we did not try just because it was hard and it might not work.

[pwynnnorman]

Agreed, Hannahsmom! But I keep thinking that there's gotta be a way to develop courses that still test something more than dressage between the jumps (to borrow from George Morris). I think this is worth putting some thought to--finding a slightly different, but equally challenging cross country alternative to having R&T and the chase. I think this was discussed somewhere before. Stuff about tracks and timing, for example. Options, bonuses, stuff like that (the discussion got really out-of-the-box at one point). More mind games, perhaps, than pure skill or talent (perhaps because, for the rest of the world at least, the "ceiling" has been reached in that area and too many aren't thrilled with it), but intriguing and challenging, while still safe enough and sporting enough to credit those who succeed at it. But think about it: if you KNOW your horse and/or develop it with a specific strategy in mind (or set of strategies), is that not also a test of horsemanship? Seems to me that the conclusion that has been drawn, using Janet's useful clarifications, is that ENDURANCE is too expensive and unweildy an aspect of the sport to preserve (according to some). Well, can be perhaps replace that worthy concept with something else, like strategy? Again, I don't know, but, frankly, I think it's worth thinking about more than arguing against.

[Hannahsmom]

pwynn, you suggestion may be great, but that still makes it a different sport than the one many of us were drawn to originally. We all have to decide if we are still interested in the new sport or not.

[tle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Y'know, there have been a lot of GOOD changes going on in eventing in the last decade or so, but they were all moving in the same direction along the continuum. We got rid of the weight requirement, thanks to research that showed "dead weight" adversely affected the horses. We did the heat studies prior to Atlanta, and now are able to take much better care of our horses after XC. We have (unfortunately) had to take a good long look at safety due to some very tragic accidents, but those accidents have led to some good improvements. We got our first four-star, and the entries in that four-star have increased considerably every year, and that four-star was on NETWORK TELEVISION for the first time this year.

All of that was a logical progression, making minor changes within the well-establihed framework of a sport that has been rolling just fine for decades in this country.

It's just this stupid short-format stuff that seems to be taking a flying leap off into an unknown direction without much foresight or planning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BRAVO ERIN!! Exactly what I have been thinking. Thanks for putting it all down.

There is a VAST difference between a sport GROWING and a sport CHANGING. The things that Erin mentioned (shortened distances from decades ago, frangible pins, heat studies, etc.) ... that is a sport that is GROWING! this short format stuff? That is a sport that is CHANGING... and IMHO not for the better either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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>

Pwynn... this will hopefully be the only time I reply to your posts simply because I mostly think you don't have much of a clue (as you admitted during your MidSouth tirade). However, how is getting support for an EVENT horse by making it no longer an EVENT in any way, shape or form HELPING them?? A horse who competes and shines in a short format is no more a true Eventing Superstar than the Icelandics that inhabit the barn where I board. Superstars, sure... but NOT Eventing Superstars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And to you, Denny, yes, it is all sad, but its happening throughout the horse industry, not just in this sport. What we have to do now is accept change and find ways to make it work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm... and the last time a SJ GP only jumped 4' was when??? I don't see those sports changing for the worse like the FEI seems to want Eventing to do. and yes, I believe we CAN make a difference. If you want to build a surfboard, go right ahead. I want to build an event horse.

re: Olympics. A friend and I had a long discussion on this last night as I read her some of your thoughts (she loved the high holy chow chow comment!!). I have to agree with her. The IOC has been threatening to eliminate eventing for quite a while now. It's sad to think about because "olympic" DOES mean more to people than "WEG" or even "Pan-Am", etc. HOwever, there is NO doubt in eitehr of our minds that in my lifetime there will be no eventing in teh Olympics. The Olympics are so driven by $$ and no matter what format you have eventing in, it costs a lot and returns little in revenue. So we change our whole sport to fit in the IOCs minds (at this moment anyway) and when the next budget crunch comes up... we're gone and what will we have left? some half-@ssed wanna-be sport? Again I ask -- if we remove the hard from the sport, what will make it great?

re: Conditioning differences. How many times have you heard of horses getting injured while conditioning vs. while competing? It's like comparing the number of people killed driving vs. flying. Yes teh flying is what tends to make bigger headlines, but the driving takes a bigger toll because people do it more often.

BTW, Hey Denny! Wanna come do a clinic for me here in Ohio this summer?? (yes, I'm serious)

[cweimer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Seems to me that the conclusion that has been drawn, using Janet's useful clarifications, is that ENDURANCE is too expensive and unweildy an aspect of the sport to preserve (according to some). Well, can be perhaps replace that worthy concept with something else, like strategy? Again, I don't know, but, frankly, I think it's worth thinking about more than arguing against. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably could - but would that be eventing? That is perhaps the crux of the issue. The endurance test is the defining test of a three day event. If you replace it with something else (strategy), it may be a fine sport - but it isn't eventing.

My old yellow horse is a marginally decent dressage horse, he is a careful - but not spectacular - jumper, but he is without a doubt the sturdiest, easiest to get fit horse in the world. And it made him a GREAT event horse - because he would go forever. Without the endurance, I'm sure I could find a sport for him, but probably not eventing. That's what makes me sad about this whole situation.

[Bensmom]

denny -- what you've said *more* than makes sense. And, I'd like to say "thank you" to you for taking the time to come here, get involved, and really *talk* to us about this stuff.

One thing that strikes me after all I've read is this question: if the condititioning is the same, and you won't be able to do more of these types of events with the horses, then what will be different?

I can come up with only two things that will be different: 1) An event without a good area for either R&T or steeplechase can run a CCI. Our event comes to mind as one that could then host a CCI -- we already have the CIC-W, which is a more technical course than our Advanced. In fact, can anyone tell what the difference between a CIC-W course and a CCI-M is? I haven't looked closely at the specs, but they don't seem that different on the face of it.

2) and Riders will be able to ride more horses at a CCI-M, just simply because of the time factor. At a traditional CCI, you are on course for what? An hour and a half? or thereabouts? That automatically limits the number of horses you can ride by the number of hours in a day. Which is why the riders that do already ride more than one horse *really* have my admiration -- talk about physically grueling . . .

So, let's say that riders can now compete as many horses as some do at a HT -- what concerns me about that in part, is *if* the conditioning is the same, is anyone going to have the time to fit that much conditioning for that many horses into the days leading up the event? Maybe it will just mean that more grooms/working students are hired to help with the riding, but I can't see that being all that good for the horses as the riders themselves wont' be the ones tuned into every little bump/funny step etc. as the horse ramps up in fitness. Also, it was interesting that someone said that more horses get hurt conditioning than showing -- that is a really good point. In fact, the main reason I haven't tried to send my little guy to a BNT in hopes of seeing him do a three day is that the conditioning for it would break him down, with his already damaged legs. I think he could handle the actual event, but I am too afraid that the conditioning in the lead up to it would get him. With the new CCI-M, I am even less likely to feel good about letting him try that. He'd have all the pounding in conditioning, and then would go out on a tougher, twistier course with less warm up on that day. Nope, scares me more than the idea of a traditional three day did.

Just some things that were running through my mind as I read all that everyone else has said. I have always loved the idea of a real three day, and used to hope that someday I'd do a * -- at this point, I'll be happy to show again at BN http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif But, I still would like to know that it is "out there" as a possibility. Just seems sad to see it go away . . .

Libby

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In fact, can anyone tell what the difference between a CIC-W course and a CCI-M is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SIGNIFICANTLY longer. Maybe twice as long. I know I looked it up and posted it on a thread here not that long ago.

[Erin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:

Seems to me that the conclusion that has been drawn, using Janet's useful clarifications, is that ENDURANCE is too expensive and unweildy an aspect of the sport to preserve (according to some). Well, can be perhaps replace that worthy concept with something else, like strategy? Again, I don't know, but, frankly, I think it's worth thinking about more than arguing against. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's where I disagree completely.

Sure, it can be difficult to find enough land to do a three-day on in certain parts of the country. But since when does the fact that something is difficult make it not worth doing?

I didn't sign up for equestrian chess. I signed up for three-day eventing, which is about that "complete" test and endurance.

[LisaB]

Question:
Was there ever a time in GP Jumping and racing(my opinion of big $$$) where people flocked to those sports in any way just for the sport? The reason I'm asking is because we eventers and from what I gather the endurance riders all enter that sport for the sake of the sport. We see the thrill of it. We love the type of horse that represents the sport.
If these 2 others were ever like that, why did they change and do the majority of the folks who are in those sports like this change?

[Erin]

On another note... I was just out to lunch with local BBer Bugs-n-Frodo, who is a huge Windfall fan, so I was filling her in on some of what's been said on this thread. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We were talking about how amazed we both were watching Poggio's show jumping round at the Olympics. And I know that, personally, the horses I've loved watching most are ones like Poggio and Murphy Himself... these very opinionated, unorthodox horses that are a good "fit" for eventing because they've got the heart and bravery for XC. Horses like that may not win all that frequently because their dressage scores are going to put them in the bottom half of the field, but they can certainly move up and place well when cross-country is a factor.

Eventing has always been considered a good job for those kinds of horses. I'd hate to lose that aspect.

[frugalannie]

There has been some great back-and-forth on this thread, and I think we should acknowledge pwynnnorman for being willing to stand up there and make the tough counter-arguments. (A round of applause) It ain't easy holding your ground in the face of a bunch of passionate eventers, but she has, and in the process has forced the rest of us to flesh out and sharpen our arguments. Of course, that doesn't mean that I agree with anything she's said... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

I think that as a practical matter, if eventing is dropped from the Olympics, it will cease to be part of the Pan-Am games and the WEG as well. I can't imagine the FEI allowing eventing to participate in the latter two if the sport won't "come to heel" on the matter of short v long format.

In fact, I think that all of the equestrian sports will be phased out of the Olympics in my lifetime. I seem to recall several horses injured in show jumping and still some outstanding "creative pharmacology" issues: those will provide some momentum for just eliminating the whole thing and making room for more sports that involve women wearing bikinis.

But show jumping and dressage have huge followings in Europe and elsewhere around the world, so maybe they'll be spared, and eventing will be moved out to make room for reining.

(Any resemblance to the real Frugalannie is entirely coincidental as I'm coming down with some bug that makes me feel as if my brain is having an out-of-body experience far out at sea.)

[Magnolia]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you replace it with something else (strategy), it may be a fine sport - but it isn't eventing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Startegy is already tested in Showjumping. Obedience is tested in Dressage.

Endurance is supposed to be tested on XC day. I guess you could also call it a bravery test, but then the showjumpers have that too.

[tle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magnolia:

Startegy is already tested in Showjumping. Obedience is tested in Dressage.

Endurance is supposed to be tested on XC day. I guess you could also call it a bravery test, but then the showjumpers have that too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

[Hannahsmom]

I agree with what Erin said about those horses. I am also personally bothered about the lack of loyalty to people like Jane Atkinson and all who put on Rolex. No matter where the Olympics are heading, how I read that is "fall in line with where we're headed, or we send our horses and riders elsewhere". Considering all the KHP and Jane and all her volunteers have done to provide that venue for USEA ULR's to gain experience, I find this a sad view of today's world.

We truly do have two groups: the group that wants the Olympics and will go along with the FEI, and those who want to ditch the FEI and the Olympics.

[wanderlust]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frugalannie:
I think that as a practical matter, if eventing is dropped from the Olympics, it will cease to be part of the Pan-Am games and the WEG as well. I can't imagine the FEI allowing eventing to participate in the latter two if the sport won't "come to heel" on the matter of short v long format.

In fact, I think that all of the equestrian sports will be phased out of the Olympics in my lifetime. I seem to recall several horses injured in show jumping and still some outstanding "creative pharmacology" issues: those will provide some momentum for just eliminating the whole thing and making room for more sports that involve women wearing bikinis.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Frugalannie, I agree with you on point 2. It really is only a matter of time before Equestrian sports as a whole are eliminated from the Olympic games. The argument I think they will use is "fairness"... because all riders cannot purchase the same exact horse with the same exact qualities (unlike tennis rackets, bicycles, or any other accessory object used in the particular sport), that unlevels the playing field. I can't tell you how many non-horse folks I've heard that argument from... its only a matter of time until the IOC picks up and runs with it.

On point 1, I agree that we will be dropped from the Pan Am games (also not a huge loss, IMHO). However, unless the FEI drops eventing as a sport, I don't think they could remove us from the WEG. The WEG encompasses all FEI sports- showjumping, dressage, 3-day, as well as combined driving, vaulting, reining, etc.

Although if the FEI dropped us, would it necessarily be such a bad thing? Eventing could create its own international governing body, and not be subject to the whims of the clueless Infanta and her cronies.

[colliemom]

I'm glad I took the time today to read all the new posts. My boss may not be, but too bad. Every time I was drafting something in my mind to write, someone else beat me to it! All very interesting, if depressing, stuff.

I think one of the things that disturbs me the most about this entire situation is how many people have taken the attitude that "it's over, there's nothing you can do about it." I have had people say that to my face, on several occassions (and not that I'm personally doing all that much about anything, but I'm staying informed, and sending money, and other little things that I can.)

WHY are so many people so willing to just roll over and play dead on this? Since when is this a dictatorship? WHY are those of us who are remaining vocal about how we feel about the TRUE sport of eventing being made to feel like we're nothing more than a bunch of annoying mosquitos, to be slapped at and squashed and otherwise silenced?

And pwynn, while I respect your opinions and your desire to embrace change, I echo what everyone has already said... this kind of change is destroying the very nature of the sport, and what it means to us. I do NOT embrace that kind of change.

[Hannahsmom]

Well colliemom, I have already been looking up the Rolex entry fees, considering offering to pay the entry fee for a rider as my 'donation' to those willing to take on the ultimate challenge. Only thing holding me back is that I think the posted fee must be wrong, it shows $100. If that was true, I think I could sponsor several riders. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

My other thought is, I'm going with my plan is to work with my local organization. Support riders espousing the long format.

Any other ideas on how not to rollover?

[tle]

Ann, that is NOT a typo. Because of the emmense amount of sponsorship and whatnot that Janie and crew have been able to amass over the years of hard work on this phenominal TRADITIONAL event, the entry fee for Rolex is indeed $100.

But wait til after the weekend -- who knows... you may win the free entry the EEI donated in the door prize drawings on Saturday. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannahsmom:
Well colliemom, I have already been looking up the Rolex entry fees, considering offering to pay the entry fee for a rider as my 'donation' to those willing to take on the ultimate challenge. Only thing holding me back is that I think the posted fee must be wrong, it shows $100. If that was true, I think I could sponsor several riders. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

My other thought is, I'm going with my plan is to work with my local organization. Support riders espousing the long format.

Any other ideas on how not to rollover? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because Rolex has VERY generous sponsors, they are abl;e to keep the entry fee much lower than most other CCIs.

But bear in mind that, even at the more expensive CCIs, the entry fee is only a small part of the cost of competing.

[MischiefMaker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannahsmom:
Well colliemom, I have already been looking up the Rolex entry fees, considering offering to pay the entry fee for a rider as my 'donation' to those willing to take on the ultimate challenge. Only thing holding me back is that I think the posted fee must be wrong, it shows $100. If that was true, I think I could sponsor several riders. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Any other ideas on how not to rollover? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope you are reading correctly, the entry fee is only $100. And if you arrive on monday and leave the next monday stabling is still only $160 for the horse ($20/day for 8 days). So what's that $260, heck I pay more than that for most of my horse trails http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif! And they want people to travel to Europe instead? What's wrong with them?!

[DizzyMagic]

The cost of competing is going to be substantially higher if the riders have to go to Germany! How is this leveling the playing field??

And I want to say this again, how is it creating "superstars" if the team hopefuls compete in another country, where most US eventing fans will not see them run?? The gaps between the short format supporters' arguments and reality are legion, but this one in particular is making me angry! Is the encouragement of our riders to ride overseas this spring in fact a backhanded attempt to force Rolex to run a short format??

Emily

[Gnep]

Denni,
It makes absolut sence. I had this feeling when I did my first 3D over 30 years ago. And that feeling has never left me.
For me every single time I cross the finishline on Endurance Day I still have that unbeleavebal feeling of a very unique accomplishment.
In Galway a spectator stoped and asked me if this was my first one, because the way I was celebrating with my horse.
That is what will be taken away, too.

The top riders have become Stars. But I think they are forgeting how and why they became Stars. They became Stars, because they accomplished some thing very special.

[RunForIt]

One of the great things about a marathon is that you can't change the distance...to run a MARATHON, you have to run 26.2 miles. I'm one of those people who enjoy watching the 3-day riders trot by on Roads and Tracks...I had never even been to a horse trial when we had the Atlanta Olympics 3-day 20 minutes from my home! My husband and I ran the course and were completely in awe of such amazing riding and the horses' faith in those riders...and I was hooked. Yes, Denny eventing is going the way of all professional sports; as I said in an earlier post- I'd give anything to be at the Final Four, but you can't pay me enough to go watch a pro basketball "game".

[Erin]

I would think that some of the expenses of going to Germany are subsidized by the USET, if it's something that the "team" riders are being encouraged/required to do.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
I would think that some of the expenses of going to Germany are subsidized by the USET, if it's something that the "team" riders are being encouraged/required to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which means it is subsidized by the people who make donations to the USET Foundation.

[canterlope]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
And lastly, way back somewhere, someone said this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's easy to dismiss us as a bunch of internut nut jobs, LOL, how do we prove we are more than that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, how about more ad hominem attacks? Like this one:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not support a "superhorse" special category of ****, but let the sport have its short format and GROW WITH IT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not leave Eventing alone and go start some other sport for those who feel the short format better suits their needs? Then you could take your own advice and grow with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sure those who aren't fond of BBers are very impressed by this sort of thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pwynn, contrary to what you may think, this was not an ad hominem attack, but rather what I consider to be a legitimate question and one that I have been asking since the entire debate of long versus short format began. I do not understand nor do I agree with the current belief that the sport of Eventing as we knew it to be prior to the short format being introduced is some evil monstrosity that must be changed. I am absolutely convinced that there is room for however many different formats we want to come up with, but that none of them should ever be made to sacrifice its integrity and the very heart of its being for another.

This is not some bizarre personal theory because it has been proven to work in other equestrian sports. You can find a prime example of it in the Morgan industry. In the competition arena, it used to be that the Park Horse reigned supreme. If your horse couldn't "trot over a barrel", you were SOL. However, those types of horses were very few and far between (still are, for that matter). As a result, the success of and growth within the Morgan industry was suffering because not enough Park horses could be produced to carry the rest of the horses being produced that were exceptionally fine equines, but couldn't meet the Park Horse standards.

Did the leaders in that industry throw up their hands in defeat and lessen the specifications of what a Park Horse should be? No, they did not. Instead, they kept their Park horses as they always had been and created new opportunities for those other horses to be successful. More and more you started seeing Country Pleasure classes, Hunter/Jumper classes, and even Dressage classes at the Morgan breed shows. Nowadays, you would never know that these classes were not an original part of the Morgan industry. If they can do it, so can we.

Truth be told, you and I are are basically saying the same thing. Where we drastically differ is in how this is to be accomplished. You want the sport of eventing to change to suit the needs of those who support the short format and for those who support the long format to go out and re-invent that wheel. I think it should be the other way around. I truly believe that the sport of Eventing is the long format and those who can't or don't care to meet the standards set by it should be the ones that go out and invent their own wheel.

Frankly, I don't know why this is such a hard concept for the supporters of the short format at the expense of the long format to grasp. Unless it really comes down to the fact that they do grasp the concept and realize that it will require hard work and effort on their part, but would rather steal and bastardize what Denny, Jimmy, Don, Beth, Caroline and those who went before them worked so hard and sacrificed so much to create.

So, I say to you again with absolutely no apology and not as an ad hominem attack, why don't you take your own advice and go grow the sport you've described? You certainly don't appear to be all that happy with Eventing as most of us on the BB wish it to be and you shouting at us to change and GROW WITH IT isn't really going to motivate many of us to jump on your bandwagon with you.

[DizzyMagic]

I would be willing to bet that few if any of the team hopefuls will get any financial help from the USET for the Germany trip. And any help will be a pittance.

It was a tremendous financial burden for most of the Team riders, those actually SELECTED for the team, to afford the England experience this summer. The USET doesn't pay for much...

On that point... I'm not exactly sure where the money goes....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
I would think that some of the expenses of going to Germany are subsidized by the USET, if it's something that the "team" riders are being encouraged/required to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DizzyMagic]

In fact, I don't believe the USET pays for anything that is not specifically a team competition - someone else know for sure??

Emily

[Gry2Yng]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> On that point... I'm not exactly sure where the money goes....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CMP gets a BIG chunk of it, and now we are going to have a coach for dressage and a coach for show jumping. How ironic is that?

[Mary in Area 1]

And is the coach for dressage still the famous Mrs. Captain? Sandy Plueger-Phillips? (sp?) How ironic is THAT?

I wonder what Zara's take is on all of this. Maybe her horse doesn't like steeplechase.

The more I think about this, the more it makes my blood boil.

[Gry2Yng]

No, they actually want to pay BIG names in dressage and sj.

[Hilary]

How close together is the qualifing competition at Lumuhlen (I am not even going to try to spell it) that team hopefuls are encouraged to go to, and the WEG - will the horses/riders have to make 2 trips to Europe?

I'm still waiting to hear how the short version is less expensive.

[DizzyMagic]

WEG is 2006 - the following year...

[joliemom]

Reading through all this I can't believe how short sighted the FEI, et al, is. How ironic they've decided to share their bed with the IOC, an organization riddled with scandal and graft. How short sighted they are to believe this will keep them in the Olympics one year longer when all it would take is one more horse to be injured or, worse, die on course for the animal rights activists to demand eventing's withdrawal.