[LisaB]

I think what we're trying to point out is that these folks in question do hold themselves above moral ground.
When we all mess up and put our foot in our mouth, we generally put our tail between our legs and apologize or make it up in some way. Repeatedly, the folks in question have gone about their holier than though attitude without repercussions.
but I on the other hand make no mistakes. Just ask Winston

[eventmom]

Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.

So, lets all move to Cuba where the great unwashed are not allowed to question the decisions of the almighty Castro. I mean really, how dare we challenge the ideas of our leaders?
You know what really is getting on my last nerve? You see it especially in the h/j forum. Everytime anyone wants to ask "why" about someone up there in the sport, you get 50 posters breathing down there neck about "how dare they"! Just go look at th recent thread about Chron homepage and Dr. Wolf.

[RAyers]

canyonoak you are competely missing the point.

In the NCAA there are codes of conduct for the athletes. The universities have codes of conduct as well. If the athletes, WHO REPRESENT THE UNIVERISTY, act inappropriately, there is a perogative to punish them. No, this does not always happen but I have seen plenty of cases where it has worked. The ahtletes are held to the same expectations as the students. Just because they are "elite" does not excluded them from being professional.

It is your perogative to accept the situation and, here on this thread, defend it. It is my perogative to try to change the system by being involved with the USEF, USEA, proposing rules and participating in the process because I see the beginnings of Eventing turning into h/j where I saw too many cases of "the ruels do not apply to me." I will hold the international representatives to higher standard because they are the face of the sport to the public and to the up and coming riders.

Reed

[eventmom]

RAyers.... very well said
Much kinder than my version

[snoopy]

Yes, everyone here has lived a life fully blameless and has never ever ever done or said anything less than high moral standard.

And has never had to look in the mirror and admit that they ever treated man or beast with less then the highest moral compass.

You all make me giggle.

This remark is always used when a poster as NOTHING relevant left to say. Nothing constructive to contribute to the debate at hand.

I for one have NOT lived a fully blameless life BUT I do own up to my actions and the consequences that follow.

[Adamantane]

And if some one violates the rules, they should not be helped, protected or aided by our governing bodies, instead they should be judged and penalized regardles of their stature.
And if a representive of the USEF suggest different, that he rules should be bent in favour of a athelet than that person should be judged and penalized.

It is the example they are, what becomes of our sport and if we tolerate that there are 2 rules, than we can kiss our sport good by

Well a lot of the attitudes and behavio(u)rs commented upon can be accounted for if we remember that to have one's mother-in-law head of a major international religion (not to mention head of state) will after a while lead one to view the world and its ordinary inhabitants quite differently.

Leadership consists in a blend of competence, honesty, fair-mindedness, objectivity and good humor, often with a dollop of added charisma.

If any of the core five are in short supply or missing, to lift and tweak a phrase from Her Majesty's German antecedents: 'The king called and all the people didn't come.'

Leadership does not consist in first being anointed leader and thereafter having one's future random pronouncements and acts deemed ipso facto leaderly. Are the people answering the call? Are they?

By all accounts each of the various onetime theoretical contenders mentioned for the role are highly competent and honest, and on that basis, at least, above reproach.

Based on what I can tell at a great distance, from others I respect who are in a position to know, and having watched one of these guys up close as he dealt professionally with 'ordinary people,' some possess every ingredient of leadership needed to successfully persuade and inspire. But not all do.

It's not just about sitting in a gilt chair and regularly making little speeches.

Henry V didn't win at Agincourt simply because he was king, he won because he was a leader beloved of those who went out and fought the battle, one who could inspire the best from them and impart a vision.

William IV, despite inheriting a realm by then arguably the richest and grandest in its world, never accomplished much of anything in his own right beyond warming that very same chair for a few years until Victoria at last succeeded him, whereupon she placed her own name and stamp on an entire era.

[Lose That]

Oh my god people. Stop putting words into the man's mouth. He didn't say anything ABOUT lower level riders. Just because he said upper level riders love their horses does not mean he thinks lower level riders don't. If he had said "lower level riders love their horses" would you all be complaining about what he was "saying" about the UL riders? Haven't you heard of that logic principle that goes something like "All ravens are black, therefore all black things are ravens." and how that is NOT TRUE?

Go ahead, flame away. Sometimes I think people on this board live for conflict...

Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?

[snoopy]

Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?

Well he did state that he was "disappointed" that this incident was being investigated further....so it would seem he may well feel that amy does not deserve to be investigated. Yet this is a serious matter.

[Janet]

Ever consider the fact that he just doesn't think Amy deserves to be investigated over this?

THAT is pretty obvious.

[deltawave]

It's pretty obvious he thinks Amy doesn't "deserve" to be investigated. However, that is in direct contradiction to the RULES, which MANDATE an investigation. He's the chef d'equipe--you'd think he'd know the rules and I'm sure he does. He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion expressed in the way he expressed it is indefensible (in my opinion) and gives a bad impression.

[canyonoak]

<<
It is your perogative to accept the situation and, here on this thread, defend it. It is my perogative to try to change the system by being involved with the USEF, USEA, proposing rules and participating in the process because I see the beginnings of Eventing turning into h/j where I saw too many cases of "the ruels do not apply to me." I will hold the international representatives to higher standard because they are the face of the sport to the public and to the up and coming riders>>

No.
And again-- no.

You--and by "you" I mean all the ones I am giggling at-- you can NOT changte the nature of the thread. You can NOT slide off to some new territory of thought. You can NOT keep on and on and on pretending to be talking about one thing and then insisting you are talking about somethi9ng else.

This thread began with RAyers making a statement :

<<have to admit, I sent a letter to the editor as a result of Phillips' comments concerning how he felt the rules should be applied to elite riders. It seemed to me he advocates bending the rules because the elite riders are the riders who love their horses.

This is NOT a thread about AT!!!!!! This is a thread about equitable application of the rules applied at ALL levels of the sport and how it seems that our team leader feels that they should be interpreted in a vaiable manner.>>

Whatever this thread is about--this thread IS about the perception that Mark's editorial suggests bending over backwards for elite riders, even in questionable situations.

I read the editorial.
Amazingly--I did NOT COME AWAY with this perception.

Now--if we cannot agree the sky is blue and the earth is brown, we probably cannot agree on this matter either.

So far, I have given my reaons for liking and admiring Mark.

I have suggested that he who is without blame can cast the first stone when it comes to higher moral ground--and that I find it difficult to believe that everyone here inhabits that same high lofty moral ground.


Anyway, as I already said-- carry on.

[deltawave]

Hey, nobody minds your having your own opinion on what is, in reality, merely someone ELSE'S opinion. That's why they call them "editorials", or at least that is what that term has come to mean. I'm sure there are a number of people (at least THREE on this thread) that like and admire MP.

this thread IS about the perception that Mark's editorial suggests bending over backwards for elite riders, even in questionable situations.

Ummm, yes?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but as others have pointed out, the "if you've never made a mistake you're entitled to an opinion, otherwise shut up" argument is specious and irrelevant. But hell, I'll speak up: I have never tried to get the rules bent for someone because of their status as a rider.

[flutie1]

"... He's the chef d'equipe--you'd think he'd know the rules"

Actually Lynn, he doesn't - and furthermore, he's admitted it.

Flutie

[retreadeventer]

But that's what a coach does. They defend their team, and their riders. In the world opinion, for the coach to be silent, to say nothing, or not to go to the defense of a rider would be tatamount to abandoning the team.
Man, I wish eventers would look at the big (International) picture. Good grief, we hurt our team by being so domestically critical.

[deltawave]

I think if MP had solidly proclaimed his support for AT without mentioning his private lament at how the FEI was "sticking to the letter of the law" nobody would be criticizing him. One can stand behind one's team members and support them while still upholding the rules, can't they? He could've accompanied AT to the hearing, made a statement on her behalf, made the entire editorial into a proclamation of her "innocence" but still graciously acknowledged that the rules are there and for good reason. The latter is the part he DIDN'T do and no, it's not the end of the world but it IS something I find unsavory and I do feel it diminishes MP (further!) and makes a mockery of the intent of a rule like this: to make SURE the horse has a dispassionate advocate and a voice. Yes, in this case the judgment may very well be that no wrong was done intentionally, etc. etc. but how does a hearing and a discussion "harm" anyone and why shouldn't the hearing take place if everyone's so darn sure there's not going to be any negative ramifications? Why is MP whining on AT's behalf--I haven't heard HER whining about the hearing.

[Lose That]

THAT is pretty obvious.

Ok, if it is SOOO obvious to everyone that the mere point of the article is that he doesn't feel Amy (one person in one case) does not deserve to be investigated for this then why is everyone twisting his words around so much? He never said "Elite riders deserve to be above the rules" and I think it is completely ignorant and unfair to believe that is what thinks.

And speaking of OBVIOUS... I'm sure everyone has noticed that when you write something down (weather over email, letter, instant message or EDITORIAL), without tone, inflection and stress on certain words it is very easy for the original meaning of the statement to be completely lost. Even in re-reading what you've written, since you know what you meant when you wrote it you might not realize the way it is going to sound when someone else reads it.

And just for the record, I have absolutely no opinion on MP. I've heard people say both good and bad things about him and I remain a neutral party. I'm not even trying to defend him here, I just think it's unfair to come on this board and relentlessly bash people when you have no idea of what the person meant or was thinking or anything (just like the thread bashing AT after Rolex) and I think it's important for people to be on both sides of the argument. Call me devil's advocate I guess because not only do I not really have an opinion on MP or what he thinks, I really don't care. It's opinion and his idea and he can have it, as can all of you. But someone has to point things out from the other side of the fence.

[fergie]

He's not the brighest bulb in the lamp, is he?

[deltawave]

Hey, LT, duly noted, but you also have to acknowledge that this sort of discussion is HEALTHY, for the most part, because it allows people to air their thoughts and opinions, even if they're not nice and "sterile" or "politically correct". When one is in a position of authority and one holds forth with an editorial/opinion, one must accept that people may disagree. Many of us disagree with MP's editorial. Many of us also can't stand the guy because we perceive (note emphasis) that he is less than a staunch supporter of the traditional 3 day event and is fairly indifferent to the "smurfs". For this, yes, he is widely resented. Fair? About as fair as anything else in life when opinions fly and people trade their thoughts on things that MATTER to them.

Why try to make nice? Nobody's saying to lynch the guy. (well, maybe a small minority but I know the COTH "voices" well enough to appreciate humor and sarcasm when I see it) Most of us appreciate the fact that MP is the US "elite rider" coach (I get tired of typing chef blah blah) and not a real voice of the unwashed masses. Most of us appreciate that his job description doesn't entail elevating the 95% of USEA members or even acknowledging their existence. My main heartburn with the guy (aside from the above) is that he COULD do both if he'd make half an effort: encourage the lower level people, be an ambassador, narrow the gap, etc...but he doesn't seem capable nor interested. THAT is worth objecting to, IMO.

As to "twisting his words" and misinterpreting the written word, well, welcome to the world of print. My impression from listening to him speak and reading his writings is that communication and clarity are not strong suits. Woe unto him--take an English class.

[pwynnnorman]

I think both Lose That and Deltawave make strong points. I do think these discussions are just outstanding ways to air issues and while I don't know how set in stone others' opinions are, I find myself rethinking things a lot upon reading these threads.

1.) Horse sports--eventing maybe more than any of the other Olympic disciplines--really, really need to "coach" their figureheads on how to interact with the public, especially through the print media. I get the strong impression that there may be an attitude out there that doesn't care about that. I am, in fact, a little surprised that it still exists given the whole NGB fiasco and how quickly those folks learned to communicate better to avoid landing in the poop. Indeed, MP could learn a lot from David -- and also from Bill Moroney, two individuals who are really skilled at handling delicate issues in a positive and encouraging way.

2.) Canyonoaks comments made me consider something that--and I since I refuse to buy a flame suit, fire away!--I hadn't thought of before: TALENT. Should talent be excused from wrong? ANY wrong, or just some degree of wrong? Where should the line be drawn AND for what type of "talent"? Canyonoaks got me thinking about AT's talent and why MP may be desparate to keep it. (Although I'm pretty stunned by the revelation that he helped her get the ride on LS--we really need to be much more careful about even the appearance of bias in coaches. I'm amazed by that complication in all of this!)

Anyway, you gotta admit that Amy can get a horse around a course. That's a lot of what got her into the spot she's in right now, but I think I can see a LITTLE from MPs perspective in trying to field strong teams that having a rider like AT around is a godsend. Indeed, the situation reminds me of Mike Plumb when he rode the relatively green Blue Stone (I think that was the gray's name) in the Olympics (can't remember what year). Mike could sure "muscle" a horse around a course, but for that reason, he could also be relied on to put a score on the board and keep the team in contention.

I think that's the way a coach HAS to think. Bruce could do it, but doesn't have the horseflesh. (Bruce is amazing to me in that I think he can muscle when necessary but you'd never know it when it wasn't necessary. AT's ability to muscle is apparent in every stride.) I honestly can't say that Karen could fill that role--she isn't into "muscling" a horse--doesn't even carry a crop sometimes. Who else among our most experienced riders can be relied on to get that third horse around? Kim and Darren can be exceedingly determined, but muscle? Nah. Buck can muscle, but he doesn't have the horseflesh or the experience, wouldn't you say? Look at the most recently posted A and B Pan Am/USEF Training List (which AT is on with Coal Creek and Leyland). Who on it could be counted on to get around the course, regardless of how the course was riding, how the horse was feeling, or EVEN a problem on course (like a rider fall or a bad, confidence-shaking slip up on the horse's fault)? Who is our current Mike Plumb? Why, it's AT, isnt it? (And Phillip Dutton, I suppose--as he's proven with Tru Luck this past year, in fact--but I'm not totally sure about that.)

Again, I'm not condoning AT's actions and I'm not condoning MP's bad PR, but I think if folks were trained to communicate better--to provide information that helps interpret action--we might be able to be more understanding about how things are evolving.

[pegasusmom]

pwynn - two comments.

How does our society as a whole accept perceived misbehavior by top atheletes?

And after last weekend's Phillip Dutton clinic, I'd say it's not AT but PD.