I’m only one of many who believes that the classic-format three-day event has received a raw deal in the stampede to keep eventing in the Olympic Games.

Mind you, that was the first reason for the creation of the format that was used in Athens. It’s just that since then some people have attached the issues of organizing costs, universality of the sport and horse welfare to it.

Many debate the importance of keeping the sport in the Olympics, but if a shortened format serves that purpose, I’m not opposed. Everyone wants their sport to be in the Olympics because that lends credence and worldwide attention to the sport.

But what has happened over the past few years is a landslide of changes to the sport, many of which seem to have no basis in fact or reason, only opinion, and not a consensus opinion at that. And it seems many of these changes were unnecessary or that the changes have gone too far, either as an overreaction to some ill-perceived problems in the sport or for reasons that are shrouded in mystery.

I don’t think I’m mired in the past or want to hold on to something that needs to go away. I don’t like change for the sake of change, but even I’ve voted for changes that make things better. But I don’t believe the change to the short format as the standard CCI competition was necessary or will be particularly kind to the horses. Nor do I think the elimination of the classic format is necessary or prudent.

I think these sweeping changes are changing eventing into a sport that will no longer be something that people see as the ultimate athletic test of horses and riders. Oh, people will still compete, but I don’t think the sport will go any farther up the flagpole (so to speak) as a premier equestrian sport than it is right now.

Because what the sport is becoming at the highest levels is simply a horse trials with a longer cross-country course.

Denny Emerson, in his March 18 Between Rounds column, and Jan Snodgrass, in her letter “What’s The Real Motivation” (April 1, p. 65) each raised
excellent questions. I have even more of my own.

A Definite Distinction

Even top-level riders and those who have been involved in the sport for a long time don’t really understand all the sport’s configurations.

Until international horse trials (CICs) and the CCI without steeplechase (or the short format) became a part of the Federation Equestre Internationale family of competitions, there were two distinct, but definitely different, forms of eventing competition: horse trials and three-day events.

Horse trials are basically national competitions, with rules promulgated by each country’s national equestrian federation. Most federations pattern their horse trials rules after the FEI rules because there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel. Three-day events can be national or international in nature. Pretty simple. Easy to understand. Definite distinction between the two forms of the sport.

A rider might never move from horse trials to three-day events, because they required the rider and the horse to be just that much better. But that’s OK. Not all of us can be Bruce Davidson or Kim Severson. Not everyone who plays tennis is going to get to Wimbledon, but it’s never stopped people from playing tennis at their own level.

The three-day is a complete test of horse and rider, based on the principles of training and testing of military chargers. And my question has always been, “Would those military men who created this competition have created something that was harmful to their horses when they had to depend upon their horses for their lives?” I think not! They were better and more knowledgeable horsemen than that.

Just because there have been modifications in the four phases of the cross-country test over the years doesn’t mean the basic premise is wrong. I think the changes in the three-day have been made to accommodate the changes in the capacity of riders, not the horses. I’m not saying the test was made
easier because riders weren’t as good, only that the volume of riding, training and conditioning time decreased as the horse became more a sport animal and civilian riders had less time to spend in the saddle.

The horse hasn’t changed. The trot is still the horse’s basic gait, the one it uses to travel most efficiently from point to point over long distances, as it has since the dawn of time. The gallop is still the horse’s flight mechanism, the change in gait it uses to propel itself out of harm’s way. And then it returns to the trot to regain its breath and reduce its heart rate so it can keep traveling on and be ready for the next “need for speed.”

The horse is an endurance machine–and that hasn’t changed.

And even if the general public doesn’t fully understand what phases A, B and C are, they do have a complete grasp that not every horse and rider can compete in a three-day event and that it takes a special horse and a special rider to compete at the highest level.

Witness the crowds at Rolex Kentucky. They aren’t all horse folk. Most of them are vague about the particulars of A, B and C, but they do know that those three things the horses do before they start on the cross-country they’ve all come to watch are essential to making Rolex Kentucky the complete and ultimate test of the athletic ability of horse and rider.

This isn’t supposition; it’s fact. I’ve done the surveys.

Salvation?

OK, here are some of the questions I have for the FEI and for the riders and trainers who are espousing the short format so completely.

Many riders and trainers are saying that the short format is the salvation of the sport. (I didn’t realize it needed saving.) They say that its design is better for the welfare of the horses, a secondary reason for the creation of the short format. How can they make that statement? Where is the proof that the classic format is more harmful to horses?

Classic-format three-day events are higher profile, so anything bad that happens is instant news. But where are the statistics that definitively prove that the format hurts horses? Isn’t it more a result of the ground, course design and ability of riders and horses? Isn’t it a function of people, not the format?
Some riders and trainers have stated that a horse can run in more short-format events than classic-format events in a given year. How do they know that?

Many riders and trainers are stating that horses will last longer because the short format will put less stress on them. How do they know that?

And how much longer should The Gray Goose, Charisma, Dr. Peaches, Biko, Prince Panache, Custom Made and Giltedge–to name just a few who were competitive into their teens in the classic format–have continued to compete?

We haven’t even had one full year of short-format events to evaluate yet. It’s going to take a minimum of three years, but more realistically five years, before we’ll have enough data to allow conclusions based on fact, not opinion.

Many riders are making broad statements that more injuries to horses occur on the steeplechase than on cross-country. Where is the proof? Show me the data. I want research, data, facts, analysis and statistical significance to prove–or disprove–such damning statements.

Eliminating three phases doesn’t automatically ensure that every horse will reach the finish in the same condition they started, especially if the individual warm-ups aren’t suited to prepare each horse for cross-country. If they jump practice fences more than seven, eight or 10 times (the maximum number of jumping efforts allowed on steeplechase in classic format one-, two-, three- and four-star CCIs), they’ll have jumped more times before starting on cross-country.

And without data on individual horses going in more than one short-format CCI over the period of a year, we have no means to judge how competing in one, two, three or four short-format CCIs in a season affects the horse over the long term.

Right Now, It’s Just Opinion

I’m not saying the short format is bad. I’m not even saying that it might not have a place alongside horse trials in the sport. But before we conclude that it’s the savior of the sport, and before the bridge is burned for the classic-format CCI at all levels, research must be accomplished to provide data that can be analyzed to establish facts and the statistical significance of those facts. Otherwise, it’s just one person’s opinion against another’s.

If research proves the short-format CCI is significantly better for horses than the classic-format CCI, so be it. If research proves no significant difference, or that the classic format is better, let’s hope those who have forced this major change upon us so quickly will have the integrity to be equally quick in admitting their mistake and rectifying it.

FEI officials and those on the FEI Eventing Committee say it’s a done deal, that the short format is the future, that the classic format is essentially already dead and will never return in its present form. While they rue the loss of the classic format, they state that we must be forward thinking.

But, why change totally before it’s proven to be the better road to travel? How do they know we really are moving in the right direction?

Why were all FEI championships changed to short-format? The job was done to keep eventing in the Olympics. Why did it have to affect competitions not governed by the International Olympic Committee?

Some have said, “People need to move on and accept the fact that organizations can run what they want.” If that were true, there probably wouldn’t be all the consternation there currently is, but the fact is that we aren’t allowed to run FEI championships in the classic format, even if we want to.

FEI officials have suggested that the short-format will be less expensive to organize, thus increasing the sport’s “universality.”

But the cross-country is the most expensive part of running any event, and that doesn’t change with the short format.

I’ve come to understand that finding and paying for land for A, B and C is a problem for some organizers, which is why so many classic format CCIs in England have opted to run in the short format. So why don’t national federations help them pay for the land? And if organizers are paying less to use less land, will entry fees go down? Riders should pay attention to this.

Not every horse, nor every rider, is cut out to compete in the classic format. Those who are, however, come as close to that mythical creature to which for 30 years in the Official Program we have likened the horses and riders who compete at Rolex Kentucky–real-life centaurs. They should not be made extinct.

Our Next Project

Capt. Mark Phillips recently suggested that to keep the four-star classic-format CCI alive, the organizers of Kentucky, Badminton (England) and Burghley (England) should offer an Individual World Championships in the odd-numbered years between the Olympics and World Equestrian Games, alternating the championship among the three.

But Badminton and Burghley will start running as short-format events in 2006. In order to continue to serve the sport in the United States, Rolex Kentucky will run as a short-format four-star in the even-numbered years, the years of the World Equestrian Games and the Olympics. We won’t run a classic format alongside the short format because all eligible U.S. riders need the opportunity to run in a four-star short format event. Also, we don’t want to confuse spectators or have to make a choice of which class should be highlighted on the NBC TV broadcast.

But the Board of Directors of Equestrian Events Inc., which runs Kentucky, has given me permission to explore the possibility of keeping the classic format alive by developing a World Event Horse Championship in the odd-numbered years.

The idea for a World Event Horse Championship, in lieu of an Individual World Championship, came from Dr. Tim Holekamp, owner of Windfall 2. As one who used to work for the weekly Thoroughbred racing and breeding magazine The Blood-Horse, and who is fascinated by the breeding of sport horses, I jumped on this idea with unbridled enthusiasm. I’m going to enjoy fleshing this idea out.

Janie Atkinson has been the event director at the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event for 21 years. Prior to that, she was the chief dressage steward there for nine years of Kentucky. As executive director of the Kentucky Horse Council in 1974, she urged the Kentucky government to host the 1978 World Championships at its brand-new horse park.