The scheduling controversy in eventing has highlighted many of the issues that the sport has been grappling with over the past few years, including rating competitions.

Eventing is a growing discipline, and up to now the number of competitions has been close to the demand of competitors.
   
Still, on the East Coast the number of events that run with more than 350 competitors has grown at an alarming rate. This is good for many shows but has also sparked interest in organizers developing competitions at many different levels.

As organizers establish new  events, the competitions are fit into the current calendar, creating a schedule that right now is crowded. This situation has impacted some older shows and reduced the number of competitors available to support different events.

There have been efforts to try and standardize the scheduling process, but I still feel that we don’t have it right (see “Event Scheduling Provokes Discontent Among Organizers,” p. 56).

Three Tiers
There are three types of events in this country. The first is the local event that’s run on a break-even basis. These competitions are produced for the local eventers to have a place to ride. There’s no media, few spectators and the local, mainly amateur riders, compete at their comfort level.

The second level is the professionally run “workman” events that professionals and amateurs use. Usually, they’re held at a site that runs several events per year and cater to the higher numbers of riders (300 to 600 rides a weekend).

The organizers of Level 2 events are a huge part of the sport, and they need the finances these larger numbers support for the event to work. A reduction of 50 or so horses is huge to their business, and they’re the most vocal about the business side of the sport because changes affect them dramatically.

The third level is a destination event. This type of event caters to the professionals, has a media presence, and organizers try to have a spectator presence. Some of these events are run by a benefactor, someone really trying to establish a true sporting event.

A problem occurs when a new destination-type event comes on the market. This event is usually a
benefit to the professionals and is good for the sport as a whole because of the media presence. The dilemma is that where the professional riders go they take their clients with them.

So, one or two top riders choosing to go elsewhere to compete can cost an organizer 50 or more horses. If professionals regularly attend the destination events, then their decision hurts the Level 2 professional organizer or even the local community event.

What We’re Facing
Eventing here in the United States has changed over the past five years as the Fédération Equestre Internationale now dictates how riders qualify for three-day events.

The FEI created CICs—international-level horse trials—that guarantee consistent levels of competitions around the world. So a one-star or two-star CIC is of the same level in Argentina as it is in England.

The only way for the FEI to achieve this goal is to have international officials—who have worldwide experience—officiate at these events and provide organizers with the specifications to make the levels
consistent around the world.

Establishing this level playing field hasn’t been a problem here in the United States, but we’re part of the FEI, and need to be, so we have to play by the rules that affect everyone around the world.

We cannot hold ourselves apart and to a different standard. Requiring CIC competitions in the United States has added to the expense organizers and competitors must face. Our riders need to compete in these CICs or they’ll not qualify for a CCI (three-day event). So, organizers need to organize them. In addition, these CICs are expensive to run, added to an already costly sport to produce.

Confused yet?

Eventing isn’t the same as the hunter/ jumper model. Eventing doesn’t have the numbers to support the “big classes.” A large hunter/jumper show can run 1,000 horses through the rings in a day. At events, at most 200 horses can be accommodated. Due to the cross-country course, events are among the most expensive equestrian competitions to produce.

You do the math.

The only way for eventing to survive is to increase the entry fees or find sponsors. Sponsors only come with spectators, and few competitions—primarily the destination events—put their efforts into that part of the program.

Time To Classify
As with most issues, there’s not one easy answer to this conundrum in eventing. There must always be a balance between all sides of the sport—organizers, riders and officials.

When one group says, “we’re the most important, and without us you have no sport” we’re already on the wrong road to solving the true issue.

To work through this particular controversy, a group was established—the USEF Eventing Calendar Sub-Committee—to create what should be a perfect schedule for the international side of the sport. They did a good job. The problem stems from trying to get from the theoretical to the practical.

Everyone should be part of the decision. But at some point a decision will have to be made that’s not going to make everyone happy. As with any democracy, which our organization is modeled on, everyone must have the ability to sit at the table. But the final decision must be made by a smaller group, or we’ll get nowhere.

Should we allow the sport to be a free marketplace where scheduling is done by whatever organizer wants to take a chance to run an event on whatever weekend he wants? Should an organization be chosen to be the final arbiter in the process?

Right now the U.S. Equestrian Federation is that organization, and their leaders have that responsibility given to them by the U.S. Olympic Committee and therefore the U.S. Congress through the Ted Stevens
Sports Act.

The answer is not clear, however.

If we classified events then we could use criteria like mileage or level to help organizers decide where and when to run events, from the upper levels to the local events.

So, I believe that we need to have a classification system of events first. Then, USEF officials must research what’s needed in each area of the country on a local, national and international level.

Then, these officials can work with the U.S. Eventing Association areas and sort out the schedule through a free marketplace, or use local councils to create a schedule for their area.

We’re at a crossroads, and no matter what we think at the moment we need to create a system that benefits the sport for the next few decades and not just our immediate personal needs.

If eventing’s leaders think big enough, then the discipline will continue to grow and expand. Provincial thinking will only hamper the process, and, in the end, won’t allow the sport to fulfill its promise.

It’s time to play on the big stage and create a sport that amateurs, professionals and all of us fans can enjoy for years to come.

The current president of the U.S. Equestrian Federation, David O’Connor has earned three Olympic medals in eventing—including individual gold in 2000—and medals at the Pan Am Games and World Equestrian Games. He won the 2001 Rolex Kentucky CCI**** and was the second U.S. rider to win the Badminton CCI**** (England), in 1997. Now retired from international competition, O’Connor focuses on training riders, including the Canadian Eventing Team, and designs cross-
country courses.

David O’Connor