It’s an old saying: “You can make all of the people happy some of the time; you can make some of the people happy all of the time; but you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time.”

My first experience with selection trials goes back to 1956, the year of the Olympics in Stockholm, Sweden. I was 18 and had four wonderful horses–my mother’s The Gigolo and War Bride, along with Mrs. William Joshua Barney’s Magnify and Master William.

The team was to be picked by scores and by recommendations of the selection committee, comprised of the powers-that-be of the U.S. Equestrian Team.
By the end of the weekend, thanks to my wonderful string of horses, I wound up second to Bill Steinkraus on score. I thought surely I’d go to Stockholm, and so did my family, even though I was so young and had never shown outside the United States.

I’m sure the selection committee and Bert de Nemethy, the then rather new coach, were in a quandary. Wisely, as I see it now, they decided not to take me in favor of Warren Wofford, who was older and more experienced.

As I later understood it, the big dilemma was who was going to tell my grandmother, the matriarch of our family, my best sponsor, as well as being my biggest fan. They chose Marjorie “Madge” MacDonald, a noted horsewoman, judge and director of the USET who was an old childhood friend of hers.

Naturally, I was devastated at missing the Olympics, especially after I felt I’d earned a berth. My family was also most disappointed. They were personal and social friends of most of the people connected with USET in those early days and couldn’t understand their decision.

But life went on. I spent the summer with my idol, Gen. Humberto Mariles-Cortes, and then I went on to the University of Virginia, studied with de Nemethy, and got on the team the next year. I let life and time take their course.

And so my first experience with selection trials set me up for the rest of my life. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, I was often a part of selection committees, and I never felt anything but honesty and sincerity from any member of them. Whether perceived as right or wrong, they always tried to make the right decision for the team.

I’ve traveled my whole life to equestrian countries all over the world. And rarely have I heard satisfaction from any quarter regarding selection procedures. There is always grumbling and sometimes even outright hostility. You can count on it.

Selection procedure boils down to two postures–objectivity or subjectivity. Both have their strong and weak suits. God knows, we in the United States have run the gauntlet in experimenting with one or the other, or a combination of both. That’s what makes our country great. We’re able to think independently, discuss, experiment, and come to a consensus. And we’re not so hardheaded that we can’t change.

At the present time, we’re planning to use the USET Computer List as the basis to pick teams for next year’s Nations Cup shows and for the Pan Am Games. While the computer list isn’t perfect, it acts as a great base of reference, a barometer as to who’s winning and who’s developing a string of horses.

Yes, there are weaknesses to it. The first is that the computer list often is six or eight weeks behind the curve. A horse might be high on the list at the date of selection and develop soundness problems or lose his form before the show, changing him from an asset to a liability.

So we’ll add common sense, horse sense and flexibility next year. There will be the possibility–and I emphasize possibility–for two subjective choices to be added to the three totally objective choices from the computer list.

Therefore, if the selectors believe they can put forward a stronger team by adding in one or two combinations, they can do that.

So, let me state very clearly: Yes, I have a tremendous responsibility to be fair to the riders and the owners. But I have an even bigger responsibility to be fair to the country.

For the even-numbered years (the World Equestrian Games and Olympic years) our selection procedure is a bit more complete and a bit more taxing on the horses and riders. That’s why I prefer this system only every other year. It’s a bit heavy-handed to implement every year.

I have two overwhelming interests regarding the WEG and the Olympics: One is that riders feel they have a chance. And two is that we try to win something for the country.

Sometimes these two goals are not compatible. But we must try to reconcile them as best we can.

I’m very satisfied with and very proud of the recipe we came up with for this year’s WEG, and it seems to satisfy many factions. It satisfies objectivity (trials), it satisfies subjectivity (pre-selection/post-selection) for combinations that have proven themselves at the highest level, and it satisfies participation and preparation during the Samsung Super League shows in Europe, providing current and realistic form.

These early spring/summer European Super League tours are composed of two groups. In principle, Group A is those most likely to go to the championship. But horses and riders in Group B could conduct themselves so brilliantly that they could replace someone in Group A. No one did that this year, although Lauren Hough swapped groups, for a variety of reasons, with my approval.

In fact, the ranking that the selectors and I established in mid-March right after the trials held firm, with one or two slight exceptions, up until the conclusion of the WEG.

Still, not everybody was happy, and I wouldn’t expect it. That’s human nature. In my heart, though, I felt the selection was firm, the preparation as thorough as humanly possible, and the results more than solid, with the team silver and individual silver.

I feel very, very strongly that we should retain these selection procedures as they are. The only slight improvement would be a completely fresh venue in Florida at exactly the same time in 2008. A new show grounds would prevent a greenish, spooky or chicken horse from slipping through the trials into a situation where we don’t want him.

I want to thank the country, the U.S. Equestrian Federation, the committee, riders, and support staffs, as well as our wonderful owners for the confidence they’ve given me.

This program is bound to work, providing we maintain the will, work ethic, and horsemanship that have long been the tradition of American equitation. Now, let’s not be satisfied with the silver in 2008. Let’s go for the gold!

George Morris