I have been following the discussion and editorials on the current state of dressage with interest and frustration since the Olympic Games in Paris last summer. I keep reading and hearing from both professionals and amateurs alike that buying trained horses is not and has never been a sustainable future for dressage in the United States.

It is a discussion that has been, and always will be, relevant to how the horse sports are managed, competed in and considered. Dressage is a conundrum in the horse sport industry. This is by far the easiest of the three Olympic disciplines to purchase and compete a horse for a team. In both show jumping and eventing, the inherent danger and risk slows the process in that regard, and the development of the horses seems to take a certain priority because of that—although we do still see riders in those other disciplines buying horses for certain Olympic and world championship cycles. We are not alone in the arena, so to speak, but we are for sure the not-so-silent majority.

When I was working for the U.S. Equestrian Federation as the youth coach, one of my most championed causes was getting the education and information out to the next generation of trainers—with less emphasis on the showing and more on theory and their personal education in the art, as well as management of their partners and long-term relationships with them, so that in the long run, they learned to train horses as opposed to just riding the trained ones. As Lauren Chumley pointed out in her column for the Chronicle, telling me you’re a ‘B’ Pony Clubber gives me far more information about your management skills than telling me you’ve been to the North American Youth Championships.

I argued time and time again with one of the coaches in particular who wanted my resources and time spent helping the kids find sponsors and get more and more money pumped into their horses so that we could in the long run send more U25 riders to Europe to compete, instead of teaching the next generation of riders how to train. I couldn’t have disagreed more on where my time and energy should have been spent, and that is part of why I resigned the post.

I continually go back to the old proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime,” as it is one of the most appropriate quotes I can think of in regards to the state of U.S. dressage, both then and now.

When I worked for USEF, I remember one clinic in particular, where we had nine applications for eight riding slots, and I had to argue with the dressage committee at the time to allow all nine to ride. The ninth rider was on a Morgan-cross, and she had only been to hunt seat-style shows and had no USEF scores to speak of but wanted to learn and had a very nice seat in the videos sent. I said it was silly to not include her if our purpose was education and training, but they pushed to exclude her because of her show record and lack of experience. In the end I won the argument, but it was a push to get done.

I still teach that rider today, nearly 15 years later, who has now produced that Morgan to Grand Prix and is a successful trainer in her own right.

If we didn’t make the extra effort for her, would her development have been different, and would she have been inspired to keep going and see what else is out there? She now shares that ability, determination and work ethic with those she teaches and influences, as well as being able to say she brought a horse up to the Grand Prix level at her young age.

Professional Olympians Versus Professional Trainers 

In her recent column, Chumley also pointed out that on her trip to Europe she saw Olympic-level riders working with younger horses, and she compared that to the U.S., where the general thought is, “Once you are an Olympian, you don’t do that kind of work anymore.” It seems like the mindset of many U.S. riders at that level is they are now “professional Olympians,” and that is all they want to do.

While I can appreciate the Olympic rider, I respect the person who trains the horses to that level far more. A few years ago, shortly after one of the FEI World Equestrian Games, I ran into one of the team riders in an elevator at a USEF event. When I asked how things were going, the complaint I got was they had been to Europe five times that year already and just could not find anything “special” to buy.

When I asked what they were looking for, they laughed and said, a horse for the next Olympics, of course, like I was foolish for asking. The question in my mind was why not get a few young horses and start training them in the meantime?

But I kept that to myself.

These professional Olympians, as well as many of our top trainers, want us all to think, believe or know that they are very good at their job of training horses. If that was as much the case as they would like us to believe, why are they not producing multiple horses to the level, instead of having multiple horses purchased for them to ride at that level?

“Olympians, as well as many of our top trainers, want us all to think, believe or know that they are very good at their job of training horses. If that was as much the case as they would like us to believe, why are they not producing multiple horses to the level, instead of having multiple horses purchased for them to ride at that level?”

ADVERTISEMENT

They talk repeatedly in symposiums and clinics about their “systems” and how they ride their horses, but they are in fact not actually training horses from the ground up in that system, or any system for that matter. There are no young horses being developed in their barns, as long as you agree that developing a young horse starts the first year under saddle, not at 6 or 7 years old when they’re already doing the flying changes and half-steps that someone else has already trained.

There are always such nice sound bites about the exercise routines of these top riders and their top horses, but sound bites do not equate to real world experience and mastery. I just read it again recently, “I only work my horses three days a week in the arena,” and I’m thinking to myself, “How is it possible to produce a horse to the advanced levels with only three days per week of education?”

And I realized that isn’t a rider producing horses; that is a rider who is riding trained horses purchased for them, so their “system” of three days only in the arena per week does not hold water in my mind, though it might be useful for keeping an already trained horse working at that level, especially if you are worried about their mental or physical soundness.

It does make a great sound bite for this day and age, with PETA hot on our tails, and it’s a nice façade for them to hide behind to stay off the critics’ radar, but it isn’t realistic or even feasible in the real world to bring a horse to Grand Prix with three days of work per week.

I have seen many trainers bring horse after horse to the Grand Prix level, some horses better than the others of course, and, if they have been lucky enough, one that has more of the quality for international acclaim than the others. These trainers seem to just work hard, have a system and keep at it year after year. 

Most of them seem to share two things in common: a lack of major sponsorship or funding, and a system of training. They must ride what they have and prove their worth through the training. It is by necessity and love, it seems, that they keep producing horses to that level, and in turn have created reproducible results.

This group of trainers either need to work to fund their art and sport, or they just love the process of that work and training, regardless of the acclaim or medal it gets them in the end. They just love their partners. Both reasons are valiant driving forces in my mind; they have learned or been taught to fish, either because they must eat, or they just enjoy the fishing process.

If the case of our top U.S. riders really is that they are some of the best in the world, why are they not producing horses regularly like these lesser-known riders? Are they not hungry to eat, and do they not love the process, have they no actual system, or is it only the acclaim of being a team rider that is the driving force of their equestrian lives?

If that is the case, I completely understand the need to find the next special horse, as well as the sponsor who can fund their dreams of that Olympic Games or world championship. For them, the dream is not the process, and the resulting acclaim is far more special than the long-term systematic development of a horse.

A Thought Experiment

Humor me for a moment and go on a mental excursion: Let’s imagine that one of these amazing sponsors, who are so willing to support and help build dressage in this country, purchased several nice quality young horses instead of just one multi-million-dollar horse, or in some cases multiple multi-million-dollar horses for a select few riders? Think of the amount of money that has been spent in the last year or so alone, if not in the last few decades, on top horses for the U.S., and what would happen if those sponsors instead bought these top riders multiple young horses to train?

The sponsor could either give multiple young horses to the rider they believe in, or young horses to many different riders to develop, basically diversifying assets to create more stable and secure growth. In the financial world, diversification is one of the best investing practices. I don’t understand why it is not being applied here.

These riders would then be tasked with training these horses with their “systems,” bringing them up. From staying home from shows to train, to young horse classes, from regional shows to international Grand Prix, the development would be in their hands, and they could showcase their skills and developmental system to the world.

Training younger horses and teaching them well can also be lucrative, although it’s a painstakingly slow business. The horses can later be sold if their quality isn’t enough for a certain riders’ aspirations, or sold because we need more well-trained horses out in our world as a whole.

I know there is inherent risk with horses staying healthy their entire careers, but keeping horses healthy and sound is the norm, not the anomaly, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing this—and we need to remember that. If the horses are not staying sound in our programs, we are definitely doing something very wrong.

“Keeping horses healthy and sound is the norm, not the anomaly, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing this—and we need to remember that. If the horses are not staying sound in our programs, we are definitely doing something very wrong.”

If these riders are as good we believe them to be, and they want us to know they are, we should see multiple horses being produce to a top level. Not all would be of international quality, but they would all get good training and become good partners for someone along the way, even if an Olympics was not in their destiny. The horses that did not turn out to be of enough caliber to compete for an Olympic team could get sold, then in turn repopulating income to the sponsor, creating resources for another young horse to get put in the pipeline, and also producing well-trained horses for others to ride and learn on.

It is a system where the best are tasked with producing the best instead of just riding the best. I understand completely that some of the horses would not fulfill the riders’ aspirations of being a team rider for the U.S., but since they are or would be producing multiple horses, they would still be able to have their helmet in the ring over and over and would be contributing to the greater good in the U.S. in regards to developing well-trained horses. They would be feeding the village.

Making A Plan

I understand the sport of dressage, and the idea that riders at elite levels want or need to be thought of as athletes, since athletes are the people who compete at Olympics, but it is also where the art becomes blurred. I understand funding from governing bodies, and how results at shows and championships can change that funding and the level of interest in the people at the upper end of those organizations. “If we don’t continue to win medals, we don’t continue to get funding” is a basic way of looking at the situation.

So you can see why we are tasking certain athletes with the responsibility of continually showing up at Olympic Games on behalf of the U.S. to secure or procure that funding for the rest—and continuing to make the equestrian sports valid and, in fact, still Olympic sports. In that case, it is necessary that they are mounted on horses of quality, and their ability to produce a horse to that level is completely voided or unnecessary since we can put them on a trained horse, and they can produce results which keep the sport alive in that system.

That is a job in and of itself, and if we look at it from that perspective, who has time to develop and train horses, especially knowing it takes more than three years to bring one to that level? In the off years between Olympics, it really is of no value to spend time training a group of next-generation horses; it’s more important to source the next horse, who is already a proven quantity, or perfect one’s showing skills so they will be ready to compete better than the last outing.

“Creating a trained horse is a sustainable, reproducible endeavor, whereas making a team on someone else’s training is not.”

This way, the riders, as well as the sport itself, stay current—and to the sponsors who continue to supply these riders with horses so that can happen, the whole country should thank you for that support.

But where do we go from here to get the U.S. back on the map? That is the question of the hour since what we need is patience, and unfortunately what we don’t have is time.

We cannot look to the next Olympics as a performance marker of the coaching staff or system being applied for betterment, since what is needed is a decade or two to make a greater change in our belief system and foundation, and we need more people who run the show to understand that.

There has to be a longer-term plan than just one more four-year cycle and a few more symposiums to restructure or reeducate the quality of training that is taking place in the U.S. The attitude of “making a team” needs to change to that of “making a horse,” and our money and time should be spent on facilitating more of that thinking.

Creating a trained horse is a sustainable, reproducible endeavor, whereas making a team on someone else’s training is not.

---

Grand Prix trainer and competitor Jeremy Steinberg was the U.S. Equestrian Federation national dressage youth coach from 2010 to 2014. A 1996 FEI North American Young Rider Championships individual dressage medalist, he is a former U.S. Dressage Federation Junior/Young Rider Clinic Series clinician. He credits much of his dressage education to the late Dietrich von Hopffgarten, his longtime friend and mentor. Today Steinberg runs a boutique-style training business in Aiken, South Carolina, and travels the country giving clinics. Learn more at steinbergdressage.com.