• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Meet your Olympic show jumping team!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Meet your Olympic show jumping team!

    Check out my wrap-up of the Olympic selection action, complete with some great behind-the-scenes photos of the adorable Flexible!

    http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/...w-jumping-team

  • #2
    I'm not sure what Margie means when she's saying the whole team was picked subjectively. Does she mean not enough weight was given to the selection trials? I could understand the sentiment since the co-winner (her) was placed 9th and Charlie was 5th despite being 35th after the trials. But on the other hand, Reed won and continued to have strong showings and was rewarded accordingly.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have to say I agree with Margie. Why waste the hoses' legs in all those selection trials if it was really the observation events that held all the weight? Not to mention Antares didn't jump that many clean rounds yet he was still named to the team? I think Margie should have been at least named as alternate. Charlie had some great rounds but not enough in my opinion to say he would perform better than Margie who has so much experience. Plus her horse has already proven himself.

      Comment


      • #4
        Margie does have a point- If I'm remembering correctly, of the 4 horses on the team plus the first alternate, only two of them (Cylanna and Flexible) jumped in the trials. I personally think we have the right team, but if the trials aren't going to be given that much weight, the USEF should be more up front with that so people don't put their horses through it for nothing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Great photos! Thanks!

          Comment


          • #6
            The trials unquestionably did their job. Would Reed Kessler be on the team, if not for the trials? They gave her the chance to earn her way onto the team. The trials unquestionably carried a lot of weight.

            I personally think we're sending our best possible team, and the trials were a big part of that.

            I think you just can't think of the trials as the one and only determinant of who would be on the team. Rather, they gave riders an opportunity to prove that they should be considered for the team.

            Comment


            • #7
              Did the other thread about Margie's comments just disappear or am I blind?

              I also noticed the above article was edited pertaining to Margie's comments.

              Comment


              • #8
                No, the thread is still here. See post #66 by Molly Sorge.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for explaining the tone and intention that you heard Molly. It was different from my interpretation of it.

                  Maybe you could do an article on the selection process after the Olympics?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rel6 View Post
                    Did the other thread about Margie's comments just disappear or am I blind?

                    I also noticed the above article was edited pertaining to Margie's comments.
                    Yes, the majority of this thread as it originally existed has disappeared. Wow, I'm extremely disappointed in COTH. I'm not surprised that they edited the original article that they posted on the web (they've done that before), but deleting so many posts from this thread is a new low.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ynl063w View Post
                      Yes, the majority of this thread as it originally existed has disappeared. Wow, I'm extremely disappointed in COTH. I'm not surprised that they edited the original article that they posted on the web (they've done that before), but deleting so many posts from this thread is a new low.
                      Are you talking about this thread started by Molly Sorge?

                      Or the other longer thread started by a different poster about the objective/subjective selection process? The one where people discussed Margie's comments at length?

                      The other thread is still there, and it does not look to me as if any posts have been deleted from it. Specifically, my posts were at the top of page two and page three, and well down page four. They are still in the same spots. If any posts had been deleted above them, my posts would have moved up in the order. They have not.

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #12
                        The news article was edited in response to a request from Margie after posters on here spooked her.

                        The original thread to which the previous poster is referring is intact. No 'new low' has been reached. Really.

                        http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=357766

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Molly Sorge View Post
                          The news article was edited in response to a request from Margie after posters on here spooked her.

                          The original thread to which the previous poster is referring is intact. No 'new low' has been reached. Really.

                          http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=357766

                          I can understand how Margie would be disappointed and I don't think she said anything terrible in the article but maybe I didn't read the whole thing?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I believe McLain and Beezie were given a bye from the trials, right? I don't think you can assign any special weight to them not fully engaging in the trials or mean that the trails had no weight themselves. If you are going to give certain people a bye from some part of the process you really are saying it is their slot to lose and everyone else is competing from the remaining slots. That might be the only part of the process that was clearer than mud. And personally speaking, two riders with so much experience, even if on newer, less tested horses (but not green by any means) are the kind of riders you want on a team where cumulative scores count.

                            I don't know if there is an easy answer - we did the purely objective approach before and it didn't work. We used to do the purely subjective approach but it was a different era.

                            I don't know if if there is answer, but when I looked at the observation events, I really thought the only one that truly mattered in my opinion (and my opinion is not that informed and doesn't matter for crap) was Spruce Meadows because I think/assume it would probably be most similar to conditions in London: big grass field, more often than not, big WET slippery grass field, I thought the course designer was the same one for the Olympics (so I would think he might preview some of his Olympic "questions" in the big classes, a big knowledgeable noisy crowd, a very international field of horses (in other words not just us competing against us - we always look good in that group). And of course, close enough to London to see how the horse has come along since the trials.

                            And if my view was in any way similar to any of the officials, it sure would have been nice if they said, "hey, we will be watching all these events and quite frankly, we will really be watching the people who got the byes and the top X in the trials the most. But we really will be watching you at Spruce Meadows, so if you want your best shot at the team and have to pick and choose your events, you better pick this one."

                            But for all I know, they could have said exactly that.
                            Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think it would be interesting to see if there could be some sort of point system, completely objective. Give 40% of the weight to the trials, 30% to each observation event. Figure out points based on faults accumulated, and then two spots from the team go directly to two people with the least points. Other two spots remain selected by a committee including chef d'equipe. Not sure if it would actually work, of course.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Personally I am in favor of the system used this year - the long list is developed objectively and then the selectors can choose the riders they feel give us the best shot at gold.

                                I am NOT a fan of the purely objective/computer ranking approach, based largely on the results that we've had with that in the past. Not that there haven't been some good performances, but overall... I'd say it hasn't served the team as well (other than limiting the exposure to lawsuits.)
                                **********
                                We move pretty fast for some rabid garden snails.
                                -PaulaEdwina

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Sounds like the biggest surprise is Charlie. He did say in another COTH article that George Morris told him to just keep jumping clear rounds. I didn't really know if the selection committee would choose him although I felt he should be the reserve rider. The fact that the selection committee did consider Charlie fairly also supports the general horsemanship that we should be supporting. They did not penalize Charlie, as rider, for making the best decision for his horse. Perhaps this is where Margie might be most interested. As I recall, Indigo was coming off of an injury at the original selection trials. There will always be that wonder that if she had done "the horseman's thing" and not run him in those original trials would she also have been given the suggestion to "just jump clean rounds" in the observation events.

                                  We can never know the answer and the selection process is never going to be perfect for everyone. But I don't think the purely objective teams work well. Last year when the computer list selected for the Super League it did not serve us well. And I clearly remember some of the objective Olympic teams...

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Margie did Indigo in the trials - he was day to day with an bruise/abscess prior to the trials, but recovered and did well in them (especially considering he was not being ridden/jumped for a week or so before). She also did 2 of the observation trials (KY and Devon) and with the exception of one class did well in all of them. I believe the only observation trials (other than the west coast trials) that she missed was Spruce Meadows.
                                    Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by DMK View Post
                                      Margie did Indigo in the trials....She also did 2 of the observation trials (KY and Devon) and with the exception of one class did well in all of them. I believe the only observation trials (other than the west coast trials) that she missed was Spruce Meadows.
                                      I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but....

                                      IIRC, Margie and Reed both did the trials in March and had an equal number of total faults there. Reed and Margie both did 2 of the 4 observation events and both did well except for one 12 fault score each. Very similar results. If you were going to factor in Grand Prix experience, well... Let's just say Margie has quite a bit more.

                                      Reed ended up 3rd on the final list and Margie was 9th.

                                      I can't fault anyone for wondering about that. Especially if it was not clearly spelled out that Spruce Meadows would be the deciding factor.

                                      Again, I think we have a strong team, and I hope to see them succeed in London.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Rel6 View Post
                                        I think it would be interesting to see if there could be some sort of point system, completely objective. Give 40% of the weight to the trials, 30% to each observation event. Figure out points based on faults accumulated, and then two spots from the team go directly to two people with the least points. Other two spots remain selected by a committee including chef d'equipe. Not sure if it would actually work, of course.
                                        Purely objective is a joke, and it has led us to having completely unqualified riders make the team (remember Alison Firestone and Jox? No one was more surprised than she, and she ultimately withdrew as she knew he wasn't up to it). If a particular team jumps up and has the BEST performances of their careers for that brief time, they can make the team and are COMPLETELY not worthy of it.

                                        The selection method this year makes a lot of sense, and seems to have found the right people. Since none of us are privy to the discussions of the selectors, perhaps something about Margie and Indigo bothered them enough not to use her, regardless of how her scores stacked up to the others. The selectors know a lot that we don't. I think they got it right.
                                        Laurie

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X