• 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

Objective versus subjective consideration in our team selection process?

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

  • #21
    I can see Margie's point.

    She did the trials in March, finished second there (on a scoring technicality), did the required number of observation events, did quite well in a couple of those classes, and ended up lower on the final list than Charlie, who was ranked 35th after missing the trials. Charlie was not granted a bye, like McLain or Via Volo.

    I'd imagine Margie would have gone to Spruce Meadows if she had known it was down to the wire.

    Don't get me wrong, I think we have a strong team, but I can understand someone questioning those results. Why put the wear and tear on the horse all week in the initial selection trials if they have so little bearing on the end result?

    Comment


    • #22
      I think we are forgetting the topic of subjective vs objective or as combination of the two. As far as the WC Margie had a severe concussion right before she left and was not suppose to even be riding and Indigo did not have multiple bad rounds he had one with 12 faults in Ky. and 4 clear rounds and 4 with 4. which is pretty consistent..Did no one notice the large black eye and scrapes during the WC
      . As far as other horses this year she did well on l have seen the nice new 8 year old stallion Royce who has been in the top 3 placings in the last 6 GPs he has entered this year including winning 2.
      But l still think we are getting off topic. What do you think the best selection process should be?

      Comment


      • #23
        We got it, you're here defending Margie. Rich's performance demonstrably tops in the field. Reed very consistent and with two horses. Beezie, steady low fault performances on two mounts. McLain coming back from injury. Limited 2012 results, but stellar international record and brilliant rides.

        Yes ME had only,one 12 fault round, but just one of those sinks a nations cup team. Everyone they selected including Jayne has been reliable low faults in the observation events, particularly the most recent ones.

        As to subjective vs objective, I think the mix we have now is reasonable. The objective scoring in the trials provided a good foundation for the long list (along with the bys) and the selectors used the observation events to look at consistency, team composition, and to see who was peaking as the summer months approach.

        Best of luck to ME going forward.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by jr View Post
          Yes ME had only,one 12 fault round, but just one of those sinks a nations cup team.
          Not when you can discard one score.

          Comment


          • #25
            I like the idea of the first, two slots for the top two qualifiers of the selections trial and then the second two slots and alternate being subjective. Seems to have a bit of the best of both worlds......

            Comment


            • #26
              Mhm, not true. You want to use the drop score for that unlikely rail, not to cover an 8, 12, or 16 fault score. The best teams often have a just 0 or 4 fault scores across the board, and use the drop to cover the unlikely rail. Without the ability to use the drop that way, you're very likely out of the medals.

              Comment


              • #27
                I say drop the trials all together. Just have 8 or so Olympic observation events, top 4 riders at the end make the team.
                Life is short, ride the best horse first.

                Comment


                • #28
                  I beg to differ.

                  You discard the worst score on the team, whatever it may be. Trying to decribe something as an "unlikely" rail is a waste of time. Rails are rails on the scoreboard.

                  As I said before, I think we have a strong team, and I hope to see them on top of the podium in London, but I can understand why people might scratch their heads a bit over the whole selection process at this point.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Bentley that sounds like a good system and very constructive comment to use a combination of the two. l dont think it ever hurts to review a system and try to make things a little better and more understandable.
                    And l agree that it is a strong team and wish them all the best and much success.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I did get off track for the title of this thread. My surprise in Charlie being selected over Margie in no way means that I think we should go back to purely objective teams.

                      I also have not been on that level of the horse show circuit for some time now, and I bow to the superior knowledge of the selectors (not that they care if I didn't ).

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        I understand (though don't necessarily agree with) Margie's points, but I feel that it was in extremely poor taste for her to verbalize them publicly the way she did. It really came out sounding like very sour grapes to me and I wish she had kept them to herself. The part where she mentioned an extremely unlucky rail in one of the events, and said that that round could have easily been clear left an especially bad taste in my mouth. Of course that happens, but why should her one rail not count? Should the committee ignore the one rail for everyone because hey, that could have easily been a clear round, except it just wasn't? Reed had some four-faulters throughout the process, but blamed them all on rider error. And blaming her decision not to go to Spruce on the fact that she didn't know it might have been a good idea? After that 12 fault round, maybe she should have thought harder?

                        Her comments were just way too much blaming everyone but herself for my taste. And the whole "I totally support the team, BUT..." was awful in my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          The completely objective teams for SJ (and eventing) have been disasters.

                          I think the new system is a pretty reasonable one. You are excusing the very best from the rigors of the trials. You're able to watch the horses and decide if a bad performance was unlucky or uncharacteristic. You can add in the factor of experience and soundness, to avoid sending a team full of young horses or inexperienced riders. You can build a mix so that any one weakness is not overrepresented. I am pretty happy with the combination of objective and subjective they used here.

                          I feel for Margie... but a 12 is a bad score. If it's not our drop score, we are out of the medals. When you've got so many other combinations out there doing as much jumping and not having scores like that, it's a big factor. Cedric and Laura Kraut had a 12 and also were not selected, despite getting the third bye for the trials.

                          I recall that in 2004 Margie was also pretty vocal about her disappointment in not getting a bye. I think the end result for that team showed that the selectors were right.

                          Margie has been to the Olympics and the WEG, and I'm sure she'd love to go again. It's unfortunate that we can only send 4 to compete for the team. I hope she'll have a great horse for WEG/Normandy in 2014.
                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            I dont think it was sour grapes at all. She has said nothing negative towards the team but quite the opposite has spoken highly of them. l believe she is just trying to do something positive and work on improving the system. And l too believe a combination of the two systems could achieve this and would be very easy to understand and not leave people scratching their heads as to what is going on. And this was the system used in the last two Olympics and the Weg in 2006 which were very successsful for the US.as combination of the two. l think she is just to say she was disapointed ( which is not very harsh) as l think anyone in this position would be or they would not be trying to make the team especially being moved all the way down to 9th from 2nd.

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Originally posted by horsense View Post
                              I dont think it was sour grapes at all. She has said nothing negative towards the team but quite the opposite has spoken highly of them. l believe she is just trying to do something positive and work on improving the system. And l too believe a combination of the two systems could achieve this and would be very easy to understand and not leave people scratching their heads as to what is going on. And this was the system used in the last two Olympics and the Weg in 2006 which were very successsful for the US.as combination of the two. l think she is just to say she was disapointed ( which is not very harsh) as l think anyone in this position would be or they would not be trying to make the team especially being moved all the way down to 9th from 2nd.
                              No, I know you don't think it was sour grapes. My point is that I do. It's perfectly fine for us to have opposing opinions. I thought her comments were uncalled for and somewhat immature (I also thought the timing of her voicing her opinion was inappropriate), which was disappointing to me considering how long Margie has been in the business. She did mention that it might not have been fun for the owners of the horse to hear this news, so maybe her reaction was business related, but this is how it goes with horses. I just felt she should know that by now, and she should have taken it more gracefully in the name of sportsmanship. I wasn't under the impression that anyone should feel as though he is a shoe-in for the Olympics based on the selection trials when there were multiple observation events to follow, and Margie's comments in the article made it sound (to me) that she felt differently. I was just very disappointed by her comments for multiple reasons.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                you are totally correct to say that it is fine and healthy for people to have different opinions. Interpreting someone elses words to say what you want them too is not ok.

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  She should have gone to Spruce no question. That's where it all came down to the wire....

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    I know Indigo had 12 at KY, but Mika had 12 at Spruce Meadows and was still on the nominated list- 7th I believe.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Originally posted by findeight View Post
                                      Little surprised she said this.
                                      Same.


                                      Originally posted by Lucassb View Post
                                      Margie is a great rider but I can imagine that the selectors did have concerns about her horse's consistency, and although it's sad for her on a personal level, I think the right riders are on the team and have a good shot at doing very well.
                                      ^this

                                      Also, I did think her comment about not realizing she maybe should have gone to spruce sounded a little arrogant. When you look at this board and people's predictions for the team, most people were pretty spot on about who the top contenders were. And if people on a BB can see that, I'm surprised Margie didn't feel a little more pressure to go to spuce and prove herself over beezie, mclain, etc.

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        FWIW...I'm sure it was a VERY tough decision to make, to leave her out. I totally understand how she feels about this. Who wouldn't be bummed at the loss of that opportunity?

                                        However, I feel her response in the article was said in poor fashion.
                                        There are times when its best to keep things to yourself and put a smile on your face, even if you have to force it. This is one of those times.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          Count me as another who believes her comments to be in poor taste.

                                          If she felt that she had to say something about the system it would have been better said after the Olympics rather than the day after the team was announced.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X