Alex Hua Tian represents China.
3 Likes
Regarding the Japanese horse that was held at the jog and not re-presented it seems weird IMHO that the penalty for horse substitution was so low relative to subbing one in after a XC elimination. To me elimination equals elimination. I don’t fault the Japanese team as they were following the rules. My complaint is with whoever wrote the rules.
9 Likes
You’re right, 
oopsie on my part:rofl:
1 Like
I’m chuckling too - I had to mute the swimming commentary as one guy was just yelling the whole time 
3 Likes
Correct, this has been required at the Advanced/4*/5* level for years now. It’s also required starting at 3rd level dressage, so not that hard of an ask. The steepness of the angle and adding flying changes to it directly before and after is what made it harder for this test in particular.
2 Likes
Can you elaborate on this? I’m genuinely curious having been out of the sport for some time now. What do you (and other people here) think the Olympics have done to damage eventing?
[This is an honest question. I have no push back, don’t disagree, etc. I have just seen a version of the comment quoted above more than once and I’m curious what those more involved are seeing.]
1 Like
I think that’s Rowdy Gaines. It is…unusual…that as soon as the first 50m are done he just automatically switches to Ol’ Yeller Mode. 
4 Likes
This bothers me because entities teams get medals even if players sit on the bench the whole time. She deserves a medal too, she’s part of the team.
1 Like
Listened to Laura Collette interview who said she took the route without the ditch because she knew horses would struggle to read it.
That my friends is why she was a podium finisher 
10 Likes
agreed, penalty needs to be way higher.
3 Likes
The most obvious is that the long format was eliminated.
6 Likes
Under either set of rules, the JPN team may still have made it to the podium, on the strength of a 4th team member & drop score (standard rules). As well as the way it did happen, with a sub for SJ (new rules) and a score penalty. Under the standard 4-member team rules the JPN team could have finished anyway, and had a good team score.
Here’s the real point: Under the standard 4-member team rules, all of the JPN horses in SJ would have also done dressage and XC, as intended in the philosophy of the sport as an endurance contest, as well as a skills and wills contest. Under the new rules, one of the SJ horses was fresh.
But, >>> the caveat is that with the standard 4-member teams rules and a drop score, the GER and AUS would almost certainly still have been in medal contention! <<<
Because GER and AUS would not have had the substitution penalty. Because no penalty is necessary when the 4th rider has in fact done the dressage and XC! And is therefore on equal footing with all competitors in SJ!
Do you see what I’m getting at? Under the new 3-member team rules, the substitute horse was hauled in and stabled, just as a 4-member team horse would have been. But the horse was fresh for the SJ (or XC), and therefore not on equal footing with the other competitors.
10 Likes
Remember that in the 2000s, there was a multiplier. To compare apples to apples, you need to convert the scores. EquiRatings converted the dressage scores of old into “new money”, and it was only this weekend that David O’Connor’s record finishing and dressage scores from the Sydney Olympics fell (when you convert the score, he did a 19.3 in dressage in Sydney with Custom Made). If you compare the very best of yesteryear (I can’t believe those events now count as yesteryear) to now, the scores are not wildly out of proportion.
I do think Laura Collett’s dressage test was among the best I have ever seen an event horse do. So yes, I think a small number of the tests being performed are that much better. Where I will agree with you is, especially Saturday afternoon, I think we are seeing better scores for the mid-pack group than we did in the past.
@Benchmark said it best:
11 Likes
Looking at the Paris Olympics as an example of how the new 3-member team rules are playing out, vs the standard 4-member team rules …
In the hypothetical 4-member team scenario, GER and AUS don’t have the penalty that takes them out of medals after XC. They use their drop score for one of their 4 riders, and are well in the medal hunt for SJ.
Under the 4-member team rules, there is no need for a penalty to ‘make up’ for sending in a fresh horse-rider pair that haven’t done DR & XC. (And a rider who fell off on XC is not jumping around SJ.)
We can’t know what the team scores and the shakeout would have been for GER and AUS, or what their final team rankings would have been. But, in this competition, the race for a medal would have been 2 teams more competitive than it was under the new 3-member team rules. And two of the historically most powerful teams in eventing.
Here’s the thing. The tradition and core of eventing is that it is an endurance and skills test. All competitors should demonstrate endurance and all skills.
Under standard 4-member team rules, the 4th team member is effectively the “substitute” pair – but, a pair that has done all 3 phases, as intended in eventing’s endurance & skills philosophy.
There are no subs sitting on the bench, keeping fresh legs – but not available to every team! Subs are available only to those teams that failed on a previous phase. Not counting the vet exceptions, which are scarce.
The rules change to 3-member teams is still hauling along and stabling another horse to be a ‘substitute’ – a fresh horse.
How is this a better sport?
So now the game is sending in subs, switching out pieces, like a soccer match. The equal footing of skills & endurance are out.
And the real penalty is to the teams that are successful in all 3 phases – for them, no substitutions to fresh horses! IMO, in no way does the substitution penalty plug the hole of endurance, skills, and equal footing for all competitors.
What is the philosphy and purpose of this new game/sport? Because clearly it’s not eventing endurance for 3 phases. And not the 3-skill performance test, since not every pair does every phase.
Is this a cutesy child’s sport where we are helping along the weaker teams with fresh substitutes? Having fun manipulating and switching out pieces for new looks?
At the finish of the competition, the new rules end up with a mixed bag – teams that did all 3 phases, and teams that are a mix of fresh pairs and pairs that actually did the eventing sport of dressage, XC and SJ. At the medals ceremony it was crazy to see riders on the stand who had, and had not, ridden in all three phases.
It’s not eventing for every team – just for those teams that finished all 3 starters. I don’t know what it is, there is no consistent philosphy behind it – other than gamesmanship and cuteness. That’s IMO.
13 Likes
I couldn’t agree more.
The other thing that occurred to me after the fact: in this particular situation it appeared that the German rider who fell and then competed in SJ was fine, but what if a rider is concussed and able to mask it well enough to “pass” medical evaluation (assuming there was one)? Who is deciding whether they are fit to compete? To me it opens a whole other can of worms.
8 Likes
I have a real problem with the travesty of individuals riding the SJ who have not ridden either dressage or cross-country.
While alternates / substitutes that would have been the 4th team member do not ride.
What is this, a pony club playground?
Not to mention that it only served to lengthen the time to do all show jumping, which was already interminable under Olympic rules.
The announcer crowing that “now they are Olympians!” – I know he had no choice about saying that – but in no way at all have those riders earned the title “Olympians”!
And especially in eventing, one of the most demanding of all sports! And all they did was jump around a not-too-demanding stadium course? Cheap, cheap, cheap!
The Olympics is selling out. The old values are rapidly diminishing. Not just eventing, but heavily in eventing.
6 Likes
I don’t want to keep reiterating my feelings on the substitution penalty (upthread), because I do think they are as fair as can be if you aren’t going to allow a fourth rider/drop score, but I’ll respond to something else:
Let’s not pretend that riders continuing on to compete while masking symptoms is not already a part of our sport. They aren’t doing it on the same horse, but we need look no further than Kentucky than to see that they are doing it, all the time - Phillip fell hard at the last fence on Quasi Cool, then took Azure around a couple hours later. The pictures of his face while on Azure are quite something, and Eventing Nation reported (bolding my own):
Phillip went to the hospital to be checked out after both of his rides today, bringing home Azure clear as the final ride of the day.
The Olympic format introduces several specific and unique things to worry about, but I don’t think we can lay this particular issue at the feet of the Games.
6 Likes
Hmmm. What was David’s actual dressage score … that would be 80.7, right?
The multiplier made the dressage score better, because they wanted to emphasize dressage more.
So going back to the original, un-muliplied score – as a conversion should accomplish – the eventing score should be a higher number. The original dressage score would be a lower number, without the multiplier. Again, the multiplier made it better, not worse.
I hope that makes sense.
Regardless, it is a statistically documented fact that dressage scores are amplifying under current judging, in dressage, not just eventing. That’s not an opinion, it’s numbers gathered over many competitions. Somewhere it is being acknowledged, quietly, by TPTB in dressage sport.
I have a BIG problem with a rider falling off, eliminated, and then show jumping. No, that is just WRONG. They might as well let him continue. Terrible
12 Likes
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but to answer your question, David’s dressage score on the day was 29.0.
This was calculated using the old formula, as follows: dressage mark of 80.7%, deduct from 100 to get 19.3, multiply by 1.5 to get 29.0.
Under the new formula (in place since 2019), the mark would be: dressage mark of 80.7%, deduct from 100 to get 19.3
The multiplier made the penalties assigned in dressage higher, which in turn increased the weight of the phase. It was removed January 1, 2019. If you want to compare post-2019 scores to pre-2019 scores, you need to divide the old scores by 1.5 (or multiply the new ones, I guess - Laura and London would have scored a 26.3 in David’s day).
Old ESPN report here for documentation: https://www.espn.com/oly/summer00/news/2000/0921/765067.html
2 Likes
