[QUOTE=Derid;3007358]
After reading the opinions of many of you on the topic of Olympic qualification I felt compelled to add a few thoughts of my own:
The response from USEF was typical of an agency or administration that has numerous lawyers and at least one individual trained in conflict resolution. Always marginalize the individual or individuals causing the problem (i.e. speaks out publicly regarding fairness or some such silly thing). In this case CH, the goal is to make it appear that all the rules were followed explicitly by the agency and infer that the âtrouble-makerâs concernsâ were taken into consideration by âallâ committee members. Her (CH) public response, as someone on this board notedâŠâŠis one of sour grapes. And, as noted by the subsequent discussion on this board to the USEF response to CH, they accomplished the primary goal and beyond. CH will carry the stigma of not only being labelled a troublemaker, but will be viewed as NOT being a team player. If it does not hurt CH now, it will later.
The general nature of the USEF response was also typical. The letter claimed that various committees had met to discuss the points that concerned CH in the current qualification system. It would have been more convincing to me had they taken the original letter of CH and addressed each point including summaries of the decision process from each committee. Even better, allow access to the minutes of each meeting that was convened in response to CH. And if their not taking minutes or believe the minutes are only appropriate to be read by someone on the âinââŠâŠwell, then they have earned a negative response from those they represent.
Lastly, I commend CH for speaking out and causing a public discussion (and no doubt many private discussions) of the current USEF rules. Change that promotes fairness and a level playing field does not occur because we all agree. I hope CH remains strong.
However, I truly am saddened that DOâC lent his name to this response from USEF. But, then I was also disappointed at the response that claimed overwhelming support from USEF committees to the proposal that would require rider qualification scores at 3rd level at their recent meeting. But, as Iâm sure many of us have witnessed, as the âBig Guyâ you gotta do whatâs best for the business.
I look forward to a future that will encourage open, civil dialog between members and committees on rules and issues of fairness without marginalization of any of the parties.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your comments. A few of my own
I appreciated David OâConner clarify the USEF position. After reading his response, I am still left with lots of questions regarding the entire process.
What I did learn from his response was that this was not something that was taken public after the finalization of the procedures on September 27th, but was addressed privately beginning as early as June of 2007.
That there are individuals on the High Performance Committee that had a stake on how the selection trials played out, and no one representing the European based riders. The two committees âunanimously rejected Ms. Haddads recommendationsâ Again, both committees had riders with a stake in the trials which would benefit with more time to bring along horses not prevously considered.
He did not mention or address the idea of holding the trials on the East Coast or in EuropeâŠthat would certainly still allow all the riders to compete. They are quarantining in Europe anywayâŠ
I donât recall Ms. Haddad recommending flying the horses from California to Hong Kong, although almost 2 paragraphs were taken up addressing that.
It might just be my opionion, but found the conclusions by OâConner lacking.There were solutions where NO COMPETITOR would have had adverse circumstances, or the challenges would have been equal AND in the best interest of the sport.
