I thought the whole idea behind creating the short format was to address the land use issues when building courses for the Olympics. Now, they want the hosts to build 2 completely different courses at 2 different levels?
Eh, posted that before I was done. Anyway, I think the FEI recognized this dissonence and that is why they moved to the slightly less stupid “double showjumping” format which still can create a winner who is not the combo that would have won a traditional eventing competition. So I have no interest in watching the Olympic sport they are now describing. The individual winner won’t have gone up against lots of the great combos in the team competition. The person who is individually best in the team format gets no recognition. It all seems fake to me.
Beyond that: 3 riders with no drop scores in the team competition is ridiculous. What is the typical rate of completion for a CCI***? 60-70%? So if the first US team goes out on course and gets an E, are those other riders going to go out for absolutely no reason? Er, no. You will wind up with a completion rate in the team competition around 40% Half the riders will cratch during XC day or the following morning when one teammate’s horse is off. This just makes no sense mathematically at all.
The changes proposed by the FEI/IOC don’t seem to address the real concerns of the sport. I found myself asking “why?” throughout the article. I also don’t understand why the name needs to be changed. What does that accomplish? Plus, they are all nearly impossible to pronounce. It seems like a lot of unnecessary changes for the sport that are really aimed at increasing money for various parties instead of for practical safety reasons.
Bits were way down on my list as well. So much wrong with so much of what is listed it is hard to know where to start.
Maybe they should just abolish the Team idea completely and just go to individual. I recognize they have had Team competition since the very beginning of horse sport in the Olympics, but that had a great deal to do with the cavalry aspect. Teams really add nothing now.
I’m going to say it now, but I don’t mind the whole team 3* and individual 4* thing. I look at it as a stepping stone for people to experience team competition atmosphere and graduate into the 4* (or rather 5*?) individual realm. It will likely allow for more riders to get an opportunity to compete on that stage (with slightly less pressure) on a slightly less difficult course. I mean, realistically, the courses will be largely the same but probably a few different technical fences. It’s not like they’d have to build 2 full courses. Bromont could do this as they already have the 3* course in place and will be adding the 4* for the WEGS. I think it creates a bit of a pinnacle for individuals to aspire to, while still allowing teams to take place and build on each other. Maybe that’s looking at it with rose coloured glasses, but I actually don’t think it’s the worst idea.
shields face with arms
I have to pop in with my .02 worth–I can kind of see the logic in some of the suggestions. If refusals are less costly, will people make better decisions as to whether to try or not, thus perhaps making a bad jumping effort less attractive. Ditto the flags and ditto the bits–if you’re relying solely on a bit for brakes you’re inhibiting the horses ability to use itself when needed. I think the two tracks thing would put either team or individual competition out of the running as it is already very expensive to create cross country courses strictly for the Olympics and I can’t see venues being willing to go to that expense. I think the name changes are ridiculous–What other sport has had its changed its name multiple times?
I’m not sure I’m for it, but I’m willing to hear the reasoning behind the suggestions. (not that my opinion matters)
The changing in the “star” levels has been coming on for a while. All other disciplines run 1*-5*. So I think that is where that is coming from. Of course for all the other equestrian sports but eventing…I think the Olympics is run at the highest level.
Like everyone else…I don’t really like any of these suggestions and see many of them actually costing MORE to stay in the Olympics.
What is the benefit of having a team of 3 instead of 4 and being able to have a drop score? If you have 65 total riders going with 3 minutes in between, it takes 45 minutes to run 15 riders, you can be done in just over 3 hours. So add another 45 minutes to let 15 more riders go. It’s not like it’s an incredibly long day. So why risk having so many riders on the team just plain not compete if one of the earlier team riders doesn’t finish?
Maybe I misunderstood the article from the FEI, but I thought the proposal was to have only the 4s have 4 XC, and everything else, Olympics and WEGs have a 3* XC course.
Eventing needs to show some leadership and foresight and extricate itself from the sinking ship of the Olympics.
The IOC is struggling to survive and remain relevant, but the truth is, in any just world, the IOC would be humanely destroyed. The IOC is a bastion of corruption and self-enrichment schemes, and the general public is catching on. The Olympic Games are unequivocally a boondoggle and huge drain of resources on the nation and local community that hosts the games. This is not news – it has been known since the early 1970s, when the citizens of Denver rejected the Games that had been awarded to the city. For those of you who are not familiar with this history, the Guardian ran an excellent piece on it last week: When Denver rejected the Olympics in favor of the environment and economics.
Since then, we’ve seen all kinds of disasters associated with hosting the Olympics. There was the Montreal financial debacle, the Salt Lake City bribing scandal, the unconscionable costs of Beijing and Sochi, the white elephants of disused billion-dollar buildings that make up an Olympic ‘legacy’. We’ve seen enough. It’s not pretty. Stop the effing bleeding already.
Right now, the IOC is in a bit of a pickle. No one wants to host the 2022 winter Olympics. Well, not exactly ‘no one’ – the two hopeful hosts are Almaty, in the kleptocracy known as Khazakstan, and then the winter sports hotspot known as Beijing. Seriously. The IOC is trying to bribe more savory locales (like Switzerland) but is finding little enthusiasm.
Why is this all relevant to eventing? Because the IOC is fighting to stay alive and corrupt, they’re trying to make deals with potential hosts. One upshot from the 2022 no-bids issue is that the IOC is now willing to let hosts axe certain sports or entire disciplines so that they don’t have to build the facilities. First up in the guillotine are the various ‘sledding’ sports: luge, bobsled, skeleton. The track is a huge expense and unlikely to be used again. None of these sports have any grassroots or public participation whatsoever. (I mean, when was the last time – or the first time – that anyone called you on Saturday morning and said ‘Let’s go luge.’) The IOC knows this, and no longer requires a track as part of a bid.
Recently, I was talking to the coach of the most successful women’s skeleton program (their top two girls came from eventing :)), and he said that sliding sports know their days in the Olympics are numbered. It’s a matter of when, not if.
I think the same is probably true of eventing, and this ‘equestrathlon’ nonsense makes it all the more probable. The answer for eventing, is not to turn the sport into this silly pageant for the dignitaries and criminals and corporate enablers of the IOC. It’s to get the hell out now.
The real reason sport orgs turn themselves inside out trying to please the IOC is because most sport orgs are presided over by people who are trying to get into the IOC. These are political animals of questionable morals who want to get into the IOC to get their piece of the real prizes on offer. Some are outright criminals, too. I can think of one sport in which the president of the IGB is a man with a criminal record who is extremely rich. His goal is to be an IOC member, but his criminal record is something that even that lot can’t overlook. He’s a lovely guy in person, enough to make you forget the criminal part, but what you can’t forget is that he’s using the sport as a means to achieve a goal that has nothing to do with the sport or the good of the sport.
Eventing doesn’t need the Olympics. I suspect if the FEI said ‘we want out’, the IOC would come crawling back, because the worst thing that could happen to them is a domino effect of sports realizing they don’t need to kowtow to this outdated consortium of corruption.
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8104612]
The changing in the “star” levels has been coming on for a while. All other disciplines run 1*-5*. So I think that is where that is coming from. Of course for all the other equestrian sports but eventing…I think the Olympics is run at the highest level.
Like everyone else…I don’t really like any of these suggestions and see many of them actually costing MORE to stay in the Olympics.[/QUOTE]
I don’t really have a problem with the changing of the “star” levels in and of itself, because aside from the addition of a new FEI level at the lower end of the spectrum it would theoretically change the top levels by name only. However, I see it as being mostly a money grab by the FEI … They want to tap into the lower level market, at least as it concerns up-and-coming horses and riders with UL aspirations, so that the money from competitions will be coming to them instead of the applicable national organizations.
And of course, if a 1.05m FEI division was added, it would cost money to the event organizers to add the extra course (isn’t that one of the main reasons the proposed division between T and P keeps getting shot down?)
[QUOTE=JER;8104646]
(I mean, when was the last time – or the first time – that anyone called you on Saturday morning and said ‘Let’s go luge.’) [/QUOTE]
I wish someone would, because I’d really like to try luge!
I am glad I am not the only one.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;8104869]
I am glad I am not the only one.[/QUOTE]
Seriously!
When I tell a non-horsey person what I compete in with my horses, I generally end up having to give a brief explanation of what eventing is. I am quite sure I would still have to do the same, even if they suddenly changed the name to TriEquathlon (which sounds just plain stupid, btw)
what the fruitbat! I see they snuck in the CIC4* too. Once that happens say goodbye to CCIs forever. Why do events all cater towards the Olympic goal. Who cares about the Olympics anymore really. Eventing really is at risk here…
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8104876]
Seriously!
When I tell a non-horsey person what I compete in with my horses, I generally end up having to give a brief explanation of what eventing is. I am quite sure I would still have to do the same, even if they suddenly changed the name to TriEquathlon (which sounds just plain stupid, btw)[/QUOTE]
I can not think of a name that would suddenly make the general not horse public go ‘oh my, I can not believe I have not been following this amazing sport all my life, where have I been’.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;8104894]
I can not think of a name that would suddenly make the general not horse public go ‘oh my, I can not believe I have not been following this amazing sport all my life, where have I been’.[/QUOTE]
combined training. you’d still have to go into detail a little, but it’s immediate that there are multiple phases (combined) involved. it would at least reflect the sport’s history.
[QUOTE=beowulf;8104915]
combined training. you’d still have to go into detail a little, but it’s immediate that there are multiple phases (combined) involved. it would at least reflect the sport’s history.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, that name explains the sport.
The way I read the posted article the whole point of the name change is to make the sport more attractive to viewers and outside people. Combined training is not more exciting and way too logical.
[QUOTE=Jazzy Lady;8104530]
I’m going to say it now, but I don’t mind the whole team 3* and individual 4* thing. I look at it as a stepping stone for people to experience team competition atmosphere and graduate into the 4* (or rather 5*?) individual realm. It will likely allow for more riders to get an opportunity to compete on that stage (with slightly less pressure) on a slightly less difficult course. I mean, realistically, the courses will be largely the same but probably a few different technical fences. It’s not like they’d have to build 2 full courses. Bromont could do this as they already have the 3* course in place and will be adding the 4* for the WEGS. I think it creates a bit of a pinnacle for individuals to aspire to, while still allowing teams to take place and build on each other. Maybe that’s looking at it with rose coloured glasses, but I actually don’t think it’s the worst idea.
shields face with arms[/QUOTE]
I agree completely.
