FEI looks at sweeping changes in Eventing

[goodmorning]

Well I guess I am wondering - what was actually changed during this meeting? Anything? If they want to tweek the Olympics at this point - why should we care? ULR’s & TPTB have earned whatever continued bastardization of the Olympic part of the sport they get. Can we as Eventers around the World stop making the Olympics the end all be all & focus on the top 4s and saving WEG if at all possible? If the IOC wants Flags & happy-ness for all - why approach it as mutually exclusive bastardization? Do what the IOC wants for TPTB who ‘care’ about the Olympics, create a different Objective for FEI Eventing aligning w/the true High Performance aspect of the sport; kept on track by the National organizations (:lol:). Spin & market the 3 for our YR crew which is what the IOC wants anyways - use that as a segway into the FEI 4* scene…I think it could all be done…

I think there are ways to please multiple parties but it starts with realizing the Olympics have not been the top of the sport, they will not be ever again, they will be out of the Olympics at some point - so mine as well plan around it all…

But honestly, what is the IOC thinking about making 2 courses?! A 3* and a 4* is a sure way to waste money, however, I doubt anyone really cares (which again is due to the corrupt nature of the org), its all going to be subsidized and paid out to a CD, an engineer, builders, etc…

[amb]

[QUOTE=goodmorning;8130706]
Can we as Eventers around the World stop making the Olympics the end all be all & focus on the top 4*s and saving WEG if at all possible?[/QUOTE]

If this is anything to go by, “no” on the WEG at least:

http://www.fei.org/news/fei-sports-forum-2015-opens-discussion-future-fei-world-equestrian-games™

The first part (“yay WEG, aren’t they awesome, Normandy wasn’t perfect but we can learn from it”) is great, then they get to the key conclusions, which include “Re-design of the competition formats and schedule to encourage a more compact foot print” and “Development and implementation of industry leading sport presentation concepts that deliver to the non-equestrian fan needs”.

Then the heading for the following section is “Ratings are king”. Sums up where they’re coming from, really.

The one bright spot I see in it (which others dislike; see above!) is the split between a team competition (targeted at the Olympic Games) and the individual. If the team competition can take with it the format changes aimed at TV coverage (designed for people with no attention span who want nationalist pissing matches instead of sport; see also most Olympic TV coverage) and leave the individual sport more-or-less alone as its own participant-centered thing, it doesn’t seem like the worst outcome. It’s the next best thing to a complete split with the FEI, which don’t see happening.

(…but I am cynical and burnt out on AHSA/USEF/USEA/FEI/IOC politics. I just like horses and stuff.)

[devvie]

related article:

http://horsetalk.co.nz/2015/05/04/olympic-games-happy-place/#axzz3ZCABRehb

[vineyridge]

Pippa Cuckson on the Sports Forum.
http://www.horse-canada.com/cuckson-report/change-for-the-sake-of-change/

I found this interesting to say the least:

The European federation suggested two short CICs, at the very start and very end of the Olympic fortnight, so that horses could have a rest and contest both.

The Europeans means the Continental Europeans, probably minus France.

[judybigredpony]

[/QUOTE]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]
JER

Absolutely!!

[judybigredpony]

[/QUOTE][QUOTE]
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. JER[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

:yes::yes:Absolutely!!

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I used to be all about staying in the Olympics…now…not at all if it requires changes. The Olympics while important are not the top of the sport. I do not think our sport needs to change at all to make it TV friendly. Just leave the sport as is…hire decent announcers…and focus on showing mostly xc and the the final SJ to the main TV audience and focus on showing everything else online to the real fans. The sport is easy enough to follow as long as it is well presented as is. Get rid of the top hats and coats. Showcase the Athletics that the sport is about

[Jealoushe]

That is probably true Jazzy lady - but then here we go again with the sport direction soley changing so the Pros can make a living off of it.

I have no problem with professional riders, I really don’t, but I’m sorry…if it means eventing is being picked apart year after year so people can make a living off it, then I just can’t support it. Eventing does not have to support professionals to survive, some might even say the sport would be better without them.

[RAyers]

I can’t even believe that people (e.g. the governing bodies) are even considering this stupidity.

Look, if we need to make this TV ready and thrilling, I suggest all riders and horses have explosives with timers (which riders will have to disable once they complete the course) in their saddle pads and that all courses are built in wildlife game preserves (specifically, ones with bears, tigers, lions, or any of the major equine predators) and instead of fences, we have targets that the riders must shoot out with handguns; meanwhile snipers from participating countries will be placed at strategic positions around the course where they have the option of shooting the rider, the horse or the predator, based team position in the competition. The snipers will not be allowed to shoot unless the rider and horse have cleared the designated zone in which they operate and if they are not currently being devoured by a predator.

The competitor will only have enough rounds to shoot all the targets or to defend themselves from a predator so speed is of the essence and accuracy rewarded. Bonus points if a rider disables a competitor’s sniper.

Of course, afterward, the survivors will have to compete in a dance competition with other attractive singles with whom they want to marry while singing duets chosen by the spectators.

Reed

TV ratings are the LAST thing the idiots who run this sport should EVEN think about, damn greedy idiots.

[Jeannette_formerly_ponygyrl]

Sure, and where were you when the FEI was looking for new royalty, Prince Reed? That is 10 times brillianter than anything they will ever cook up!

[4Martini]

I think they should real time score dressage by the movement. Like old school gymnastics 1-10. It’s really not that different from how we score. Why not let the audience follow along with the judge. Each scribe could have an LED box and it would record the score as the audience got to see it.

It would be both educational and keep it more interesting for those who are less versed.

[Winding_Down]

So all this about getting rid of the Olympics. I am not sure about where I stand on this as I have not thought it through. However, Olympics do build a public awareness of our sport (especially if we do well), and I can imagine that potential supporters, owners, and most importantly future competitors may be exposed to our sport through the Olympics. I think of other sports that have triggered my own interest through the Olympics. Not that I am training for the luge, but I have taken more interest in sports such as skiing through watching the Olympics.

[FitToBeTied]

Yes the Olympics might introduce people to a sport they have not seen before. I only watch curling when it is the Olympics. But what would be the point of introducing people to a sport called eventing when it is not eventing any more?

[Jazzy_Lady]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8135709]
That is probably true Jazzy lady - but then here we go again with the sport direction soley changing so the Pros can make a living off of it.

I have no problem with professional riders, I really don’t, but I’m sorry…if it means eventing is being picked apart year after year so people can make a living off it, then I just can’t support it. Eventing does not have to support professionals to survive, some might even say the sport would be better without them.[/QUOTE]

This is all very nice for you to say as someone who doesn’t make a living in the sport. But I would wager to guess that the pros that you don’t think the sport needs spend FAR more money in the sport than most amateur riders. I mean, they have several (Buck has 11 sometimes) in one event. That there is over $3000 in fees (not including stabling) for one event, from one rider. This doesn’t include their students either, just their own rides.

When the sport is tied to the Olympics, it’s far easier to secure sponsorship, owners and funding. I’m not saying that it has to be like this, but I don’t think dismissing pros from the sport would make the sport better or more profitable but would indeed end the careers of many people who have spent time, money and effort learning and mastering their craft in this career. It’s completely out of line to dismiss them.

[Sticky_Situation]

What Reed said.

Eventing has somehow managed to grow in popularity over years despite not being “TV friendly”. Why should we do away with the sport that has drawn all those people in, in order to try to make it more marketable to people who aren’t interested in the first place?

[Jealoushe]

Buck may ride 11 horses but there are 200+ ammies at most events.

There are a hundred ways you can make money in the horse world, competing doesn’t have to be one of them is all I am saying. I majorly resent the fact that any choices be made so that pros have an easier time to make money. Our sport is slowly being destroyed and becoming too dangerous to participate in, yet it is more popular than ever, and there are more pros then ever. Maybe they aren’t related, but maybe they are.

I also wouldn’t say a lot of the pros have learned how to make money doing this, a small select few maybe, the majority fund raise to attend their big events, something you can easily do when you are not making a living off of it.

[Jazzy_Lady]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8137255]
Buck may ride 11 horses but there are 200+ ammies at most events.

There are a hundred ways you can make money in the horse world, competing doesn’t have to be one of them is all I am saying. I majorly resent the fact that any choices be made so that pros have an easier time to make money. Our sport is slowly being destroyed and becoming too dangerous to participate in, yet it is more popular than ever, and there are more pros then ever. Maybe they aren’t related, but maybe they are.

I also wouldn’t say a lot of the pros have learned how to make money doing this, a small select few maybe, the majority fund raise to attend their big events, something you can easily do when you are not making a living off of it.[/QUOTE]

And who are you going to hire to coach you at the upper levels if there are no pros that are riding there and have experienced it? Pros have more of a job than competing, but competing and gaining experience is a part of the job. They go hand in hand. I see a lot of amateurs fund raising to ride at intermediate and higher, I don’t see a lot of pros doing it. It’s a part of their job to have horses at that level, competing.

Look at the intermediate and advanced levels at the bigger events. Those are mostly pros. Yes, there are lots of amateurs at any given event, mostly at prelim and lower. The two don’t need to go hand in hand. The way the Olympic is going may have some trickle down effect to the lower levels, but likely not. Those 200 amateurs aren’t going to really feel the difference that these changes are making.

Also, if there are a hundred ways to make money in the horse world, why aren’t more horse people just rolling in it? Making it in the horse world is simply not that easy.

[Jazzy_Lady]

Also, most of the pros you say we don’t need, seem to be against these changes.

[JER]

TV isn’t what it used to be.

The Olympics have dropped in TV ratings (although picking up viewers in streaming, which is to be expected), and skew toward two dreaded demographics: older people (meaning those outside the 18-49 bracket) and women (over 50%). Teenage viewership has dropped substantially. Minority viewership is miniscule. All of this info is available from Nielsen and other services.

It would follow then, that the idea that a once-every-four-years-for-a-few-minutes exposure to a sport to mostly people over the age of 50 is not going to build a sport, either spectator-wise or participant-wise. Many sports get an uptick after the Olympics, with people wanting to learn how to do whatever it is, but this is short-lived. The mega-over-budget London Olympics justified itself by claiming it would get the grassroots into sport, but the opposite happened.

If broadcasting is the holy grail, then there are so many more non-Olympic opportunities to showcase eventing or any sport at the present with the online streaming capabilities. It’s not like people are sitting around in the evenings watching whatever comes on the Big 3 tv networks. That era came to an end in the 1980s, actually.

If the FEI and eventing orgs can’t figure out a more effective way to reach an audience than via a few minutes on a multi-sport broadcast every four years, they are abject failures and should find real jobs. But then the dirty secret of sport orgs is that many of the feeders at the trough are what might be politely called ‘unemployable in the private sector’.

[Jealoushe]

You don’t have to be a pro ‘rider’ to ride at the ULs. You can be a trainer who makes money from training, coaching, etc. Pros aren’t rolling in the money because horse sport is expensive, and the people who use their services are already stripped thin as it is.

I do not care if people want to make a living being an event rider. What I care about is the sport changing specifically to make it easier for people to make money.