Laura Graves is returning Sensation to his owners, pre-Olympics.
She said, “Sensation was very talented and could have been a great team horse for USA.
Unfortunately his owners would rather ride him themselves.”
I hope she didn’t mean the last sentence the way it sounded.
The article mentions Laura’s next-in-lines so maybe she’ll ride in Los Angles in 2028.
The rest of the article doesn’t have the smell of sour grapes that one of the lines you pulled out makes it sound like.
Horses show us all the time that they develop on their own timeframe and don’t care what schedule we have in mind for them. The article goes on to say that Laura herself determined that he was not going to be ready for Paris and that factored into the decisions of the owners.
At the end of the day, Laura is facing what many trainers who do not own their horses face everyday - owners making changes that take horses away from particular trainers. Without signed contracts, there is precious little that the trainers can do to stop this from happening unless they own 51% or more of the horse.
That quote makes it sound pretty negative. I hope it wasn’t meant that way, although I’m sure its disappointing to be working towards one thing (2028) and then have that option taken off the table.
The article presents an unclear chain of decisions. Unclear on the timeline of which decisions were made first, and by who.
There are several ‘which came first’ questions, here. Laura is implying that the owner wanted her horse back if he wasn’t going to be ready for Paris. Is that how it happened?
Or did the owner want her horse back not until the end of 2024, as she says, and Laura didn’t want to dedicate any more time to a short-time horse, and it was Laura who sent him back now?
Chronologically re-ordering the article’s info … adding some para separation for clarity …
Gaves explained that, "when the relationship began, it was planned to last through Los Angeles 2028.
In the late summer of 2023, we accepted a grant from The Dressage Foundation in hopes of qualifying for Paris 2024.
A few months later the owners of Sensation FOD made me aware of their intention to bring him home. ‘after Paris’."
Laura is also quoted as saying …
"… As time passed and the final qualifying procedures were published, I felt in my heart that it would be too much pressure, in the time allowed for Sensation FOD to gain the confidence needed for this level. [I think she means just for Paris – is 2028 included? Not clear.] In complete fairness to Sensation FOD, his owners, US Equestrian, The Dressage Foundation and all of the donors, it was decided to send him back to his owners now."
The owner says …
Owner Carol McPhee explained on Facebook that, "we have 100% trusted and supported all of Laura’s decisions while developing Sen and understand he’s not ready. (…). The decision made in Mid-November to bring him home end of 2024 was just for that reason. Sen was not pushed or asked to be pushed in a way (…) All of FOD horses are micro-managed with care. We don’t push and we listen to our horses."
McPhee further told Eurodressage that, “I love my horses and want to enjoy all of them.” She added that “I do ride - that’s my plan,” when asked who will become Sensation’s new rider.
The whole article, as well as the quotes, are contradictory as to why the termination decision was made.
Was it because Sensation wouldn’t be ready for Paris, or because the owner preferred to take over the ride herself? Chicken or egg, which came first?
Who decided to send the horse home first, Laura or the owner?
It reads as if the owner thought to leave Sensation with Laura until “the end of 2024”. But Laura felt that if the horse wasn’t ready for Paris, there was no point in continuing.
Did the owner decide to take over the ride before or after Laura’s decision to send him home?
Kind of a mystery, it’s like reading a whodunit, to the unintiated on watching from the outside …
Reading between the lines: Maybe owner first sent Sensation to Laura with the end goal of 2028 LA. Then “we” (owner) accepted a grant to point the horse toward Paris 2024. But Laura told all & sundry that this timeline was too aggressive for Sensation’s best development. She doesn’t want to take him to Paris.
And then the owner seems to have changed her mind. If the horse isn’t ready for Paris 2024, then never mind the long-term 2028 plan, instead put another year of riding on him and send him home at the end of 2024. To which Laura may have responded ‘never mind indeed, take your horse back, I don’t have time for a short-term prospect’.
Is that it? That’s reading between the lines, but really I have no idea just based on the article.
I think your reading between the lines is probably about the way it went. I know the pro riders that dont own their horses face this or risk this as part of life. But it still must burn a bit when sponsor cuts 4 years off the original plan and wouldn’t be surprised if that “unfortunately” line sort of slipped out in the interview.
Well, as they say, the horse doesn’t care if it goes to the Olympics or not…
Agree. The horse scored 75s at Lamplight in the PSG/I1 in 2022. Certainly it has a lot of quality. In 2023, it did a show in late October at I2, scoring 71/72 ish at Ocala. I don’t think it has yet had a CDI start or a start at GP, so likely would not be a Paris hopeful, especially given all the purchasing that has gone on lately. I don’t think LG has another Paris hopeful, so not sure why she didn’t just keep the horse in training for the owners. That is the mystery. But good on all of them for not overfacing the horse. The horse is GORGEOUS and the owners are lucky to have such a nicely trained, high quality horse to enjoy. Who knows, maybe it will show up as a contender in 2028…
If the owner was paying for all the training with the specific goal of the Olympics, and the trainer said the horse wasn’t an Olympic hopeful, then I totally understand bringing the horse home.
It’s very common that trainers can’t afford their own horses and rely on owners and sponsors, but it’s not cheap to be an owner either. What is the point of continuing to pay when the stated goal isn’t possible?
While I’m sure there’s a lot unsaid on both sides, if you know anything about the owners or look at their history of going through trainers/riders at their PA farm, it’s unsurprising this relationship with Laura didn’t last. They are highly competitive, love the spotlight, and absolutely would have pressured Laura to get this young horse to the Olympics even if he wasn’t fully ready for it. I can only imagine the turmoil Laura endured through this relationship with ruthless owners.
I understand an owner’s desire to ride their own horse and that is very valid, but don’t overlook the blatant history they have of discarding trainers and riders (including their own daughter-in-law) who won’t do what they want. It’s a huge shame for Laura and the future US Team but not surprising at all.
I looked at the owner’s website. Some of the things she focuses on just seem odd. The wording on the site is odd too.
I guess the jargon is very different between an equestrian pastime and the business of selling liquid carton packaging equipment.
I would imagine Laura took on the project based on the fact that she would have the horse through 2028 and the LA Olympics. Plans would have been put in place, at that time, for that circumstance, and if she didn’t qualify for Paris then LA would be the goal. Owner obviously thought the horse should be rushed to Paris. Why continue investing your skills into a project for which you are not going to reap the benefit ?
I am thinking that what Laura really meant was, “Unfortunately (for our long term plans), the owners want to ride him themselves.”
IOW, they originally planned to aim the horse at Los Angeles in 2028. The Dressage Foundation grant pushed the timeline up by four years, with 2024 Paris becoming the new goal. Then the owners told Laura a few months after receiving the grant that they were going to bring him home after Paris instead of continuing with the original plan to aim at Los Angeles. My take on that is that they started to realize how much money they were going to bleed out after the grant expired and between that and Laura’s assessment that the horse would likely not be ready for Paris, they said, “To heck with it all, we are bringing him home” - and told her they were going to ride him themselves.
But that leaves me with two questions:
He’s listed as a gelding on HorseTelex, and with other pedigree & show record tracking orgs.
https://www.horsetelex.com/horses/pedigree/2212689/sensation-fod
My respect for Laura just went up a thousand percent.
Sounds like the owners wanted the horse to compete in Paris.
What are his (Sunsation) future plans?
Laura will have to answer that question – she has their best interest in their future plans. We would be blessed and fortunate if they would be a pair for the 2024 Paris Olympics.
I’d be surprised if there is a rider with a legitimate shot for Paris already lined up for the horse.
Laura did not consider the horse ready for the large tour. There isn’t a lot of the qualification season for the short list still available. I’d be surprised if that happened, but weirder things have happened. It takes time for the relationship between horse & rider to develop to the point that a successful debut at the large tour level can happen.
If I had a crystal ball, I’d think that Laura had frank discussions with the owners outlining how the horse was very unlikely to be selected for Paris, and the stress on him would potentially hurt his long term show career. The owners may not have been happy with this news and decided to pull the plug to stop the financial bleeding.
As I said previously, it sucks for the rider to have long term plans, but it’s the reality of not owning your horses. She owned Diddy, so this may be somewhat new territory for her - having her long-term project pulled out from under her.
Some riders I’ve known personally that have had this happen end up changing their own long term goals once this has happened a couple of times. It absolutely sucks for the rider, but it is ithe financial reality. Contracts for these types of horses/riders/owners seem to not be the SOP, but more of a rarity. maybe this will change someday.
We have this system where riders rely on rich owners to fund their trips to the Olympics (or their competition in general). Do we then have the right to be angry when the owners don’t want to spend more? It seems there’s a lot of hate being dished out on owners here but the entire system pretty much runs on owners buying nice horses and then footing the bills. If the horse isn’t ready for what he was bought for, then shouldn’t he go home or be sold?
That’s the one.
No one is putting a gun to their heads. Some people get a well-deserved thrill owning and watching their horses make good on the world stage. Heck, I love being an owner and watching someone ride my horse well.
Reading this article, her responses give me the “ick” as the kids are saying these days. Can’t put my finger on it, but it’s palpable even over the internet.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
