I don’t agree that the solution is getting more men involved, or that that alone would put more money into the sport.
More money isn’t the answer per se, the answer is how is the money spent. On what. Is the program effective. Some of the worst projects I was ever on were very well capitalized. When a project is late and ten or a hundred people are added, the problems of the project skyrocket. The key is to not just throw programs or money at a problem, but to throw solutions at a problem.
I think it’s extremely peculiar, the idea that the Olympic riders prepare themselves or their horses by showing at the national levels. In fact, I don’t think that’s where they come up at all. The suggestion they do is extremely odd.
I think what develops the Olympic riders is coaching, not showing at third and 4th level, and certainly not showing at training-2nd. I think it’s as strange as the suggestion that qualification is needed to prevent abusive riding.
One reason is even more bizarre than the last.
I feel that most of the upper level riders developed very quickly up thru training-4th level, and most, other than economic necessity (showing clients horses and sale horses), make very little use of those levels. Most of the young riders I’ve seen are developing through riding the FEI young rider tests, not those levels.
In any case, I don’t think those levels are what develops people into international riders.
I think it would be far more rational if the organizations said plainly and simply why they want qualification - to raise the scores at those levels and generate revenue. All this attempting to appeal to people’s emotions (‘Save the abused horse! Support qualification! Let’s win a gold medal at the Olympics, too!’) is - it’s really bizarre.
As examples I would take the riders whose histories i am familiar with - Debbie Macdonald. She was a hunter rider. She got a wealthy patron who first bought her hunters, then dressage horses. The patron got her the coaching and training she needed, and then she got to the point where the organization helped her.
Klaus Balkenhol showed some at second level in Germany, but what made him go from a beat cop to an international star was again, coaching. Willi Schultheis, Hartwick, and many others.
A person has to develop very quickly as a young rider, to aim for an international career.
That means a very intense and well planned out program for those early years. Individuals can no longer afford the type of horse they need to develop quickly. They need to ride trained horses, top class horses, to develop quickly enough. Very few people have the resources to get access to those horses, even if they are incredibly talented.
If the organization REALLY wants to develop riders, they get a full time coach, someone who works not 180 days of the next two years with the riders, but someone who works full time, and not just a year or two before the Olympics - that’s penny wise and pound foolish. I’m not complaining about Balkenhol, but about our structure, our timing, our program. I think Balkenhol is brilliant - he used the Pan Am games to develop our riders, that’s very smart. He has tons of knowledge, he’s a great asset.
They form a place like DOKR, in that it’s full time, not ‘sessions’, where the best riders congregate and work together under some sort of ORGANIZED, FULL TIME leadership, and the conflicts between personal coaches and national leadership gets worked out inteliigently. They would buy horses (yes, they would buy horses, lease them, people would donate them, whatever, however), not 2nd level schoolmasters, really good well trained horses, to try people out and bring them along. They’d expand the developing horse and rider programs, and bring more people to gladstone and work harder to develop them.
NOT a certain number of days, which winds up a big intense period shortly before the Olympics, shortly before the Olympics, and doesn’t develop the horse’s fitness long term over a longer period, which would reduce the stress on them. If the Olympics no longer have riding AT LEAST the national organization will be forced to come up with a more rational program.
There is no reason for this process to have anything at all to do with amateurs showing at training-4th level. I’m not saying these top riders don’t show at t-4th at all, but that this isn’t what makes the difference between an amateur and an international rider.
Riders with potential can easily be identified, regardless of what amateurs score or don’t score.
This is what’s so peculiar to me. Instead of doing what WOULD stop abuse, or what WOULD develop riders to the international level, they’re doing qualification - which to my way of thinking, could be a good thing, but is going to wind up doing nothign more than generating a lot of revenue for the organization, and a lot of very unhappy amateurs.
The more I look at the scores, the more I know we need help, and we need to score better. There ARE weak scores at 3rd-4th. There just ARE. But how to make them better? By qualification, or by some other program? I actually think another sort of program would be better - partnering with trainers to offer regional ‘buildup’ clinics - to go over test results, and teach the riders how to ride better.
