[QUOTE=overhorsed;8744178]
Interesting that they chose Donner over Sinead and Tate, who placed higher at GMI and had a faster XC time…[/QUOTE]
Especially since Sinead and Tate can handle the crowds, are more reliable on the flat and can get top 10 competitive. I’m sorry they weren’t named. We’ll just watch them win Burghley instead :yes:
[QUOTE=overhorsed;8744178]
Interesting that they chose Donner over Sinead and Tate, who placed higher at GMI and had a faster XC time…[/QUOTE]
Especially since Sinead and Tate can handle the crowds, are more reliable on the flat and can get top 10 competitive. I’m sorry they weren’t named. We’ll just watch them win Burghley instead :yes:
[QUOTE=NCRider;8738477]
Hunters and modern equitation do no one here in the US any favors when it comes to being prepared to train a horse to the upper levels of eventing.[/QUOTE]
I am convinced that the focus on hunters/eq in this country takes a lot away from the Olympic Sports. If you want your child to learn “English and Jumping” your visit to local riding schools will most likely have your child going into hunters.
Take a poll of the local riding schools across the US and tally up the % that have hunter/eq (with some jumpers in there for the gutsy kids) versus the % that are focused on eventing. Even in my area, which is the mecca of event training and pony club, the hunter lesson barns far outnumber the event lesson barns.
[QUOTE=Groom&Taxi;8744056]
As much as we common folks would like to know more details, many times it is not in the best interest of the horse or competitor to share specifics.[/QUOTE]
There is no legitimate reason not to be transparent about a horse injury.
There is no legitimate reason for a team selection process not to be transparent.
However, there doesn’t have to be any reason stipulated to make team changes at this time. This is team selection, not a divorce. The selectors (or whoever is specified in the NSF’s INP) can make changes however they like based on the initial round of names submitted for accreditation.
[QUOTE=Atwood;8744380]
Especially since Sinead and Tate can handle the crowds, are more reliable on the flat and can get top 10 competitive. I’m sorry they weren’t named. We’ll just watch them win Burghley instead :yes:[/QUOTE]
As much as I like Sinead and Tate, their current form is much closer to Lynn and Donner than it was when they were finishing Second at Burghly. It could come down to Donner vetting better than Tate, which is essential for a reserve horse.
[QUOTE=Groom&Taxi;8744056]
More vague than “acute minor injury”? How about “minor injury”?
There have been a few discussions here before about this - as when a horse withdraws just before or during a big event, and there is no more info provided. As much as we common folks would like to know more details, many times it is not in the best interest of the horse or competitor to share specifics.[/QUOTE]
Acute, in medical terms, means “sudden” (the opposite of chronic). It’s not how bad the injury is: mild/moderate/severe. Granted, I haven’t heard many riders distinguish between acute and chronic before. 
Respectfully disagree on this point. Lots of reasons why the rider/owners may limit the information shared with the public.
[QUOTE=KayBee;8744535]
Acute, in medical terms, means “sudden” (the opposite of chronic). It’s not how bad the injury is: mild/moderate/severe. Granted, I haven’t heard many riders distinguish between acute and chronic before. :P[/QUOTE]
I was just making the point (apparently unsuccessfully) that “minor injury” is more vague than “acute minor injury”. As the owner of a horse with chronic pastern dermatitis, believe me, I understand the difference between acute and chronic.
[QUOTE=NCRider;8744515]
As much as I like Sinead and Tate, their current form is much closer to Lynn and Donner than it was when they were finishing Second at Burghly. It could come down to Donner vetting better than Tate, which is essential for a reserve horse.[/QUOTE]
Vetting is one thing, but Sinead and Tates dressage in a BIG atmosphere like Rio is unquestionably superior.
[QUOTE=Atwood;8744572]
Vetting is one thing, but Sinead and Tates dressage in a BIG atmosphere like Rio is unquestionably superior.[/QUOTE]
Lynn and Donner scored a 47.7 at Burghley in 2015. Sinead and Tate scored a 47.6 at Rolex this year. Sinead and Tate’s dressage scores at their two previous 4 stars were 50.8 at the WEG and 51.7 at Rolex 2014. Whereas Lynn and Donner’s scores have generally continued to improve, Sinead and Tate have not been able to reproduce a score in the 30’s since Burghley 2012.
Boyd’s performance on BFM at Great Meadows was, as we all know, a little worrying in aspects of the team. Does that change the probability of BFM actually competing? I can’t imagine that David O is feeling all that confident at this moment in time:).
Boyd has the ability to pull it out of his ass. He’ll be fine.
One of the great aspects of BMI is that it clearly showed our find riders’ weak spots. I’d rather see them make mistakes and find the holes here than on the big stage. As Jimmy Wofford said on the live stream, one of Mike E-S’s best abilities is building courses is [safely] finding those weak areas in training!
Ah, I forgot about this. They would hold test events there without all the hoopla. And riders would be attempting new things - more of a schooling thing. And they would have done recon on the courses and put certain questions on course. Then they had the ability to school each phase and work out kinks. So this is nothing new - it was just a lot less press before.
[QUOTE=DressagePonyX;8744629]
Boyd’s performance on BFM at Great Meadows was, as we all know, a little worrying in aspects of the team. Does that change the probability of BFM actually competing? I can’t imagine that David O is feeling all that confident at this moment in time:).[/QUOTE]
DOC and Boyd both attributed BFM’s issues to an error/casual riding on Boyd’s part, and Boyd admitted he took the horse’s XC phase for granted a little bit. Not what anyone wanted to see happen, and not entirely comforting, but I’d be more surprised if they were replaced than if they competed.
[QUOTE=Atwood;8744572]
Vetting is one thing, but Sinead and Tates dressage in a BIG atmosphere like Rio is unquestionably superior.[/QUOTE]
Didn’t Sinead also have a “blonde moment” error in her dressage test at WEG?? If I’m remembering that correctly, perhaps it was assessed as risk of differing types existing with either pair?
I would have been happy to see either pair named as the traveling reserve, both capable of producing on their good days.
Olympic team “minor injuries” to horses are almost never explained. Rightly or wrongly. I would not read anything into it. I would not second-guess Maya - very probably this was not her call.
IMO “acute” means “we’re not going so don’t hassle me about how bad it wasn’t”. That would be for the team selection process, as well as Maya as an individual.
[QUOTE=blackwly;8744101]
Or it is essentially nothing (some minor ultrasound finding) that they are using to replace him for a horse with better current form. The bottom line: you aren’t on the team until you’re jogging down the strip. And you’re not the traveling alternate until you’re on the plane. All of these horses are going to have little imperfections…it’s a matter of how hard you look.
My theory for the day: BFM won’t go. Donner is a good replacement for him as XC trailblazer.
The team has all the right in the world to keep shuffling until the last minute to get the best combos there at the moment it counts. My theory is that this is what happens and what the public hears is very carefully crafted. But just a theory.[/QUOTE]
I would love it if Donner was one of the Olympic team. 
Historically, at least some of the US selectors are hyper-concerned about potential lameness. Obsessively. This was a heavy influence on the final London team selection. And on the WEG prep afterward, to the point that it interfered with some of the horse/rider preparation timeline for 2014 WEG. (Tate, in particular.)
Donner may have been in better form at Great Meadow, but I wonder if it will count against him that he is older and has more miles than BFM, so theoretically carries more soundness jeopardies that could crop up at the worst time - reasonably or not.
Tate is not on the form he was 4 years ago. And Tate has a history of being under the selector’s microscope for real/imagined soundness issues. I don’t see him making a plane trip to Rio.
When guessing at selection for the US eventing team, over and above readiness and performance, one must factor in that relentless concern for what could/might go wrong physically. To win bets on who is picked and who not, that is. 
Which he did not do at Great Meadow. And it was a curious time not to do it. I wonder what was going on with BFM & Boyd, the partnership.
Hopefully Great Meadow was the shake-out / wake-up that everyone needed before The Really Big Show.
Yeah, neither PD or Boyd Martin have been with their Olympic selected horses very long. If PD is on Cubalawn, his first competition was at Stuart in 2014; Boyd started on BFM after Fair Hill in 2015. Compare to Jung and Aufarth and Klimke who have all had their horses for eons–they started them from the get-go. So Is Et has been with Ostholt doing FEI since 2010. (I checked the FEI database)
If there is one thing the Germans have, it’s partnership.
perhaps not useful to current discussion, but in Australia, in '86 World champuionships, Bruce Davidson’s horse was spun at the first vet check. As he would have been the anchor, it could be worrisome for future competitions. The lameness never reoccurred, so I wonder these many years later what it really was.
[QUOTE=Groom&Taxi;8744056]
More vague than “acute minor injury”? How about “minor injury”?
There have been a few discussions here before about this - as when a horse withdraws just before or during a big event, and there is no more info provided. As much as we common folks would like to know more details, many times it is not in the best interest of the horse or competitor to share specifics.[/QUOTE]
At the same time, it causes a lot of speculation and rumors start flying around. IMO transparency is always preferable, even if it’s “Dobbin had some swelling in ___. We’re looking into the issue, but in the meantime I’m withdrawing.” It could be a cut, it could be a bowed tendon, it could be anything, but at least you’re being open about what is going on (not necessarily why it’s swollen) rather than making people worry and throw out wild guesses from the rumor mill.
FWIW, last year I found out my own place of employment’s network was hacked… from the Washington Post. My employer didn’t say a WORD of it to us, instead they just shut down all internet for three days and didn’t tell us why – because they were embarrassed, they didn’t want to look bad to the public. Welp, guess what? The fact that we all had to find out via a third party news agency made ten times worse than if they had just told us from the get-go. It only fueled the fire of distrust between us and the employer. If you want people to be loyal and supportive, you need to be open and honest. Otherwise, what’s the point?
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
