US Olympic Team and alternates named

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;8736255]
To some extent though, it’s really not for equestrian and eventing/dressage in particular. Sure, the new coach is working with the riders, but this sport to a strong extent is about having the best horses in the world. Within the four years time frame, we are essentially still working with the same horses we had four years ago for the most part, but they are further along in their training. Still, there is a cap on what they can do and it’s unlikely that most of our current horses can challenge for individual medals. Loughan Glen is the exception, and certainly Mai Baum and RF Scandalous may have had potential to do the same but obviously are out for the year.

Meanwhile, we are hopefully bringing along more talented horses along behind them, but from green to Olympics, that is really an eight year process, not a four year one. Mai Baum is a good example of the rising talent, and Doesn’t Play Fair doesn’t fall far off the mark based off his spring season this year. Both of these horses are essentially just now ‘coming into power’ per se, and both could be major contenders by 2020.

Look at all the press Water Cube is getting. He’s a four year old, just off the track, and the main media outlets keep saying that event though he won’t be ready for Rio, he could be there for Tokyo. The reality is that if the horse becomes an Olympic prospect, it won’t be until 2024, when he’s twelve.

Basically, it’s really more of a six to eight year process to bring a horse from baby to the Olympic levels, even with a pro like Boyd or Phillip. If we’re selecting different horses under the new process and coach (and I do think WEG caused a re-evaluation of the blood we need, so that process could have essentially started over in 2014), we’re really looking at 2020 before we could be a major player on the team front.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And yet this is the stage we are in at every Olympics. Every WEG. For many years.

McKinlaigh was a solid, proven, ready horse in 2008, not a ‘hope for the best’ and/or ‘well the rider can nurse him around’. Connaught was as well … but they won’t all hit just right at once. The rest of the team? Before it or past it. That’s us.

It’s as if our anchor riders PD and BM scramble around in the last 48-36 months before the big show to come up with a ride. Where as riders such as Jung, WFP, Nicholson, etc. keep a stable containing several options to pick from, based on the expected demands of each particular Olympic/WEG course. In comparison we never seem to have all the cards in hand on the day, the way certain other reliable medal-winning countries do.

The US development plan is always running to keep up. Never ahead of the game. Always at the mercy of fate if something happens to one or two of the strongest contenders we have. Whereas at any given WEG/Olympic year the British could easily fill two or three medal-worthy teams. They leave at home riders that would anchor the majority of teams.

I would say this year we are closer to having a very strong bench than has been the case … maybe ever? That’s looking better for the future. At least our best riders are staying at the level much longer than was sometimes the case in the past. So a lot of the development program - sending riders to Europe, spreading out team attention … is paying back results. It’s just a slow build process, compared with how quickly the Germans brought it together.

[JER]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8753031]
Agreed. And yet this is the stage we are in at every Olympics. Every WEG. For decades.[/QUOTE]

But, whatever you do, don’t call the program a failure, even though all results indicate it’s a failure.

Ask yourself if you’d keep your own job under comparative circumstances – a decade of failing to meet targets, even when targets are lowered, and admittedly years away from showing positive results. Most likely not.

In the real world of sport, coaches and HP personnel get sacked or resign when they fail. At the recent Euro, failed England manager Roy Hodgson was out the door as the whistle blew on the ignominious loss to Iceland. All the ‘rebuilding’, ‘just-need-time’ talk in the world couldn’t save his job. As it should be.

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=JER;8753078]
…
Ask yourself if you’d keep your own job under comparative circumstances – a decade of failing to meet targets, even when targets are lowered, and admittedly years away from showing positive results. Most likely not.
…[/QUOTE]

You are right, my butt would be out the door without an extended period to ‘give the person a chance’. Because the company can do better. There are other choices of people who could deliver at a higher standard. A well-run business will not muck around with a failing leader because they don’t have to, they can fix that.

Professional sports are the same. They expect results on a very definite timeline, and the ones who are well-run get those results. Some are revolving doors, and that doesn’t help them at all. It is about making the right choices for delivering results on a sustainable basis.

But I’ve been mystified at the management practices of the eventing team for many years (the only team I pay attention to). No business could run like that and survive. The principal difference is the standards the team holds itself to, before applying those standards to employees, players, etc.

Also very weary of the standard fallback default excuse ‘no money’. Give me a break. Horse sport is swimming in money - it has to be, these are very expensive animals to maintain at this high-performance level. It’s a matter of channeling the money.

Some things have improved, some things are much better than they were. But some old, failed legacies seem to be hard to shed. And that is one of the hardest parts of successful management.

[wanderlust]

It is interesting to me that this is purely an eventing problem. US showjumping has a very deep bench that will be competitive for both top team and individual medals, and the dressage team is the best it has been ever, highly competitive on the international stage and also has great chances for medals.

I think that overall, the eventing team’s showjumping has gotten quite a bit better with Silvio on board - but still struggle to get top marks in dressage and have have too many “oopsies” on XC.

[JP60]

@OverandOnward;8753031

Agreed. And yet this is the stage we are in at every Olympics. Every WEG. For decades.

I could not help but see a fascinating parallel between what I read here and what I just read on a completely different sport competing at the Olympics.

As SAMC99 said re projected sad results for the USA team. "So what do we do to change that? How do we get the youth out of 420’s into exciting boats like 29ers and F16’s/Nacra 15’s etc.? College won’t change so what are you doing at your local yacht club to put money into fast, exciting boats that are now a norm at the games? Are we, the U.S Sailing public at large, willing to put money into a GBR-style coaching and training system? Or do we not care about the Olympics anymore?
I agree totally.
Apparently the USA does not have an effective organization which supports Olympic Sailing. I can hear our U.S. Sailing leaders talking animatedly…“I surely do love those new sailboat designs we have now. They are like nifty Model A roadsters. Ya can paint 'em up with fancy new colors like on those new woolen bathing costumes we have now, and have a BALL! It is more fun than doing the Charleston, or even the BlackBottom!”

Just replace sailing with Eventing and it would paint almost the same picture. I’ve read accounts of times back when Gladstone was the center of Eventing and teams worked much longer together to bring about success. Emerson, Plumb, Walnes…these weren’t old farts, battle weary warriors getting a long in the tooth. These were practically kids and while we can say times were different, what I’d say is the attitude was different.

In this quest for gold we miss the fundamental view that you cannot buy your way to the top or stay there. Jung is Jung, because he gets that and works daily to do better with his horses. Perhaps if our leadership stopped looking for the quick fix, turned the model upside down and started finding new, raw talent in both horse and rider and really worked with them we might have deeper benches, better chances for Gold. I truly don’t want to see Eventing in the Olympics, but since it is there, and our current programs sucks, maybe it is time to step back and start building. I’d rather my money go to finding new talent, helping the less financially capable get the right horse. Do we need to buy that high 6 figure horse just to compete? My two favorite horses, Gray Goose and Courageous Comet were OTTBs that their owners trained all the way to the top and they did not cost a house. Why PD and BM (again) when it would be better to take two young riders and give them the experience at the Olympics such that four years later they bring it back with much more experience.

We also need to start promoting more men/boys into this sport. PD and BM are products of other countries and their riding shows. getting a strong mix may promote stronger competition, bringing different approaches to training that is somewhat homogenized today. One gender is not better than another, but each approaches riding differently and there is strength in differences.

Right now the US is like a rider that every time they go out on course, jumps the wrong jump thinking, one of these days, it will be the right one. It is about time we get back to jumping the right jump the first time.

[JER]

This is slightly OT but here’s a great read on goal-setting, standards and ‘selection’ by running coach Steve Magness (who was also one of the whistleblowers in the Nike/Oregon doping scandal).

The relevant parts are mostly in the section on team selection, under the heading The Nature of Control. The gist of it is, that when objective criteria determine the team, the athlete feels in control of their destiny, and this has a positive effect on training, career, and overall results. Selection messes with that and the resulting uncertainty/disappointment has far-reaching negative effects on the sport. Definitely worth thinking about, even if the predictable answer here will be ‘But eventing is different!’

If you have time, read the whole thing, because there’s a lot of good thinking in there about high performance programs and how to achieve results, as seen through the prism of athletics/track.

[vineyridge]

JER, that’s a very interesting article. Suppose eventing tried to have objective standards, what would they be?

Extrapolating from the track article, objective standards might look something like this:

1. Meet Olympic qualifications with the horse.
2. Over a pre-determined period of time in 3* and 4* competitions, have an AVERAGE dressage score of at at least 70% (that’s the equivalent of 45 PPs).
3. Over that same period of time have an AVERAGE of no more that 7 time faults XC, no XC eliminations, and only one competition with a single XC jumping fault–that would include both the 20p faults and the 11p frangible faults. Not sure what to do with WD and RET
   4 Over that same period of time have an average of no more than 6 sj faults,

If there aren’t enough people who meet those standards to make a Team, send the 4 who come closest. If there are too many, send the four with the lowest averages.

This takes reputation out of the equation and squarely puts it on performance.

As more and more pairs are able to met the standards, lower them.

[PhoenixFarm]

You know, just for the sake of historical accuracy, we us d to have a totally objective system. It didn’t work either, and resulted in lawsuits, hard feelings, and, most importantly, not terribly successful teams. Over time, we’ve moved to what is essentially a completely subjective system, which isn’t working either. There’s been some experimenting (such as a largely objective selection with one “bye spot” so if someone has a problem that is forgivable (such as falling off another horse and missing an outing) they can still be on the team per the selectors).

Without saying that I think “all’s well” I do think there is a cyclical nature to these things. In 2002, eventing was the “golden child” of US equestrianism and it was the jumper folks who were wearing sackcloth and ashes and saying, “we need to do what the eventers are doing”. Now the jumpers are the heroes, and we’re saying we need to figure out what they are doing.

Heck, if you had told me even ten years ago that BRITAIN would have been a world dressage power, I would have laughed in your face. But even the vaunted German dressage team had a rough few years, and is now poised to take back their crown.

So yes, discussion, changes, but I suspect these things will cycle around again.

[vineyridge]

[QUOTE=PhoenixFarm;8754984]
You know, just for the sake of historical accuracy, we us d to have a totally objective system. It didn’t work either, and resulted in lawsuits, hard feelings, and, most importantly, not terribly successful teams. Over time, we’ve moved to what is essentially a completely subjective system, which isn’t working either. There’s been some experimenting (such as a largely objective selection with one “bye spot” so if someone has a problem that is forgivable (such as falling off another horse and missing an outing) they can still be on the team per the selectors).[/QUOTE]

I knew about the lawsuits in show jumping and their totally objective selections, but hadn’t realized that had also been the case in eventing. I’d like to know more about that, so if anyone has particulars, please post them.

[IFG]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8755210]
I knew about the lawsuits in show jumping and their totally objective selections, but hadn’t realized that had also been the case in eventing. I’d like to know more about that, so if anyone has particulars, please post them.[/QUOTE]

See the last paragraph of this article: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/new-zealand-dominate-1.71497

[IFG]

A fuller description of the situation in 1988: http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/chronicle-over-decades-1980s

[JER]

[QUOTE=PhoenixFarm;8754984]
You know, just for the sake of historical accuracy, we us d to have a totally objective system. It didn’t work either, and resulted in lawsuits, hard feelings, and, most importantly, not terribly successful teams. [/QUOTE]

This was for a very limited time – basically 1992. And really, it was the result of lawsuits that this ever happened.

I think there’s something positive about an INP (this is the internal document that spells out selection procedures for the quad) that is clear and objective about qualification and selection. You’ve got three/four years, you’ve got it all in writing, you can plan for exactly that.

I’m not at all surprised that this wouldn’t work as a one-off. No one likes it when the wrong people win, but one thing that’s required of team riders is that they perform on the day. I’ve had this debate many times about a variety of sports – in general, while people like the idea of the simplicity and clarity of a trials-type selection process, everyone wants to backpedal a bit in case the favored/best ones don’t perform on the day. In sports like USA Swimming and track/field, where Olympic trials contests are the norm, it seems to have worked well for decades.

@PhoenixFarm;8754984

Without saying that I think “all’s well” I do think there is a cyclical nature to these things. In 2002, eventing was the “golden child” of US equestrianism and it was the jumper folks who were wearing sackcloth and ashes and saying, “we need to do what the eventers are doing”. Now the jumpers are the heroes, and we’re saying we need to figure out what they are doing.

Leadership, for one. Chapot retired, George Morris took over, then Robert Ridland.

@PhoenixFarm;8754984

Heck, if you had told me even ten years ago that BRITAIN would have been a world dressage power, I would have laughed in your face.

Team GB’s resurgence was no accident. This was due to the National Lottery funding and increases in that funding in the run-up to London 2012. And following the success of Team GB in London, this quad saw a 34% increase in funding (to about $30 million total) for equestrian sports for the current quad. But again, this is all results-based. Miss your targets and you might find that UK Sport cuts you off completely, as happened to a number of underperforming sports post-London. Kindness is not part of the equation.

[Larksmom]

I can tell you Viney, even have a photograph! I will have to figure out how to post it.
In 1988, Kerry Millikin rode two horses at Rolex. It was a huge course. IIRC, there were very few options. I was standing at the broken bridge, and joked with another person, that would bee a bad fence for a horse that chipped in…
Well, Kerry came thru on her first horse, and he did flip out when he saw the yawning ditch. He turned sideways, hit the standard, and they slid into the ditch.

She had supposedly been promised a slot on the Olympic team. As she broke her leg in the fall, she didn’t bring out the second horse. She was left off because he didn’t finish, and she sued. Now for some reason, I don’t remember what happened after that, but I don’t think she ever made the team.

I wanted to post something else however. The posts about bonding with the horses and keeping them a long time is thought provoking. I would imagine the main barrier is the fact that our riders have to support themselves. In the 70s and 80s I think the riders were still considered amateurs, and therefore didn’t have to support themselves. They didn’t have to do clinics and teach all day. They did have the time to work their horses. I don’t know any owners, and they must put up a tremendous amount for a top rider to ride their horse. Maybe they could start younger horses. Boyd competed this last weekend on a low level horse, and hopefully, he will get to keep him and continue up the ladder
and stay sound and competitive. It would be nice for some up and coming people to get a good horse or two. If Sir Rockstar is 15, does Libby have another horse in the pipeline?

[vineyridge]

There isn’t a lot of detail in the COTH article on the 1980s, but it does assert that the complaints by Kerry Milliken and Peter Leone were decided by an arbitrator, not in court, and that the arbitrator decided in favor of the USET’s announced teams in both circumstances.

[brindille]

on another note, did anyone see the USEF fall competition grants? It seems strange to me that older horses like Donner and Tate are going to Europe instead of greener horses - they don’t need more practice over 3*s. Maybe a bit of a carrot after the near miss at the Olympics? http://eventingnation.com/usef-announces-fall-competition-grant-recipients/

[FitToBeTied]

I have to agree on the grants that spending money on 4* horses to go to do 3* events seems like a bad use of limited funds. You have Manoir de Carneville (16), Harbour Pilot (13), Donner (13) and Sound Prospect (14) are all experienced horses with 4* experience. Why send them to 3* events.

Decisons like this is one of the reasons I don’t donate money to USEA or USEF.

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=JER;8755235]

Team GB’s resurgence was no accident. This was due to the National Lottery funding and increases in that funding in the run-up to London 2012. And following the success of Team GB in London, this quad saw a 34% increase in funding (to about $30 million total) for equestrian sports for the current quad.[/QUOTE]

Often it does come down to funding. <sigh>

[JER]

[QUOTE=Winding Down;8755468]
Often it does come down to funding. <sigh>[/QUOTE]

Funding – and RESULTS. Which was the next line in my post, but you cut the quote off just before it.

It’s not just about funding. The USEF programs have substantial funding, but they’re apparently under no obligation to produce results.

That UK Sport Lottery funding would have been obliterated if the teams hadn’t reached their performance targets. That means there has to be some accountability in the program if the funding is to continue.

This is the big difference from the US.

[JER]

[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;8755396]
I have to agree on the grants that spending money on 4* horses to go to do 3* events seems like a bad use of limited funds. You have Manoir de Carneville (16), Harbour Pilot (13), Donner (13) and Sound Prospect (14) are all experienced horses with 4* experience. Why send them to 3* events.

Decisons like this is one of the reasons I don’t donate money to USEA or USEF.[/QUOTE]

In the USEF’s defense, the NSF might be obligated to send the most qualified pairs. IIRC, there’s some legal language about this in US NSFs, maybe due to the Ted Stevens Act or something similar. Or it might be a USEF legal thing. But I do recall that there are some mandates in this regard.

If you’re running a national team program, there are some work-arounds for something like this. For example, if you see that an ‘over-qualified’ pair are applying for a grant that would be better utilized by a developing pair, you reach out to the over-qualified rider and talk to them about their plans. You might work out a better strategy/goal/plan with them, resulting in their withdrawing their application, which would give the slot to the development pair. Good communication, transparency, personal contact all go a long way in HP sports.

[FrittSkritt]

[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;8755396]
I have to agree on the grants that spending money on 4* horses to go to do 3* events seems like a bad use of limited funds. You have Manoir de Carneville (16), Harbour Pilot (13), Donner (13) and Sound Prospect (14) are all experienced horses with 4* experience. Why send them to 3* events.

Decisons like this is one of the reasons I don’t donate money to USEA or USEF.[/QUOTE]

Agreed… although Sound Prospect hasn’t done an overseas 4* (or 3*, for that matter). Would have liked to see Elisa Wallace on there for a shot at Burghley. No sense in using the money to send Donner, MdC, and HP to do yet another 3* when they’ve already competed overseas at the the 4* level (Burghley, Pau, etc.).