US Olympic Team and alternates named

[SnicklefritzG]

Exactly. I’d like to see more money on developing up and coming riders and not sending the same 4* horses overseas, particularly as those horses get older and in a few years will likely be stepping down a notch or retiring.

[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]

[ACountingRider]

I was a little surprised about the grants, but perhaps, those that decide who receives the grants may have considered this:

Despite some of the horses being older, the same riders do have strong programs at home with likely horses to be coming along underneath their current ones. So this experience is really more for the riders THAN the horses. This will likely encourage their current owners and sponsors to keep supporting them in future if not enable them to gain more.

Whereas, if you picked a completely new professional with their one-horse-wonder (Crossing fingers that’s eventually me!) you may send them once over, then if something happens to their horse or they don’t have the business skills to run their own program, they’re done. Naturally you would hope this one grant would provide them the exposure to gain momentum as far as sponsors/support/clients at home, but depending on the person it’s a tossed coin.

I think those chosen for grants have gone to those professionals I mentioned first, then up and coming ones that have horses coming along underneath or at least some kind of proven capacity they can produce them if given the opportunity.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=ACountingRider;8756017]
I was a little surprised about the grants, but perhaps, those that decide who receives the grants may have considered this:

Despite some of the horses being older, the same riders do have strong programs at home with likely horses to be coming along underneath their current ones. So this experience is really more for the riders THAN the horses. This will likely encourage their current owners and sponsors to keep supporting them in future if not enable them to gain more.

Whereas, if you picked a completely new professional with their one-horse-wonder (Crossing fingers that’s eventually me!) you may send them once over, then if something happens to their horse or they don’t have the business skills to run their own program, they’re done. Naturally you would hope this one grant would provide them the exposure to gain momentum as far as sponsors/support/clients at home, but depending on the person it’s a tossed coin.

I think those chosen for grants have gone to those professionals I mentioned first, then up and coming ones that have horses coming along underneath or at least some kind of proven capacity they can produce them if given the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

This is particularly true for Lynn who I believe has the temperament for a team rider and who seems to always be bringing along something herself. My initial thoughts were the same as everyone else’s but when seen as an investment in the riders, it makes more sense.

[FitToBeTied]

[QUOTE=NCRider;8756047]
This is particularly true for Lynn who I believe has the temperament for a team rider and who seems to always be bringing along something herself. My initial thoughts were the same as everyone else’s but when seen as an investment in the riders, it makes more sense.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn’t it be better to send that rider on one of their developing horses then? I don’t see the benefit of sending a 13 year old 4* horse to a 3*.

[devvie]

Do we know the average age of horses entered in these events? The average age of winners? Meaning is this info available anywhere? I would be interested to know, in the context of recent comments here.

[OverandOnward]

[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]

For the sake of discussion - in the eyes of those administering the grants, is it the horses that are being sent to Europe, or the riders?

Although these riders already have international experience, experience has a diminishing value over time unless it is bolstered by more experience. Could be it is the riders that are the focus, not the horses.

I assume these riders don’t have other horses that are as ready, and THAT lack of equine bench strength is a real problem for our top-tier riders. I see it is one of the major reasons that all the investment in international trips and rider development is not yielding the results it should be.

[JER]

[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;8755396]
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.[/QUOTE]

I’ll toss out another possible reason: to get decent international results.

I haven’t read the current USEF HP documents, but there may be some kind of provisions for international placings/rankings that may or may not be tied to bonuses for coaches/staff/next year. It could be money that goes away if it’s not earned. This happens in other sports/nations, don’t know if it happens here.

(That said, Capt Phillips received generous performance bonuses even when his teams and program failed, although maybe it’s the case that ‘performance’ was not defined as ‘eventing results’. :))

[hopashore1]

They also can only send those who apply for the grants. I also think it’s great for the up-and-coming riders, even on their 4* horses, to go do a 3* in Europe if they haven’t yet. 3*'s over there are a very different ball game.

Did Hannah Sue stay over in Europe after Aachen? That may explain her grant, if the flight itself wasn’t involved.

Boekelo is a team event. I assume they are trying to field a full team, and have Lynn as the anchor.

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=JER;8755235]
In sports like USA Swimming and track/field, where Olympic trials contests are the norm, it seems to have worked well for decades…[/QUOTE]

Well…with some hiccups from time to time in track and field. For example, this year we are sending a fairly weak women’s 800m team to the US - two of the favorites for a medal tripped and fell during the trials, missing their spots. And in the 200m trials Alyson Felix (a medal favorite and defending gold medalist) finished fourth and failed to make the team - she had gotten injured earlier in the year, and missed key training in her prep for the trials.

It appears to work well in track and field because we’re strong enough in the sprints that even if we don’t send our best, some of our runners should at least make the finals. But there’s many stories of our best runners who just get sick or injured or trip and fall at exactly the wrong time.

[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. 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.[/QUOTE]

UK Sport and British Athletics can be quite cruel. This year, they have three slots for the women’s 800m. Alison Leonard finished third in their trials, and has run the Olympic standard time. But they’re not sending her because they don’t think she has a shot of medaling. Instead, they’re only sending two runners, and leaving the third slot empty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2016/07/16/alison-leonards-olympic-snub-is-a-brutal-dismissal-of-an-athlete/

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=JER;8755235]
In sports like USA Swimming and track/field, where Olympic trials contests are the norm, it seems to have worked well for decades…[/QUOTE]

Well…with some hiccups from time to time in track and field. For example, this year we are sending a fairly weak women’s 800m team to the US - two of the favorites for a medal tripped and fell during the trials, missing their spots. And in the 200m trials Alyson Felix (a medal favorite and defending gold medalist) finished fourth and failed to make the team - she had gotten injured earlier in the year, and missed key training in her prep for the trials.

It appears to work well in track and field because we’re strong enough in the sprints that even if we don’t send our best, some of our runners should at least make the finals. But there’s many stories of our best runners who just get sick or injured or trip and fall at exactly the wrong time.

[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. 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.[/QUOTE]

UK Sport and British Athletics can be quite cruel. This year, they have three slots for the women’s 800m. Alison Leonard finished third in their trials, and has run the Olympic standard time. But they’re not sending her because they don’t think she has a shot of medaling. Instead, they’re only sending two runners, and leaving the third slot empty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2016/07/16/alison-leonards-olympic-snub-is-a-brutal-dismissal-of-an-athlete/

[JER]

[QUOTE=Darkwave;8757813]
Well…with some hiccups from time to time in track and field. For example, this year we are sending a fairly weak women’s 800m team to the US - two of the favorites for a medal tripped and fell during the trials, missing their spots. And in the 200m trials Alyson Felix (a medal favorite and defending gold medalist) finished fourth and failed to make the team - she had gotten injured earlier in the year, and missed key training in her prep for the trials. [/QUOTE]

Well, sure, things happen, but over the long-haul of 50 years and many, many races, this formula has been a successful one for Team USA. Athletes know what they have to do. The standards are posted. The timelines are clear. There is nothing subjective.

(I don’t think any USA women are ‘favorites for a medal’ in the 800m, not with Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wanbui out there. Allyson Felix is simply not in the top 3 US 200m runners at the moment, so why should she run it at Rio? You might also remember that she had the third 100m spot in London because the other woman who tied her for third at the Trials ‘gave’ her the spot rather than have a run-off.)

@Darkwave;8757813

It appears to work well in track and field because we’re strong enough in the sprints that even if we don’t send our best, some of our runners should at least make the finals. But there’s many stories of our best runners who just get sick or injured or trip and fall at exactly the wrong time.

And that’s sport for you. No guarantees.

@Darkwave;8757813

UK Sport and British Athletics can be quite cruel. This year, they have three slots for the women’s 800m. Alison Leonard finished third in their trials, and has run the Olympic standard time. But they’re not sending her because they don’t think she has a shot of medaling. Instead, they’re only sending two runners, and leaving the third slot empty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2016/07/16/alison-leonards-olympic-snub-is-a-brutal-dismissal-of-an-athlete/

This is what Steve Magness is referring to at the beginning of the article I posted. It really sucks for Alison Leonard. It’s one thing not to perform on the day but it’s another thing entirely to be treated like this.

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=JER;8757851]

(I don’t think any USA women are ‘favorites for a medal’ in the 800m, not with Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wanbui out there. [/QUOTE]

True dat, if they all compete and don’t trip and don’t get injured before, and don’t get DQd after the fact. But I really did think that Montano had a shot at something if one of those three didn’t make it to the start, due to the Russians not showing this year.

Sorry y’all. I should save this for Letsrun

Back to the topic at hand, I also think that we tend to say that the showjumping selections worked well simply because the candidates were so clear cut. We had three very strong candidates that I don’t think anyone would disagree with, and a fourth choice who, though young, performed well at both the WEG and this spring/summer. If the choices had been harder, either because of more depth or less depth, there might be more debate about the selection process.

So I get the point about the method of selection feeding into the strength and development of the teams, long term. But as was noted, it also goes the other way - the strength and number of candidates we have feeds into our perspective of how our selection process should work. When we have clear easy choices that match the number of open slots, nobody complains about subjective (assuming that the clear easy choices are picked…). If we’re not very good at the sport, then objective has much more appeal.

And if we have a huge selection of candidates that can potentially medal (i.e. the shorter sprints), then even if the subjectively best choices don’t make it, the objective superficially appears to be working. Though we might have done better with subjective. The difference between objective and subjective there may be the difference between a medal and multiple medals or a clean sweep.

[OverandOnward]

USEF announces Phillip Dutton has withdrawn Fernhill Cubalawn and will be riding Mighty Nice at Rio.

http://www.usefnetwork.com/news/14194/2016/7/22/usef_substitutes_horse_on_us_olym.aspx

Thoughts? PD just as good on Cubalawn or Mighty Nice? Would you have tapped Lynn & Donner?

[OverandOnward]

And … having maintained the US should probably skip Olympic eventing for a number of reasons, and having complained about team selection for years, been disgusted with the past coach and … well a whole bunch of other things …

What I want to know now is:

Where is the exact time schedule and the livestream source? So I can clear my calendar of everything else for 4 days of total livestream immersion of Olympic eventing.

:winkgrin: :yes:

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?494112-Eventing-at-2016-Olympics-in-Rio

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=Groom&Taxi;8764210]
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?494112-Eventing-at-2016-Olympics-in-Rio[/QUOTE]

thanks !!