Interesting, given the stated conditions for applications. I quote from the post on Eventing Nation:
Only horses and riders who are currently successful and confirmed at the Training level and above will be selected.
(bold mine, for emphasis)
I checked on the competition record of exactly one horse. I expected that this horse would be ‘currently successful and confirmed at the Training level and (sic) above’.
That horse has had three runs at Training level.
Outing #1: Placed 10th of 11 starters (the 11th was TE’d) on a score of 95.80. 60 jumping pens on XC, 4 jumping pens in SJ
Outing #2: Placed 14th of 18 starters on a score of 81.60. 20 jumping pens on XC, 24.40 time pens on XC, 4 jumping pens in SJ.
Outing #3: Placed 11th of 14 on a score of 47.40. Clear with time on XC. 16 jumping pens in SJ.
This horse is not ‘currently successful and confirmed at the Training level or above’.
Obviously, the rider must be a friend of the organizer because the only explanation for this is cronyism.
I’m not surprised, given the tone of the organizer’s posts. Cronyism is always a good fit with elitism. But if I were one of the hopeful applicants who got rejected despite meeting the published criteria for the clinic, I’d be pretty ticked off.
If I had a horse in that particular group, I’d also be a little irritated that one of the others in the group was very much underqualified and could possibly hold the group back.
The Training group – 2 horses have done a number of Trainings, but the other 2 have done 2…and 1.
I don’t consider that confirmed at the level. But this is not exactly surprising. And, again, there is NOTHING wrong with picking who is in the clinic however you and/or the clinician would prefer. Nothing wrong at all. But the way in which the call for applicants was worded, and then discussed, with references to “exclusive” and “the committee” would certainly have led most adult amateurs I know to conclude this was not a genuinely “open” clinic, but that the organizers for some reason wanted to give lip service to the notion that it was.
Would have been far better to announce this for what it really seems to be, a wonderful opportunity to see one of the world’s best teach a talented group of pairs at several levels. Not suggest that one of the coveted spots would be in reach of the average (albeit confirmed and successful at Training) person.
Well, I don’t normally jump in on COTH forums, but I guess I should since you posted a pretty personal attack on me. Oddly enough this isn’t the first time, and I don’t know your impression of me, but I assure you I am actually a really nice upbeat person.
I think it is AWESOME that pros only make up half of this clinic. If you look at all the AA records, many of them have issues (including the other OTTB in my group). I think that is normal for us non-professionals, and I think will be great for the auditors to relate to “real riders” on “real horses,” as opposed to just a pro sitting on an imported prodigy.
For me specifically: yes my mare has a 20 and a 60 on XC - she is weird about footing. She has only been off the track for a year, and while she is a fabulous jumper and bold, she balks at things like water and road crossings or ditches occasionally. You can see an example here where she got a 60 by dancing around water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYzVcmK-pdk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUp1iu9cFUi2LGUVuYnsBuAw
As you can see, we are very capable and the jumps are lovely, but she is green. It is a green/young horse group. Her dressage is always in the top (something you casually didn’t mention), and except for two rounds she is always a good SJer. I am entering the clinic because I want to improve. I want help! I know we can do better in SJ, and I am also open to ways to make her more confident XC. I don’t think I deserve to be prosecuted for that. And for those with similar issues - you now know all of mine, so feel free to audit me extra close!
It is nerve wracking enough as an AA entering such a huge clinic. I think we should all congratulate and support each other.
I am thrilled to see a variety of riders and horses. I am sure it could have been filled with pros or people all on Fernhill horses with perfect records. I am thrilled to see otherwise! I will be closely watching all the other OTTBs that got in, and cheering for everyone.
If you are coming to audit, please come and say hello! Feel free to give me positive waves as I am sure I will want to puke.
Oh - and to the idea that I will be “holding back” the group - I was in a clinic with Jan Bynny with two of the other riders all on the same horses. My mare was a star, and certainly didn’t hold anyone back. I think we will all have a grand ole time.
[QUOTE=KCarp;7179641]
Well, I don’t normally jump in on COTH forums, but I guess I should since you posted a pretty personal attack on me. Oddly enough this isn’t the first time, and I don’t know your impression of me, but I assure you I am actually a really nice upbeat person.[/QUOTE]
A ‘personal attack’? I posted your horse’s competition record, just numbers and data supplied and recorded at the USEA site. There is nothing personal or attacking about it; it’s all fact, and it shows that your horse does not meet the published criteria for the clinic.
If you feel personally attacked by that statement of fact, have you given any thought as to the feelings of those applicants who met the qualifications and criteria yet still got rejected?
I can honestly say that I had no idea it was another COTHer’s horse. I didn’t look at the rider name; I picked your horse because I glanced at the group and your horse’s name was one word and memorable. I didn’t look at rider names because I don’t know many eventers by RL name and it wasn’t relevant to my search.
If I’ve attacked you before, I’m not aware of it. But then I don’t know you. I post on this BB on the assumption that it’s a discussion forum about eventing, and as such, eventing and its greater community will be discussed. I may have disagreed with you, I may have argued with you, I may have commented on something that was about you in some way. That’s what happens here.
I don’t know or care in a clinic if riders are professionals, amateurs, children or from another discipline. Maybe it’s different in VA, but my clinic experience is that there’s a mix, and also that ‘pro’ doesn’t mean better than everyone else. Also, the expensive imports are usually in the hands of rich amateurs or YRs.
All this is to say exactly what I said: your horse is currently neither confirmed nor successful at Training level. (When I say it, it’s a ‘personal attack’. :)) Which is fine. Your mare is green, you’re figuring out if she’s a big-time horse or not and getting an idea for where her future lies.
Again, all fine and good. We all have issues that we work on. But the posted notices about the clinic stated very clearly that the horses had to have specified qualifications. Many more people applied than were accepted. Your horse simply does not meet the stated criteria.
I don’t get the hero worship here. I don’t know why WFP looms so large (yes, that’s ACME bait). He’s one of a number of big names but Mark Todd, Mary King, Ginny Leng, Lucinda, and so on all do clinics.
But what is it that I should congratulate you for? Having the right connections to get into a clinic over qualified applicants?
I do hope you stay safe and have fun and learn lots.
Again, I never commented on you personally. I said that your horse’s record indicated a lack of qualifications – specifically, XC/jumping issues at Training level – which is something that could potentially hold a group back, given the published criteria for applications to the clinic.
I think it was very cynical (and that’s the nicest word I can think of) of the organizer to give nebulous names to the groups – like misappropriating the USEA designation ‘Future Event Horse’ – and then decline to explain them further. Clearly, and IIRC someone posted about this earlier, the application process was something of a sham and places were awarded based on factors other than the stated criteria.
Come on JER. Not only do the people entered have to ride for WFP in front of over 100 auditors but people on an online BB get to critique their fitness for the clinic group they have entered.
[QUOTE=enjoytheride;7179752]
Come on JER. Not only do the people entered have to ride for WFP in front of over 100 auditors but people on an online BB get to critique their fitness for the clinic group they have entered.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what to make of this post. It’s either a poorly worded joke or an odd lack of insight.
No one is forcing anyone to ride in the clinic. This is eventing, not the Lord’s Resistance Army.
Because of the public way in which the organizer sought applications for this clinic, the general eventing public – that means us – was led to believe that only qualified applicants need apply. In other words, you had to fulfill a particular set of criteria in order to be considered for the clinic.
I clicked on the competition record of one horse in the Future group and found that it did not have the stated qualifications. asterix checked out the four horses in the Training group and discovered that 2 of 4 weren’t qualified according to the organizer’s own published criteria. kcarp, in her post, mentioned another in the Future group that has ‘issues’ (her term, I have no idea which horse she’s referring to or why). That makes a total of four horses – 25% of total entrants – which do not meet the published criteria. I have no idea about the others; I only looked up one and that was enough for me.
This is a clinic in which the organizer came on all high-falutin’ with her published criteria for applicants, but declined to answer some very basic questions about her selection process. Then it turns out that this was something of an insider scam from the outset. High-falutin’, perhaps where elitism is concerned, but rather lacking in honesty and ethics.
enjoytheride, maybe you find a lack of integrity amusing. I don’t. I’d like to think eventers are better than this.
I assume there is a landing pad there at Morningside? Or strip? Or will we need to plan on driving? Oh dear, I do hope the riff-raff will be kept to a minimum. I am sure that a Guarantors’ Tent and boxes will be available.
I do feel badly that the one rider/horse’s record was pointed out instead of a blanket “I took a look at just one entry and it does not appear to meet the criteria the organizer posted”. There wasn’t really a need to point fingers, although I agree with a lot of what JER was saying prior. To that rider: I think you are brave for A) applying to ride in what will be an incredibly well-attended/audited clinic (so it seems), and B) responding in this thread with video that shows… I would be very interested to watch you clinic and work through issues to build confidence. BEST of luck to you and I hope you have a great ride - looks like the beginning of a great pair.
It seems the “marketing” was managed poorly (to someone like me, at least) who is majorly turned off by an “application process” to be selected “by a committee”.
Come on. I got booted from a Leslie Law clinic last year because I was lower on the totem pole than other riders. I knew that when I sent in my entry, there was a chance I wouldn’t get in, and it was not due to “fairness” or getting my entry in late. I know for a fact that certain people got in, and I did not, due to politics. Welcome to the world.
I knew that the organizer would choose the best people to fill the clinic. Whether that be: by genuine qualification requirements, a personal connection that made the organizer inclined to provide a spot for a certain rider… I find that irrelevant, since there is really nothing I can do about it besides… trying to build my relationships by volunteering and getting out there, being kind and friendly, and putting my money towards supporting our sport, particularly our local events.
I am very lucky that I got in to ride with Lucinda in less than a month, and feel free to check out my record: AMY EISENBERG! One recognized event on it, BN, with a RF… in stadium - AFTER falling off in dressage warm up. OH WELL! I know I am an extremely hard worker, reading when I’m not riding, watching Jane videos I will probably never return to my friend on repeat, spending as much saddle time as I can with my trainer, getting out to little, non-rated shows (where we have done well, I might add!) as often as possible, and with a thirst to continue to learn from as many different riders/trainers as possible.
Was this marketed the way people would have responded more positively to it for applying to ride? Maybe not. I still think it would be a great opportunity to audit, (especially with beer, wine, and food!!!), though I do wish the organizer had either been more transparent about what it took to get in to ride (e.g., connections, ballpark cost, clearer definitions of divisions), but I am thinking she may have been if you had privately e-mailed her. If there were a clinic I was interested in, I would have made it my priority to get in contact immediately with the powers that be in a more discreet mode of communication that supported the building of a relationship, and perhaps an inkling of an inclination to allow moi into the clinic!
I am kind of tired and delirious, so I have no idea if this diatribe makes sense, but my closing sentiments are: I hope WFP turns out to be a fabulous instructor, that everyone stays safe and has great, educational rides, and that auditors have fun, a few drinks, and tidbits to take home. Best of luck to all involved!
Whoa who’s got their panties tied up in a wad here? We ALL get the point, the first time it was made, and can’t agree with you more, but it does no service to berate it.
The clinic, and their committee, come off sounding awfully pretentious and like high school snobs the way that this has transpired. They did themselves no service to put themselves out here publicly. If they already knew who’d they’d prefer/select for their private clinic then it should have been by private invites only.
I am glad to see, despite their original criteria, that they will have some horse/rider combinations there besides the pros who may actually be able to show some marked improvements for the auditors to see.
Everything about this is in poor taste. The OP and the dissidents.
I’m sure that riding or auditing with WFP would be dreamy…
…but this reminds me of last year’s “Let’s find a rider for National Champion Bo Peep!” contest, complete with the same level of clarity and head-scratching during the selection process.
[QUOTE=ksamuels;7169895]
For those of you who choose to view this clinic as an exciting opportunity to learn from one of the best riders in the world, join the club! There should be no negativity involved![/QUOTE]
Well. That’s a rather glib thing for you to say, considering that your name was “approved” by the “committee”.
Um… No. Many, many AA riders are capable of preparing for and riding Training Level without “issues”. It is rare for a rider from my barn at Training Level to have jump penalties, because they and their horse are prepared for that level BEFORE entering. It doesn’t mean that they never have an occasional “issue” but it is rare and NOT normal, just because they are an AA.
“Issues”, particularly in the form of jump penalties mean that you are not “confirmed” at the level, as stated as a requirement by the Organizer.
I agree 100% that you and your horse will benefit from the clinic and I like that not all riders are pros, but the idea that being “confirmed” at a level is different for an Amateur than a pro or that an AA can’t pull together clean rides is incorrect.
Look, this clinic organizer gets to make the rules but should expect to be questioned when the “committee” doesn’t seem to follow the published guidelines (I bristle every time the word is used). It is also interesting to note that the “journalist” who promoted this “exclusive” clinic and berated others for not being “positive” enough of feel honored to audit was chosen as a rider.
It might be a good opportunity to audit and I have nothing against WFP, but this whole thing smells foul.
Since we don’t allow advertising for clinics outside of the Events forum, which is provided for Premium users, and we just noticed this thread after it became a bit contentious, we’re closing it.
Attendees are welcome to submit a clinic report to the magazine or share their experiences here after the fact.
