2012 Greenwich petition

so confused about all this - i agree its not a great venue but should we complain if the eventing is at risk - will they not just axe it or is that scare mongering???? im probably very ignorant so someone explain to me!
 
l will try and make it clear then. whether horsesport, particularly eventing is an olmpic sport has NOTHING to do with the organising comittee of the host city, it is entirely down to the IOC on which body britain has a representative and a vote.
usually i totally agree with billyslad but on this occasion we need to be realisitc. there is not enough room to house everything there,(beas river 92 acres, park 180 ish but Hong Kong xc course only 8 minutes and NOTHING else was held there) the park including tres planted in the millenium by families in memry of loved ones will need to be dug up, the park will be closed to thousands of londoners for long periods TWICE (dont forget the test event) and all this will be a complete waste of time and money as it will have to be torn down after.
this is one country where we have an opportunity to invest in a permenant venue that will be used after the games. Most of the critism comes from the fact that equestrian is a minority sport, extremely expensive to run and thus far has left a series of white elephant xc courses barely ever used again e.g athens, sydney, barcelona, seoul.
the only argument for it is that it would be great to have equestrian right in the city (cant argue with that if it was practical) in that case sailing needs to be relocated to the thames estuary doesnt it?
If we all got behind a change of venue, and if we made a permenant sustainable new venue, a great deal of the complaint from other nations that is putting horseports(especially eventing) in their current precarious position would be answered to a large degree.
all countries bid for games and then make changes to the original plans once they get the games, its about time a few people swallowed their pride and changed this one.
Feel free to ask any other questions, i will do best to answer them in an unbiased fashion though from the many threads on here currently re this subject, my views are entirely clear.
 
This is Daffodils letter in a related post.
Sent to H+H. Doubt it will be printed in full (if at all) but it puts it brilliantly



Dear Editor,

Having read the article entitled “Olympic Fallout” I have a few comments to throw into the melting pot.

It appears that Greenwich was chosen for two reasons:- one, so that we have a site as close to central London as possible, and two, simply so that we have an impressive background with the Queen's House encased in a grandstand (if the article in the Daily Telegraph the other day is to be believed), with little serious regard given to its overall suitability. Covering 183 acres this is the oldest Royal Park in London, and home to herds of fallow and red deer and other wildlife. I understand that many of the ancient trees will have to be heavily pruned, if not felled, to make room for the cross-country, and that commemorative trees planted and presumably paid for by individuals, will be included in this policy. Although there is a lake at the top end of the Park there appears to be no natural water running through it, and at least one other water complex will have to be constructed. The damage will be incalculable and it will take years to recover. The site is accessible only on three sides, the fourth being occupied by the Royal Naval College and other buildings, all leading down to the River Thames, and I understand the Blackwall Tunnel will be closed for part or all of the Games, as will the Park itself during the preparation period which is likely to run to many months. With horse sports still viewed as “elitist” this is not the way to endear equestrianism to the inhabitants of South London, who will derive no benefit from these competitions as the site will be dismantled immediately after the Games.

I agree that Mr Etherington Smith’s cross-country course in Hong Kong was a great success. It rode well and was beautifully designed and constructed over its 4,560 metre length on the 92 acre site of Beas River Country Club, a 20 minute drive from Sha Tin. However he misses one crucial element when he says that he's absolutely sure Greenwich can accommodate a cross-country course, presumably of a similar length and calibre. At Sha Tin Racecourse there was seating for 18,000 in the grandstands, 13 schooling arenas, gallops for fast work, state of the art stabling, and the racecourse veterinary hospital. Greenwich is starting from scratch and is expected to find room for everything: cross country course, main arena, schooling and warm-up areas, stabling for over 200 horses (based on this year's numbers), storage facilities for show jumps, tractors, levelling and raking equipment, media facilities, veterinary and first aid sites and a drainage system to be constructed. You only have to look at the Environmental Impact Assessment Report of 2005 put together for the Hong Kong Jockey Club to realise the enormity of the site at Sha Tin, which is far greater than was visible on television. I fail to understand how Greenwich can accommodate a fraction of this, and erase all trace of it afterwards.

I understand that 200,000 tickets were available for all disciplines in Hong Kong, with ticket sales being restricted to 10,000 for cross-country day, in a country which, other than racing, does not have an equestrian tradition. That is not the case here, where Badminton regularly admits over 200,000 on cross-country day alone. There is no way Greenwich will be able to accommodate anything close to this number, and it would be a huge insult to supporters if they are barred from their own sport in their own country.

Views have been expressed that equestrianism in our Olympics needs an “iconic” backdrop. What is wrong with Windsor, with its 5,000 acres of parkland to play with, the Castle and the Copper Horse in the background, a track substantially in existence, with easy access off the motorway, and Heathrow virtually next door. It could be spectacular.

Of course it would be regrettable if equestrianism were to be taken out of the Games, particularly those held in this country. It is one of the few sporting areas which we are consistently good at, although our recent show jumping results might not reflect that. However, the lead-up to Hong Kong was fraught with concerns about the climate and welfare. A strong element of luck played its part in the success of the Event too, with the weather being extremely kind on cross-country day, and largely throughout the two weeks of competition. As far I am aware the rain only became a problem towards the end of the Individual Show Jumping. The weather in this country cannot be expected to be so co-operative!!

The much discussed “Fall and Elimination Rule” recently introduced by the FEI has to be a good thing in the public arena of an Olympic Games, taking into account the fitness and ability of horses from the less experienced countries. I confess to breathing a huge sigh of relief at the end of the cross-country phase when everyone was home safe, if not sound, and no calamities had occurred, and the one horse which did sustain a potentially serious injury had the benefit of the Sha Tin racecourse hospital. I felt that the sport “had got away with it”.

The Hong Kong Games were blessed by the Hong Kong Jockey Club paying for most of it. The Games here in London are to be funded out of public funds, via the National Lottery and Sport UK, which is accountable to the government. I am not quite sure what Tessa Jowell actually meant by her “testing to destruction” remark (News item page 5) but if the funding of the equestrian games here is under scrutiny and its future uncertain, then logic might indicate that it is sensible to reduce costs to the public purse by utilising existing facilities (as they did in Hong Kong by taking over Sha Tin). There is no reason why the venue cannot be moved now; some small sites have already been moved. Hong Kong was selected after it became apparent that Beijing could not hold these competitions there, and it was moved 1,200 miles. I am sure we could move it to Windsor, or anywhere else more suitable, just as easily.

 
Already signed, that letter is fantastic
smile.gif
 
What a fantastic, well researched letter that is
smile.gif
.
Windsor/Ascot would be so perfect..not too far from London, loads of parking & welcoming to such an event.
The Castle would make a beautiful backdrop wouldn't it.
Our country isn't that huge is it...Windsor is only slightly out of the London Boroughs & very near Dorney Lake, the rowing venue.
Signed
 
Many thanks for saying nice things about my letter. I did ask the Editor to pass it on the Mike Etherington Smith if they weren't going to print it, so we'll see what happens.

Signed the petition. Some interesting names on it!!
 
This letter says it all really, Well done Daffodil!!

I get the feeling the only Legacy the equestrian event will be leaving for future generations is an episode of 'Time Team' in about 50 years time
crazy.gif
 
Daffodils letter is inspiring and i have signed the petition and will be telling a lot of people (none equine) the disadvantages of the venue at Greenwhich.

Windsor would be a great location
 
Agreed and done! Windsor would be a far better venue - it could take all three disciplines, would still be a fantastic tourist attraction and easily commuted from London. As stated by 'bearhuggz' the castle would make a fabulous backdrop, along with the copper horse etc. Let's hope the petition makes a difference!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top