2012 Olympics: when the "master race" within UK equestrianism ate the seed corn

DAMMN...has she gone?
I missed it all!
Now..Mrs I live in Greenwich....an antagonistic start eh? Eat some of your own corn...

The REAL reason that the horsey games were held in London and not in one of the excellent equine facilities around the country...was that the FEI were given an unlimatum from the OOC...deliver the games IN London....or you are out...period.
Me I should have liked them in Hyde Park.....excellent for the tube....and home to the Countryside March.....
You tell us about almost theft of water.....you tell us of outside toilet use....please direct us to the youtube footage.....websites which there must be to read/see these things for ourselves.....not calling what you say untrue...but you are shouting at us...so now back it up....
Oh...and this bleedin' the taxpayer.....I AM A TAXPAYER....they are not a seperate part of society....
And re the whole 'master race' slur...you really ought to be ashamed to put something like that in writing.....and just to show you how 'superior' I can be:
When I want your opionion.....I shall tell you what it is.....

And yes I did campaign against the Greenwich site......but sometimes you lose.....

Bryndu.
 
cptrayes said:
no, we don't have to cancel sailing. A boat costs very little to buy and even less to maintain if you have a big enough garden to park a little dinghy in. Most kids in this country live close enough to the sea or a reservoir to sail if they want to.

Winter sports? But that's a whole different Olympics, and I agree with you. Thank goodness we don't have anywhere with enough snow in it in this country to even think of hosting it.

The Olympics as a whole is nothing but a giant advertisement. The whole thing lost its way when it stopped being for amateurs only. Now, it is simply an alternative World Championships for a bunch of extremely wealthy world class athletes, and a nice holiday for some worth hangers-on.
Click to expand...

Just to note, I grew up in the middle of the country. Sailing would have been extortionate for my parents ( nearest reservoir was about 15 miles away and the best one for sailing was a good hour). I did have ponies - grass kept on local farmers property. Admittedly I didnt do HOYs or anything remotely impressive competition wise mainly because that wasn't my thing. BUT equestrian sports were easier and cheaper than sailing or even athletics simply because of where I lived ( and the fact my school was not into sports). If I grew up in Devon, chances are I'd have gone surfing at some point, peak district - climbing. Some sports are done by local facilities and how good they are. I grew up in a very horsey area - had I grown up where I was actually born, horses would simply have remained on the tv and an unreal dream as my family is non horsey.
 
I skimmed this but just want to point out that as someone born and raised in Greenwich, who worked in the Maritime Museum for four years and a rider.

That A) There are NO riding schools in Greenwich, unless you count the RDA group, the nearest yard is either across the water in Mudchute, or in Lewisham.

B) When I was at school, we used to Compete London Schools competitions with Ebony Riding club, in fact we were the only two groups that came from organisations that were not attached to private schools and didn't complain about being made to use ponies other than what they were used too (perhaps one of the reasons we used to win, both of us were used to a variety of riding school ponies!) They are a wonderful organisation and deserve everything they get from this legacy, although I'd like to see more done rather than a rumour of this new site in Shooters Hill, which if true I am not convinced about logistically.

I was against the Park being used but having walked through the park on my way to work most days, I have been aware of the care that's being taken of the site. I have a friend who is a park gardener and he says and showed me, that some of the trees removed were sickly or infected. They were not allowed to trim any of the trees in any other form (as much as I wished they had while trying to watch the bank/skinny combo at the bottom of the hill).

The park recovered remarkably quickly after the test event and I am confident that it will do so again.

My friends who still work at the Maritime Museum admit its been very quiet during the Olympics however. They haven't done too well out of this but as the Museum itself has for the last two or three years been undergoing major renovation work, including the demolishment and building of a new wing, and the subsequent upheaval and removal of certain "crowdpleaser" exhibits admit that this could be a related issue and hope now that the work is done, the site will return to being busy.
 
Karran that is very interesting. I looked at the link to the damage of the park that someone put on, and it looks pretty amazing to me. You would never know so many people walked around the place or horses galloped over it. I actually think that it will show the "townie" people who are worrying about their park just how good nature is at recovering..

Re the loss of income to the area, I can see that it may have lost out this summer, but it will probably boost tourism to the area in the future. Its not an area that I would have thought of visiting, wasn't even on my radar, but it is somewhere that is definately on my list now - both to see the site where the equestrianism was and to see the museums...


imr said:
I can accept that OP is of the view the park should not have been used. I disagree fwiw - I think a legacy facility would likely be a white elephant, and using greenwich resulted in a games where the horses were not marooned miles out of central london, and the grass will re-grow !!!!
However, what I cannot deal with is the conspiracy theory type lunacy talking of "master races" etc. OP - If you want to make a serious point then go ahead, but you aren't doing yourself any favours by implying without any supporting evidence there is some sort of secret network of special people who are having a laugh at everyone else's expense and have derived some sort of personal special benefits from using greenwich as this reads like the unsubstantiated ramblings of a lunatic.
Also, its a bit late now given the olympics have happened, so maybe time to move on and think about something else....
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with the above - I lost all patience when you refered to me as "you lot" and muttered about master races etc. Clear concise points would have served you better.. You just come across as hysterical.

Apercrumbie said:
I definitely agree with you on the tree front though. I have family in Greenwich and they are distraught about the amount of trees that were cut down. This is a more long term issue and a regrettable one.

Interesting, but on looking at photos of the park and seeing it on the XC it still looks like a wonderfully leafy park.

Could you please clarify your comments about "stealing" water and electricity? Not entirely sure how that works.

.
Click to expand...

Yes I would be interested to know what that was about.
 
I kind of have to post again on this topic - OP you haven't yet provided the source for information.

I have a lot of trouble beliving the figure you quote of a cost of £120m without any evidence of where you obtained this information.

Firstly is this just the money that was spent to host the Olympics and Paralympics in Greenwich? Because you can surely see that if this is the case then it is a somewhat flawed argument to say that its cost the taxpayer £120m, as you fail to take into account any of the revenue stream generated e.g. from ticket sales and merchandise.

Secondly, given that we are only half way through, with the Paralympics still to come, how can you possibly be quoting a cost of the event? Surely this won't be know until a few weeks/months after the event itself, when the last ticket has been sold, the last programme purchased and where appropriate, the facilities used actioned off.

Finally your posts do seemingly have a tendency to exaggerate (ref 'master race') and as far as I can tell you already have some slightly dubious 'facts':

Rachel Mawhood said:
To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich. The fact is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.
Click to expand...

Being a resident in Greenwich I'd sure love to know where these are....but you haven't answered tasel's question on this. I know of only one RDA centre in Greenwich but that is not the same as a riding school. So this fact is simply not true.

So you can see how without any evidence to substantiate any of your claims I am reserving judgement on really how much damage was done to the park and the actual cost of the games.
 
The arguements about accessability are a load of tosh.
Regards sailing (parents and brother sailed at Local & National level) yes at entry level is cheapish to get into.
But the higher up or involved you go, the more expensive it becomes - this applies to any sport requiring equipment, daily/weekly/annual membership fees, competition entries etc. (applies to sailing & riding as an example)
Take cycling, yes anyone can buy a bike, but if you want an easier/more competitive peice of kit its going to cost... Carbon fibre is a must and costs a fortune.
My brother took up cycling as a hobby 4 years ago. He has 3 children and money it tight. He has gradually built up his kit, and has an off road bike, a bike for commuting and his pride and joy racing / weekend jaunt bike.
Each of his bikes are worth thousands a peice - he didn't start like this, but as he became more involved, and when he started racing he moved to carbon fibre.
He also offsets the high price of fuel by commuting over 50 miles a day on his bike, so he can be forgiven for wanting to have something that will be quicker and less effort.
Getting back to Olympic specifics, cycling in the velodrome was not cheap. They have spent £97m on this, and whilst there is a legacy in terms of a venue, there will still be an entry level cost for kit, it's upkeep etc. And how many are going to use it??? A pocket of people in the South East, not a massive geographic legacy. However in terms of Olympic success, they have inspired a nation, as have all the medal winning sports - they are all there for the taking, but everyone has to start somewhere.
At top level, you could say Cycling is elitist if you look at the costs - I.e the racing suits can only be worn once at £5000 a pop, and the helmets cannot be reused after a crash at £3000 each. The basic bike is £15k. The following link is a true eye opener...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/olympics/4476286/Chris-Hoy-wonder-bike.html

Back to Equestrian activities at the Olympics... Well again, everyone has to start somewhere. And yes, some will start on a higher rung of the ladder, but thats life, and applies to every walk of life.
As a child my parents could never afford a pony for me, and could only afford a lesson once a fortnight. However I got off my backside, worked at the local riding school, and found 2 ponies in my teenage years, sitting in fields without riders. Even with little money it can be done, and if you are committed, and work hard, you make your own opportunities... Probably more so if it's not handed to you on a plate.

Back to the park, it's done now... Get over it, enjoy the success of Team GB.
Your ramblings are mean spirited, and against the very nature of the London Olympics. The park is not yours, and will recover, and looking at the photos of said 'damage', well I've seen worse conditions from general use from day to day wear and tear of people.
Can't be bothered anymore... She can't admit she was wrong, and refuses to accept others opinions, tomthe point of being rude to the Equestrian community, who's contributions (that take many formats) help support our riders at Greenwich.
 
millimoo said:
Get over it, enjoy the success of Team GB.
Your ramblings are mean spirited, and against the very nature of the London Olympics.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, but the attitude demonstrated on here is hardly surprising when she retweeted such 'gems' as this during the Olympics

Love the way fat people in Mobility scooters are shouting "we've won 20 golds!!" WE?
Click to expand...

What a sad, bitter attitude.

Huge well done to all the athletes, from every country, but especially us Brits :D Tremendous achievements!

Also agree that no sport at top level is cheap, I ran and fenced competitively as a child, my father used to canoe, and my sister and her OH are both triathletes. Think my pony works out cheaper than any of that! My brother is into motor racing and I'm not even going to start with that :eek: :D
 
If Greenwich pubs and bars are feeling the loss of usual summer trade because of the Olympics, all of London is feeling that pain. It will pass.
And as for the park being used as an 'outside toilet' because of equestrian events (horses or humans?), think how much less wee that grass has had to endure thanks to not having to entertain late-night revellers from all those bars and pubs...And dog pee, too. None of that.
Tell that original poster, it will all be fine. London, its parks and people are built of sturdy stuff. They have coped with much, much worse.
It was a beautifully managed event, all of the London Olympics. Did us proud. Far too expensive, but, it's spent now. Let's just enjoy the glow.
 
ps Rachel at the end of October I'm (hopefully) running my first half marathon. Over 18,500 people will be running through Greenwich Park, with accompanying spectators, as they have for the last few years for this event. I believe they are even going to have a live music event stage in the park. I note you haven't been kicking up a fuss about that. The park gets used. It's what it's there for.
 
Rachel doesn't care who she offends in her quest to be right. I believe Nogoe and she parted company after these unfortunate proclamations:

http://853blog.com/tag/rachel-mawhood/

(This is from a Greenwich blog).

I attended the events in the park over five days and I certainly did not see anybody using it as a toilet. Is she seriously suggesting people were not using the facilities? Perhaps I have misunderstood and she means it figuratively. Or perhaps she is referring to the temporary toilets that are there :confused:
 
cefyl said:
Mithras - as the legal beagle on HHO. Is RM treading on thin ice here with racist implied comments on "master race", and libellous claims of theft (electricity and whatever)?
Click to expand...

There is a law on teh internetz where the first person to call someone a Nazi during an argument is the loser of said argument. I assume the OP used the term "Master Race" in order to get around that law.

I don't know London at all, aside from what you see on telly, and having watched the Olympics on TV I was thinking it'd be nice to pop across and have a mooch around and see the place live and in person. Not sure I want to bother now, if the OP is any reflection of the locals
 
Cappuccino said:
There is a law on teh internetz where the first person to call someone a Nazi during an argument is the loser of said argument. I assume the OP used the term "Master Race" in order to get around that law.

I don't know London at all, aside from what you see on telly, and having watched the Olympics on TV I was thinking it'd be nice to pop across and have a mooch around and see the place live and in person. Not sure I want to bother now, if the OP is any reflection of the locals
Click to expand...

I can assure you she is not - I live in Greenwich and I highly recommend a visit. Its a beautiful place with lots of lovely things to see and eat with the market, Rhodes bakery, Black Vanilla (OMG amazing ice cream) and loads of lovely restaurants.

To give a better example of Greenwich hospitality, during the Olympics my neighbor set up a stall outside her house to provide free drinks and biscuits to the thousands of visitors walking past going to Greenwich train station. I thought that was absolutely lovely of them. The church at the end of my road was doing the same thing - just to brighten up the life of those who'd either traveled a long way or were about to.
 
I live very near to Greenwich and have been going the park from a very young age. As a Greenwich Park lover and an avid equestrian I've loved every single minute of the Olympics at Greenwich. It has not only raised the profile of equestrianism in London so much more but has also got lots of people, who were not necessarily fans before, involved and engaged in watching the equestrian action.

And please, take a look at the bigger picture before you start stereotyping. Why not pop along to Ebony Horse Club in Brixton?
There's nothing I hate more than inverted snobbery.

Rachel Mawhood said:
To obtain permission for planning permission to build something equestrian on Metropolitan Open Land at the Shooter's Hill, LOCOG and the Council lied, claiming that there were no other riding schools in Greenwich. The fact is that there are already three riding schools in Greenwich.
Click to expand...

Would love to see those! Nearest riding school to me is a half an hour drive away....
 
Last edited:
tasel said:
Ha! Then you obviously don't know about how to assess an argument. What happened there ages back set a precedence. You have to look at in a scientific way. It doesn't matter whether ground was dug up due to people starving or for the Olympics.
Click to expand...


I don't know how to assess an argument? :D

What happened 60 years ago set a precedent for digging up Greenwich park in order to feed starving people. I hardly think it sets a precedent for using it over half a century later for a sport that could have easily, and arguably better, been held elsewhere. If you do, then I don't really think that it's me having a problem with assessing an argument.


I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.


But I do agree with everyone who says that the OP has been pretty hysterical in her posts :)
 
Last edited:
I think what is done is done whatever the rights and wrongs. The overspend perhaps can be attributed to the care given not to damage the park too much, it will recover. Which is more than can be said about the damage HS2 will do, now that is a cause to take up!
 
cptrayes said:
I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.


But I do agree with everyone who says that the OP has been pretty hysterical in her posts :)
Click to expand...

OK. I myself was referring mostly to OP's argument that Greenwich Park and its "diverse" wildlife would be impacted, etc.

You have a point with the costs. BUT even if the event was held in Windsor Park (which I guess would have been great, too, as the rowing was held nearby), you can't be sure how much this would have cost the tax payers. The Olympics is way bigger than the European Championships held there a few years ago.

Anyone knowing anything about project management... hardly anything gets done at the estimated cost. Someone has pointed out Grand Designs, and that you take the estimate, then triple it. My OH works in software - where, if you think about it superficially, costs shouldn't escalate as much as they do on a building site. But the truth is that even in software, only 33% of projects actually get completed at the estimated cost. The rest goes way, way above it.

That's life. As much as you try to predict and estimate, there will be things you didn't think of, etc. that can easily drive up the cost. You can estimate the cost of keeping a horse or a car... and if said horse has a stupid injury or the car has a mechanical problem unexpectedly, that cost can easily double.
 
Sven said:
I think what is done is done whatever the rights and wrongs. The overspend perhaps can be attributed to the care given not to damage the park too much, it will recover. Which is more than can be said about the damage HS2 will do, now that is a cause to take up!
Click to expand...

OP won't care about that - she is a classic NIMBY.
 
cptrayes said:
I am not the slightest bit interested in whether Greenwich can be happily restored. I am only interested in a phenomenal amount of taxpayer and lottery money to develop something which, because of the location chosen, will be completely eradicated.

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I think where I disagree is the fundamental assumption that, if the Olympics had been held elsewhere, we would have had a permanent facility. What would we have done with a stadium seating 23,000? Its unlikely that this facility would have been kept following the games (at most of the big eventing meets the arena is temporary) and hey we've got a portable stadium, that if we should need to, can be donated to another site. The same goes for the cross country course - its not like the same course would be used again. Plus the benefit of Greenwich was that the course couldn't be dug into the ground so can be moved to another venue and the value not lost.

Also equestrian people sometimes forget that there are other benefits to holding the event in Greenwich rather than a rural location. Firstly the positive environmental impact of the majority of the visitors travelling by public transport rather than car. Secondly Greenwich is a very populated area, with lots of businesses, which has been bought to the public's attention following the Olympics. The impact of improved tourism in years to come will boost the economy and therefore generate far more revenue for the tax payer than if the event was held in the middle of the country side.

Finally it achieved what LOCOG set out to do - which was prove that the equestrian Olympics could be held in the heart of the city and less than 5 miles from the main Olympic site, therefore helping to secure its place in the Olympics for years to come. This surely is the biggest positive for the sport and is the true legacy of holding equestrian Olympics in Greenwich.
 
How short of imagination people are.

Why the need to remove a couple of hundred thousand pounds worth of arena space just because the seating isn't required?

Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?

I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.

Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?

Sorry, none of your arguments hack it for me.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because they're private estates for a start and don't have decent travel infrastructure either. (Same goes for Windsor). Everyone was concerned about getting to Greenwich and AFAIK no-one had a problem. I for one found it incredibly easy, too easy in fact when I went. It's also not just the event you need to think about - holding events away from the central Games hub means accommodation needs providing, food needs providing etc etc. The beauty of Greenwich was that every rider was staying in the Park.

I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.
Click to expand...

From my experience of just chatting in general with people in the Olympic Park and when having answered the 'so been to any other events?' question, and answering with 'yes I went to Greenwich', most of the replies I seemed to get were along the lines of 'oh wow, it looked impressive, would love to go and see college and surroundings in person'. Not to mention the massive re-launch of the National Maritime Museum and their massive advertisement project around central London.

Greenwich is a lovely part of London and attracts a fair few amount of tourists anyway, the image of the old college being broadcast about the world will only encourage more people to go.

Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?
Click to expand...

The Olympic sailing events have very tight conditions over where they're run. The Thames Estuary doesn't offer what Weymouth does. They'd already cut one of the sea based events for London and for 2020 and beyond, some of the sports are up for renewal as such.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
How short of imagination people are.

Why can't the cross country be used again? Why couldn't Burleigh or Blenheim or Badminton have been used in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because LOCOG was told the games had to be in LONDON . . . if memory serves Burghley is near Stamford in Lincolnshire, Blenheim is in Oxfordshire and Badminton is in Wiltshire (although I might have got that one wrong) . . . in any event, none of them are near enough to London to count as being IN London.

I honestly doubt that the area will benefit much in terms of increased tourist numbers from any aftermath of the games. We'll have to see.
Click to expand...

Watching it made me want to go to Greenwich. I've been back in the UK for 12 years and it's always been one of those "yeah I'd like to go but it seems too far away" places but hearing how easy it was to get to and seeing the spectacular setting has put it at the top of my list of day trips with my family. But, yes, we'll have to see.

Is the sailing going to be discontinued then, because it took place in Weymouth and nowhere near London?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that each sport is weighed on its own merits when it comes to deciding whether or not they remain an Olympic event. So the IOC mandating that the equestrian events happen as near as possible to the Capital will have absolutely nothing to do with what they specify for the sailing. In addition, there's the impetus to highlight various places in the host nation - I know I'd rather showcase Weymouth and Portland than the Thames Estuary as a destination.

Lastly, even though I was initially against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich and, like you, wondered why LOCOG didn't use an existing venue like Burghley, Blenheim, Badminton or Windsor, I actually like that they brought the equestrian elements as close as they could to the heart of London - rather than miles away like they usually are. Friends of mine who visited London during the Games ran into both Carl Hester and William Fox-Pitt in the city - they were part of the action and very much part of the vibe, which certainly wasn't true in Beijing or Sydney.

P
 
PolarSkye said:
Because LOCOG was told the games had to be in LONDON . . . if memory serves Burghley is near Stamford in Lincolnshire, Blenheim is in Oxfordshire and Badminton is in Wiltshire (although I might have got that one wrong) . . . in any event, none of them are near enough to London to count as being IN London.



Watching it made me want to go to Greenwich. I've been back in the UK for 12 years and it's always been one of those "yeah I'd like to go but it seems too far away" places but hearing how easy it was to get to and seeing the spectacular setting has put it at the top of my list of day trips with my family. But, yes, we'll have to see.



I'm pretty sure that each sport is weighed on its own merits when it comes to deciding whether or not they remain an Olympic event. So the IOC mandating that the equestrian events happen as near as possible to the Capital will have absolutely nothing to do with what they specify for the sailing. In addition, there's the impetus to highlight various places in the host nation - I know I'd rather showcase Weymouth and Portland than the Thames Estuary as a destination.

Lastly, even though I was initially against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich and, like you, wondered why LOCOG didn't use an existing venue like Burghley, Blenheim, Badminton or Windsor, I actually like that they brought the equestrian elements as close as they could to the heart of London - rather than miles away like they usually are. Friends of mine who visited London during the Games ran into both Carl Hester and William Fox-Pitt in the city - they were part of the action and very much part of the vibe, which certainly wasn't true in Beijing or Sydney.

P
Click to expand...



Agree with all these points
 
I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of sports won't have a bricks and mortar legacy from the Olympics. Facilities at Eton Dorney and Weymouth might have been improved to the long term benefit of those sports and of course there are a few new permenant facilites - the swimming pool, BMX track, velodrome, white water course and the main stadium (although how much athletics use that will get is anyone's guess).

But the basketball and waterpolo arenas are temporary, the hockey stadium won't survive as it is, the copper box won't be used exclusively for handball, and the mountain bike track might be removed. And then there's all the sports held at Excel and the O2
 
Last edited:
Seafarer said:
Rachel doesn't care who she offends in her quest to be right. I believe Nogoe and she parted company after these unfortunate proclamations:

http://853blog.com/tag/rachel-mawhood/

(This is from a Greenwich blog).

I attended the events in the park over five days and I certainly did not see anybody using it as a toilet. Is she seriously suggesting people were not using the facilities? Perhaps I have misunderstood and she means it figuratively. Or perhaps she is referring to the temporary toilets that are there :confused:
Click to expand...

Ah! Here's the nub of it! All those Irish horses rampaging across English Greenwich!

http://www.horsesportireland.ie/bre...t-horses-finish-in-eventing-top-10.12726.html

(03 Aug 2012)

The Irish Sport Horse Studbook was very prevalent in Eventing at the London Olympic Games 2012 with thirteen Irish Sport Horses representing seven different nations beginning the first phase. Following Cross Country on day two the Irish Sport Horses began to climb the ranks with Imperial Cavalier and High Kingdom moving into top ten positions. A nail-biting individual final in the Showjumping phase resulted in a total of four Irish Sport Horses claiming top ten positions overall; 5th Imperial Cavalier (Mary King (GBR)), 7th Master Crusoe (Aoife Clark (IRL), 8th High Kingdom (Zara Phillips (GBR)) and Mr Medicott (Karen O’Connor (USA)). This is twice the number of Irish Sport Horses who finished in the top ten in Eventing at the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
I had a little look back through some of Rachel Mawhood's post. I'm finding it pretty hilarious that for ages the main crux of her arguement was that Greenwich park could physically or safely hold the amount of people that attended the equestrian events. If she's around I would love her to come back and answer those claims....especially seeing as it would appear she was very much WRONG with them.
So that's where anymore of her claims fall down for me, if she could be so drastically wrong before.....why can't she be so wrong again? :)
I also have a few questions such as:
How much money has been made back from ticket sales, merchandise, sponsorships & selling off furniture etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top