FEI take umbrage with Lucretia's article on WEG

We need journos like Lu who are prepared to question these decisions. I wish there were more out there & not just in the equestrian press.
 
I thought this article was good when I saw it. And the response is quite strange, there has been much good things written about the WEG, this is just one.
Also I think I am stupid, you all seem to know the writer. Is she on this forum? I have not been here so long.
 
The FEI are incredibly defensive for no real reason. Every major event will have it's negatives and I think Lulu's article was an excellent overview of issues that need to be addressed. There is an incredibly well run show here in Ireland that holds two major shows every Autumn, one of which is a CSI 2*. They keep a notebook in the office and particularly during these big shows any issues big or small is documented, analysed and fixed so that the shows keep developing and improving. They never seem to make the same mistake twice. Surely the FEI, rather than trying to deny any issues should take them on board, address them and ensure that the next championship doesn't have that issue. They have to allow for the fact that there is always going to be some negative press. They didn't respond to thiss HHO blog which was a bit negative albeit on a much smaller scale http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/302542.html
 
I had not seen this blog but I found the German website where Jos Lansink is quoted and the journalist there has a good reputation so I think this is one is true. Amage, I think you are correct, and also the FEI do not deny these things happened, just the interpretation of them.
 
Really? That is a big pity that she is not here now. A forum is for debate and this person seems to have good knowledge that could benefit many persons.
 
I very much enjoy reading Lulu's reports and opinions on Horsetalk, always to the point and she paints a picture of each event with words and pics.

Without discussions about these incidents how can sport move forward in a positive way.

Sadly missed on here.
 
As far as I am aware, the reason that the rule about blood in the mouth was brought in was because of an increased sensitivity to public opinion, many of whom do not own horses and the image of blood coming from a horse's mouth is not one that people want to see. The difference between a horse in a dressage arena and a horse on the cross country is huge. In the arena it is there infront of everyone and the judges are very close to the action. To stop a horse and wipe away the blood is completely different to somebody going wrong. An official or groom has to enter the arena, get to the horse, carefully do the job so as to not upset it, be sure they have done it throughly and then get out of the way. This takes time. Yes, going wrong takes time too but it is just stopping the rider and putting them back on course - a brief pause. On the cross country, once the blood has been reported, control asks the next sector steward to stop the horse. Their stop time is taken an there is no distruption to the timetable of the other competitors.
With regard to the airbag, the rider wouldn't have been forced to get off, it would have been a natural reaction to see what was wrong with the horse. There may well have been a communication problem, but if the rider had really wanted to continue he could have made it clear that he didn't understand. In this situation there is time.
The query about the course and level of competition is unjustified. If you are not in it, you can't win it and if only the elite were eligible to compete then Canada may well have not been there and New Zealand's record has not been great since their glory days in spite of having 2 of the best riders in the world. Before their glory days they had no record at all so, on that basis, we would not have had the pleasure of Todd, Nicholson, Tait, et al on the world stage. They have to start somewhere and it is what makes world games especially now they have to qualify for the olympics so that is less open. It was a fantastic course as it challenged the best and the lesser had a chance.
I see the FEI's point - the games were a huge success. Something on that scale is not going to be perfect but when there is so much good, why is there a need to highlight the hiccups? A private book to write in about things to be improved for another year is poles apart from airing things in the press especially as it was a "one off". The organisers didn't deserve to be knocked.
 
Oldvic, as the writer cannot come here and defend her case, I took the liberty of sending her this response by facebook. The following is a copy of the message addressing your points.

" Ah, my old friend OldVic, who despite not being there and despite all the evidence to the contrary, keeps toeing the party line! Oldvic for one you can contact me easily via facebook or my website and identify yourself and then I might find i was dealing with an authority on the subject but at this point I doubt it and you are not reading the report nor the responses carefully before commenting.
1. The question is why, if it is a welfare issue does blood in the mouth not instantly eliminate a competitor on the cross country as it does in dressage. Surely a bitten tongue is an accident and my point about dressage judges is that there ARE closer and therefore should find it easier to determine the difference. I still believe at a world championships a rider would prefer to be stopped and checked than be eliminated from the ENTIRE competition (in dressage that is three medal contests). And obviously if a horse is held for five minutes on the xc, it has just as much chance of delaying the schedule but luckily for eventing they start at four minute intervals. Therefore as you say little difference to the start times in eventing WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT. The two dark horses shown bleeding on the XC were not stopped at all but the white one was although if you read the report, not from bleeding in the mouth according to the sector steward.
2. There was no mention of airbags originally by anyone i talked to including the other members of the italian team. Because Marco had been going slowly and had a stop already, the following horse was apparently getting quite close and so they opened the strings so Marco could wait outside the course. However he speaks no english, two horses had been eliminated for blood already including an eventer and obviously the situation was not made clear to him. The question asked about this was why the situation was not made clear to the rider and exactly what was he stopped for. there is no evidence of blood in its mouth at in any picture i can find and according to the sector steward (if you READ the report) she said it had grazed itself and radioed through so it could be 'monitored'. Again you have not addressed the issue.
3. Another point missed. This was a world championship and therefore I am entirely justified to ask whether this should be about finding the best of the best (as it is in most sports) or whether at this level it should just be about encouraging people to compete. The rest of your answer is just fluff. As I said before it makes no difference who or what were involved in past performances or who has had a bad year or two, I can sit here now and tell you within six guesses who will win the team gold in London. The same as i could before WEG and before Hong Kong, Athens, Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona etc etc etc.
4. as for your last point, there were many logistical things wrong with the games and they were not a huge success across the board. I do not believe you are so naive to think a polite letter would make any difference and much of these things do need to be addresses before Normandy. I have not even mentioned ALL the problems, some have been communicated directly to the party concerned but these ones i thought were significant. Also as the latest article says IF YOU READ IT, both Horsetalk and myself (for other places) have written and published many other reports of the standard show report variety and this was only one article among them.
 
1) The issue of blood isn't the cause of it, it is the fact that it is there. No official wants to eliminate but, rightly or wrongly, the rule is there. I am not saying that I'm pro the rule, in fact I'm not, but the public image is important and horse sports have to be aware of the big picture. On the XC the ground jury are reliant on reports from stewards and spotters with regard to blood and obviously a grey horse is at a possible disadvantage here. There is a member of the ground jury roving but the chance of being in that place at the time is slim and it is hard to get around at the big events. Therefore the roving ground jury may well be with the president in control where the cctv is but ready to go to the course if required. The riders were told that they would be stopped if there were any signs of blood (not just from the mouth), checked and they could then go on if vet said ok. The stop time is irrelevant as they are restarted at a suitable time so as to not interfere with other competitors.

2) I agree that there were no mentions of airbags before but my comments were aimed at your statement that he would have been FORCED to dismount. Not true. He would have realised that the mouth was ok as they would have been looking at the stifles. As communication was difficult he could/should have indicated that he didn't understand. If finishing was paramount to him he would have stated there until being shown where to go. Of course he had to be taken off the course to allow the other horse to pass but if he had waited he would have either been let back on course or been shown were to go.

3) The best of the best were not diminished by the lesser nations who gained valuable experience. The course was most definitely a championship track with jumpable long routes if time was not a priority. Any reasonably interested person could tell in 6 guesses who is likely to win gold in London or any major championship over the last few years. My point was that if you don't have the lesser nations then they don't have a chance to up their game and become elite like Canada did this year and New Zealand did in the 1980s and again this year after 10 years or so in the wilderness.

4) I'm not sure who your polite letter is to, I refer to the book of suggestions that you talked of. The set up and organisation is completely different in Normandy which will bring another set of problems, not the ones encountered in Kentucky. I am not saying there weren't problems - we heard about the officials parking etc - but it was an enormous undertaking and I don't see the necessity to find fault. It is very easy to pick holes, not so easy to get it right for everyone. There were many things that the organisers and officials may well have done differently with the benefit of hindsight but they are human, officials are volunteers and without them there would be no games.
 
I will send this to the writer also but I do not think these comments are fair. Oldvic you are not correct in your first point. The writer is questioning why blood on the mouth is different on the cross country where two horses were not stopped despite blood clearly visible. This is shown in the pictures.
Also your second point is also not clear. the rider did not speak English so if he did not understand why he was stopped it is possible he was told to dismount so the blood could be seen. The horse was white and if he was asked to dismount then it cannot have been bleeding from the mouth. This can be seen from the saddle.
Also Lulu does not say the competiton was made less by the others. it is not fair that you say things she does not. Also if you agree any interested person could pick a winner in six guesses then she is also right that the changes to the sport have made no difference. She also said all the Canadians have had four star experience. Perhaps it is this which has made them better?
Also she did not discuss a 'book' for suggestions. You brought that up in your first reply. I think that this is a good debate but you have a personal issue with this writer (I have looked at some threads, thank you Kerilli) in which case, as she says it would only be fair for you to identify yourself to her if you wish to put bad thoughts where she cannot speak for herself.
 
There is no difference between blood in the mouth in dressage or XC BUT it is far easier to see and deal with in the confines of an arena. on XC someone has to spot it, probably at a greater distance and on a galloping horse that passes you quite quickly and then is gone. In an arena they pass you again shortly after so you can check and they are going a lot slower. Like anything that relies on human input some things will get missed. It is far easier to see blood on a grey horse's stifle than a dark horse's mouth. That's life, just as a judge can miss a change that's not through behind on 1 horse but not on the next.
We do not know if the Italian rider was asked to dismount or not but he wouldn't have been forced to dismount and it is not the officials fault if a grown man forgets to undo the connection if that was so. In the briefing they were told that ANY blood spotted anywhere on the horse and they would be stopped and checked but allowed to continue on veterinary advice so Marco would have had some idea that that could be why he was stopped. Their chef d'equipe is english but married to an Italian so the information from the briefing would not have got lost in translation.
Lulu asks if WEG is a test for the best of the best or to encourage all to compete. I am saying that this is not a question as this course was designed for both. There is a need to allow the likes of RSA have a go as well as have a decent test for the best. Having 4* experience is one thing but that does not necessarily make you competitive. The South Africans have that experience now but I don't think they will be high on anyones lists for medals in London. If it was confined to the elite that might have excluded Canada and quite possibly New Zealand. Remember they only had 2 riders on their A list at the beginning of the year and only took 5 riders. Their 4 possible reserve horses were all Andrew Nicholson's!
The book was my mistake for which I apologize. My excuse is I was watching the racing at the same time! It was actually Amage that made that suggestion.
Just because I don't agree with Lulu doesn't mean I have a personal issue with her. My thoughts are based on knowledge gained through many years of experience at all levels of competition so they are not without foundation.
 
But Oldvic, perhaps I am not understanding what you say correctly but the exact point of the article was that at least two horses, clearly showing blood were not stopped and how can you have a rule which applies only to some and cannot be enforced for the reasons you state.
And the article did not say confining the WEG only to certain nations but should the standards be lowered so all can take part? I do not think it questioned properly qualified individuals. This is a very valid question I think because this does not happen in many other sports. All qualification is the same and the very best go. In driving, there are very few nations who can make a team but in this sport they keep the course the same. If you are not good enough you cannot go. If the WEG is a 4* (and this I think is another discussion) why is it not a requirement to do a normal 4* first? This is a championship. This is what I think is meant and I agree with this in many points.
I think you were not at the WEG and also that you read the words of Lulu determinded to make fault. How do you say, to split hairs. You do not read it correctly but with a bias against everything she says. And also if you have this experience and nothing to hide you should say who you are when making this trouble or to me it looks like you just pick a fight.
 
badattitude said:
I will send this to the writer also but I do not think these comments are fair. .........you have a personal issue with this writer (I have looked at some threads, thank you Kerilli) in which case, as she says it would only be fair for you to identify yourself to her if you wish to put bad thoughts where she cannot speak for herself.
Click to expand...

So nobody is allowed to disagree with Lucretia then?:( 'Twas ever thus:rolleyes:

I thought it was an interesting article which raised a number of issues. I think it might have been better if it had been balanced out with some praise for what must have been an immensely difficult and complex Games to run.

Other than that I am not sufficiently qualified to comment, but I hope that those who feel they are may be allowed to post on this thread - Weezy did after all invite opinions.
 
oldvic said:
Something on that scale is not going to be perfect but when there is so much good, why is there a need to highlight the hiccups? A private book to write in about things to be improved for another year is poles apart from airing things in the press especially as it was a "one off". The organisers didn't deserve to be knocked.
Click to expand...

The need to highlight the hiccups is that it will help future organisers to avoid the same hiccups!! While there are different organising committees the FEI will have technical delegates to advise and having organised some International comps of a smaller scale this is a huge assistance. For example language barriers are a major issue and with more and more countries joining these championships this is going to become more of an issue and should be addressed.
Having met Dr Pearse Lyons, owner of Alltech who was such a fabulous sponsor I reckon that if Lulu's points were brought to his attention he would take them all on board and ensure they were resolved if he was ever involved in another championship....and he was hands on in his involvement!
 
The point is that our sport is not only watched by people who are knowledgeable but also those without that knowledge. Obviously the rule is not ideal but then nor are many things in life or sport. Dark horses are going to get away with much more in this rule than greys or even chestnuts but there are people who think our sport shouldn't exist at all. We have to do our best to keep these people off our backs. The blood rule is relatively new and a sign of the times we live in. We all know that a small cut on a leg or a bitten tongue is of no consequence but it is how it is perceived by the outside world that we are wary of.
All the riders at WEG were properly qualified. The qualifications for 4* are at 3* level. The course was not easier to allow everyone to take part, it was a true championship track. The odd long route and the time was still attainable with good XC riding but basically you had to go straight and quick to be competitive. Neither Piggy nor Pippa had run at 4* with their horses and they had excellent rides and 4* form has never been a necessity for world and olympic games.
No, I wasn't at WEG but friends were, both as officials and competitors, and I have had some very interesting accounts. Stating the other side of the story is not splitting hairs or picking a fight but if that is what you want to think then so be it.
 
amage said:
Having met Dr Pearse Lyons, owner of Alltech who was such a fabulous sponsor I reckon that if Lulu's points were brought to his attention he would take them all on board and ensure they were resolved if he was ever involved in another championship....and he was hands on in his involvement!
Click to expand...

How much say does a sponsor have in matters like FEI policy and which nations are allowed to compete? I'm not being smart, I'm genuinely curious.

Re blood in the mouth, surely the end result of this discussion is going to be that any horse showing ANY blood, ANYWHERE is going to be eliminated? You can't make it fair any other way, especially xc where, yes, a horse can be restarted, but people are always going to see that as an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on opinion.

As I said in the other thread, everyone is entitled to their opinions and good for Lu for saying what she saw. I wouldn't say it was the only view to raise negative points but let's face it, that's ALWAYS going to be the case. I can't remember an Olympics, or a Championship, or even a Badminton or a Rolex when people didn't have good and bad to say. Points of discussion, let's hope mistakes get rectified and lets see what new ones get made in 2012. :)
 
Rowreach, I am sorry I do not understand your comment as I have not been here so long. I do not know the history. I think that anyone can disagree but first you must read properly and it is not fair to say a person said one thing when they did not. The author of the article can be contacted on facebook, so there is no reason to be unfair and hide in a forum where one side cannot speak if you have some things to say.
 
Just to add another perspective to WEG's 'bloodgate', reining horses are inspected immediately after they come out of the arena for blood, both around their mouth and on their torso (in case the rider has caught them with the spur). If any blood is found, the rider is disqualified immediately. This is an NRHA (reining's governing body) rule, but has been adopted by the FEI, and although I'm not aware of any incidents in Kentucky, Austrian Rudi Kronsteiner was disqualified in Aachen for this reason. This is well accepted by the riders as it is so unequivocal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top