hmmmmmmm WFP's comments on AT

T

teapot

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 December 2005
Messages
39,827
Visit site
Anyone read his column in today's Nag and Mutt?

Got mixed feelings on his thoughts about how AT's got a severe punishment. Not quite sure how to take it, and he also says that he can see why Mark Phillips et al stood up for her
 
Stupid post...mine hasn't arrived
frown.gif
 
Because I'm nice, I shall copy it for you:

"It's a huge relief that Amy Tryon's trial is over; like most FEI disciplinary cases, it has dragged on too long. Amy has been punished for abuse of the horse, and more importantly has been seen to be punished, but the ban and fine are not excessive, which I feel is right.

Amy made an error of judgement that could have happened to anyone, but she is a leading international rider and the incident was replayed on the www and thus was accessible to the wider public.

The crux was that she was so close to the finish. If there were two more fences instead of one, I'm sure she would have pulled up. Emotions ran high, but I understand why MP and others defended her; I am sure other team managers would do the same.

In the past, others have occasionally got away with this kind of misjudgement. Given that, I feel Amy's punishment is quite severe. She has lost a lovely horse which, worse still, didn't belong to her, and no one would want that.

But Amy's case serves as official notifcation to riders that they must be more aware. The FEI is, rightly, taking a harder line on welfare issues. If it hadn't, the outside world would have gained a damning impression of how horse sport is governed".
 
I dont think i can think of a case recently that has been 'got away with' though if i go back five years or more i can think of a couple and though i dont entirely disagree with most of WFP comments he can hardly call the punishments 'quite severe' when the fine was minimal and there is not that much eventing to go to at this time of year in the states.
it is true she will have to live with the loss of the horse forever though. But i was wondering why he made his comment about the incident being on the web. It slightly sounds to me as if he thinks it would have been less of an 'error of judgement' if the camera's hadnt been there. Does that mean that riders must have one set of standards when being covered by the media and another if they are in a pre-novice at pontispool?
 
TV/web comment didn't sit with me either that well.

Almost that closed door/what goes on behind the scenes thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top