Message sent to HRH Princess Haya, FEI President

millitiger said:
If it is illegal why don't you mount a legal challenge though the courts rather than on forums and sending letters to people who have no say in whether the venue could be changed?
Click to expand...

Theres been more than enough time for them to request a judicial review of the decision, which is in this case the correct type of legal avenue for challenge. Its simply that the objectors haven't done so i.e. they have not used the correct democratic judicial process for such objections. Although I cannot imagine a challenge based on "its right because we say it is and it just is" being particularly successful. I'm sure some resident of Greenwich who is aggrieved AND eligible for legal aid could be found.

Perhaps Ms Mawhood has some judicial precedents (similar cases) with citations, which she could quote where the decision could be used to back up the points she is attempting to make?

Can I just point out that cities such as Edinburgh have month long festivals every year, which inconvenience and frustrate large parts of the population. Its part of living in a city. I think its great to see one of the royal parks being used for a semi-rural, leisure pursuit involving animals once more.

As for the complaint about eventing being elitist - all Olympic sports involve elite level competitors.
 
I remember sitting there at the Equine Forum and hearing Babara Cassini announce the venue and was immediately against the venue as in spite of the good intentions of a legacy for riding in London in the urban area it was clearly there would be no national improved venue. A tarted up Hickstead for a quarter of the money with a new access road with the Eurostar station nearby with great access for the major equestrian nations in Europe would have been a great venue and the hotels on the south coast would have provided great accomadation. BE wanted other venues so who used their influence. We wanted the Olympic Committee to see that the Equestrian Sport could be put on at a sensible cost not the massive expenditure at Greenwich. Its all water under the bridge but those who made the decision that lost us a great new venue should hold their heads in shame.
 
amage said:
And you evidently know sfa about what you are talking....the olympics ARE NOT and FEI event! .
Click to expand...

Go to page 7 CHAPTER 1 GENERAL Article 600 Introduction 1st 3 paragraphs.

http://www.fei.org/sites/default/fi...ns For Equestrian OG 2012 FINAL25July2011.pdf

It CLEARLY states " The FEI assumes the responsibility for the technical control and direction of Equestrian Sport at the Olympic Games. All the technical elements of the Competition, including the schedule, field of play, and all equipment must comply with FEI rules".

So you still are convinced the FEI have NOTHING to do with rules of, or any influence on the Olympic equestrian events??? Wow.
 
Rachel Mawhood said:
Helloooooooo - both of you - selling 35,000++ more tickets than your venue can actually safely hold is

  1. illegal and
  2. fraudulent, and puts LOCOG
  3. in breach of its insurance policy conditions.

If you have tickets to the cross-country day, I suggest you take advice on where you stand.
Click to expand...

But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the limit in the organiser's handbook a) states that in certain circumstances it can be extended and b) applies to large-scale events when the park remains open to the general public. The park will not remain open to the general public during the equestrian events, hence the ability to increase the numbers. Or do you seriously expect us to believe that whenever there is a large scale event in the park not a single person who isn't a ticket holder uses the park?! You haven't answered this point before so I don't expect you to this time...but your logic is totally flawed and based on a concept very different from the Olympics.
 
SpottedCat said:
But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the limit in the organiser's handbook a) states that in certain circumstances it can be extended and b) applies to large-scale events when the park remains open to the general public.
Click to expand...

I replied to this point on another thread (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499368&page=2, post number 16).

It is true that the Park won't be open to the general public, but this is easily offset by the amount of space required to stage the event (the stadium, the press and athletes' area, the stables, the course itself, etc.). Then there is the question of appropriateness. An event involving 68,000 (possibly 70,000 if you include the "Olympic family" and the media) people is too big for the Park and the surrounding area.

(a) The Guidelines state that for Greenwich Park they can cater for sporting events up to a capacity of 15,000. They do add the qualification "possibly more for certain events". But this suggests a few thousand more, not an event involving over four times as many people.

(b) It is evident from Locog's plans for the event that it is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. The event will occupy almost all of the Park, the National Maritime Museum, and Circus Field on Blackheath (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45710_2.pdf). And in order to deal with the crowds the Old Royal Naval College and Blackheath itself will also be pressed into service. Some 40,000 spectators are supposed to arrive at Greenwich Station and make their way through the town centre during the morning rush hour, and to retrace their steps during the evening rush hour (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45711_5.pdf).

(c) It should be remembered that the Olympic event will mean that users of the Park will be inconvenienced for about a year (over 2011 and 2012). This is not in keeping with the aims and objectives stated Royal Parks Agency Framework Document 1993:
2.1 The Agency's aims are to manage the Royal Parks so that they: a. offer peaceful enjoyment, recreation, entertainment and delight to those who use them ...

2.2 The Agency's specific objectives are: a. to increase the enjoyment of visitors, giving priority to pedestrians ... c. to protect the Parks from every kind of encroachment contrary to their purpose ... d. to maintain free access to the Parks for the public

Document available at: http://www.royalparks.org.uk/about/management_governance.cfm
Click to expand...

Remember that Greenwich Park has been open to the public all year round since 1820 (just 5 years after the Battle of Waterloo!). There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park, and so there is no justification for doing so.
 
Orwell said:
There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park, and so there is no justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

Ideologically, that statement doesn't make sense. Certainly, as a summary or conclusion, its awful.

You might as well have written "I don't want it there, so it shouldn't be there".

I would honestly encourage the writer to redraft the letter written in the initial post, as its virtually unreadable, biased and overlong. I'm afraid that its in danger of being laughed at, its so badly written. But it seems to be a common theme with the proponents of this school of thought. Are you all cutting and pasting from the same source or something?
 
I hear they are looking for somewhere to hold the world Banger racing championships in 2013 maybe they could do it in the park as it's going to be ruined by the olympics in 2012 according to our NIMBY trolls:D
 
Cefyl is as usual extremely well informed, so as it happens is Orwell. Sywell has also made good points. I think that Rachel Marwood is perhaps fighting a losing battle on this forum where a great many members only visit London for Christmas shopping and are not familiar with London and in particularly Greenwich. The Park is not big enough, that is why the Circus Field, not in the original plans has been incorporated. I believe on cross country day, there will be few people allowed on course, because i think some of the tickets will be to sit in the arena where one or two fences will be jumped and a screen showing the others will be available. Anyone who has been to the test event cannot serious believe that with a course twice the length, more stables a bigger arena with 15000 more seats and all the other infrastructure, there will still be room for 50000 spectators. If they try to fit them in some will be killed in a hilsborough type crush. I do want London equestrian to be a success and I am sure the dressage and showjumping will be if they get an expert in to fix the surface instead of relying on a firm who have never supplied an international championship footing before, but the cross country? There will be ugly pictures on a switchback course of yanking and pulling, and the last thing that will be needed are a few fainitng in the crush spectators.
 
badattitude said:
I think that Rachel Marwood is perhaps fighting a losing battle on this forum where a great many members only visit London for Christmas shopping and are not familiar with London and in particularly Greenwich. The Park is not big enough, that is why the Circus Field, not in the original plans has been incorporated.
Click to expand...

How condescending. Do you think its still the 1950's, where country bumpkins barely travel a few metres from their place of birth in their lifetime? I live in Scotland, but I've spent loads of time in London. I first visited Greenwich as a child with my parents, and I've spent long visits with friends in London. But I can probably genuinely claim to having traversed more inches of Greenwich Park than you - because I'm a runner, I've done a 10k there and trained there and roundabout there. I've studied OS maps to find the best ways there and the best routes in it, and researched historical features to learn why the terrain is the way it is. London is the capital city - not some secret, provincial town not open to all. I do think its awful when green spaces become so sanitised and urbanised that people like you claim they are no longer suitable for anything other than the most urban of activites. It was great when it hosted the final stage of the Tour of Britain!

badattitude said:
but the cross country? There will be ugly pictures on a switchback course of yanking and pulling, and the last thing that will be needed are a few fainitng in the crush spectators.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way cross country is going though. Its a frequent criticism of the way cross country in eventing is going - Mark Phillips criticised in Horse and Hound last year after one of the big UK events, as have many others. Although I'm struggling to see the correlation between such courses and people fainting.

I do wonder if at this late stage, your arguements are now verging on the obsessive, and whether the cohorts of this should be judged more of a challenge to eventing being held at Greenwich than any of the cut and pasted problems you keep harping on about?

I think the spectacle of keeping it all in London, rather than spread out all over the place and losing the atmosphere, as some Olympics do, is worth a short term inconvenience. Again I ask you, which none of you have ever answered, how do you think the people of Edinburgh cope with a month long Festival taking over their city every August?
 
Mithras said:
Ideologically, that statement doesn't make sense. Certainly, as a summary or conclusion, its awful.

You might as well have written "I don't want it there, so it shouldn't be there".
Click to expand...

I presume that you mean that the premise ("There is no need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park") does not entail the conclusion ("so there is no justification for doing so"). If so, then you have a point. I am "guilty" of not spelling out an argument that I made at length on an earlier H&H forum ("Re: Olympic test event- reactions to the XC"). Here is a slightly expanded version of the argument with an additional example:

Greenwich Park is an urban public park. It is also a Royal Park, a national treasure and a World Heritage Site. It should not be abused in the way that it is being abused. There is no necessity to do so,* and none of the considerations which are put forward (compactness of the Games, etc.) come close to a justification.** Consequently there is no justification.

*During World War 2 people had allotments on the Main Lawns and, I believe, dug makeshift air-raid shelters into the lawns. Anti-aircraft batteries were also sited in the Park and the tops of many trees were cut off to provide clear lines of fire. But that was at a time of national emergency and it was necessary to act in that way. There is no similar need to hold the Olympic equestrian events in the Park.

** You might argue that it is too late to change the venue now. But if it had to be done, it would be done. Hence it could be done.
 
Mithras, I doubt very much that you have spent more time in Greenwich and South London than I, I was born and bred in the area despite foreign parents and spending long periods abroad. I still live there now, less that a five minute drive from Greenwich High Steet. So does my brother. We take the children there most weekends during term time and several times a week during holidays. It is our closest place. However, I was not particularly arguing, just pointing out that the objectors to greenwich on this thread had made some very valid points which they have and that many of the people rather viciously responding to those had little real knowledge of the area or the issues involved.
I have been to the Edinburgh Festival and to the city on other occasions, including quite recently for a wedding which was rather a large grand affair to say the least. But Edinburgh cannot compare in size to London, nor in volume of traffic or bodies on the ground or tourists or anything else even during the festival. The festival does not require motorway and A road closures like those which will affect the M25 and the Blackwell Tunnel. There is just no comparrison to be made which is why I suspect no one has bothered answering your point. As a runner in the Park and other places, I would assume you are aware that for major races the start is staggered, the London Marathon definately is, because the capacity of the park (which is obviously is without the Olympic infrastructure and therefore more open) is only thought to be safely 21-25000 on a one off very short term basis. A point which none of you defending the cause has answered if it is an argument you want.
Nor do I think that saying "that is the way cross country riding is going" is an adequate excuse for squeezing the cross country into a space will exacerbate this and play right into the hands of the wellfare groups who have enough to say about competitive horse sport as it is. Please see the recent video of the WHW conference where the Panel discussed the impact the media coverage would have on welfare because they are very concerned about it.
Personally I was delighted when I heard the Games were in London but none of my family has been lucky enough to get tickets for equestrian at all. We did not get invited to the test event initially, neither did my neice and nephews school, a friend on the council could not attend and gave me a ticket. The locals have not been consulted much at all and having been to a few major sporting championships in my time including WEG, I feel that much is NOT being said so there will be no argument/protest. Many of my neighbours think the test event was much how it is going to be next year. They do not seem to grasp that was a fraction of the size etc. I do not think the venue will be changed now despite Ms Marwoods efforts but that does not make it a good choice. Little has been realisitcally done to improve facilities for Londons current horse people, if people are inspired to ride there will be no extra capacity for that to happen. my neice rides at Mudchute Farm (on the other side of the river directly between the Park and the 'iconic view' and they are already busy everytime we visit.
I thought that after the initial bid was accepted LOCOG would move the venue to Richmond or Great Leighs actually. I thought either of those would be amazing, especially as Great Leighs is more or less on the same dual carriage was as the rest of the Olympic Park and the riders would have been able to stay in the village etc without the need for closing the Blackwell tunnel and all the other considerations. But never mind, the TV will get some great shots of the London skyline and thats all that matters isn't it?
 
Equibrit said:
Just get over it, you silly woman. If you really feel the need to whine, do it to the organizing committee.
Click to expand...

To whom are you refering in your rude and uncouth way? Do you think that being rude is a 'clever' retort? There is no whining here as far as I can see from either side of the debate and as it happens the opening poster has made her views very clear to LOCOG as have I and a great many other people.
 
While I agree that Greenwitch Park is a very odd choice for the Olympic equestrian events, especially given all the other options that had been available, it's a bit late for a re-think. Greenwitch residents are better off renting their homes for the duration of the games for a super inflated amount and going on a nice relaxing holiday somewhere far, far away.
 
Orwell said:
I replied to this point on another thread (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499368&page=2, post number 16).

It is true that the Park won't be open to the general public, but this is easily offset by the amount of space required to stage the event (the stadium, the press and athletes' area, the stables, the course itself, etc.). Then there is the question of appropriateness. An event involving 68,000 (possibly 70,000 if you include the "Olympic family" and the media) people is too big for the Park and the surrounding area.

(a) The Guidelines state that for Greenwich Park they can cater for sporting events up to a capacity of 15,000. They do add the qualification "possibly more for certain events". But this suggests a few thousand more, not an event involving over four times as many people.

(b) It is evident from Locog's plans for the event that it is too big for the Park and the surrounding area. The event will occupy almost all of the Park, the National Maritime Museum, and Circus Field on Blackheath (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45710_2.pdf). And in order to deal with the crowds the Old Royal Naval College and Blackheath itself will also be pressed into service. Some 40,000 spectators are supposed to arrive at Greenwich Station and make their way through the town centre during the morning rush hour, and to retrace their steps during the evening rush hour (http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/45711_5.pdf).

While I personally would have liked to have seen an existing site upgraded for future use, that is now water under the bridge - however with reference to travelling in risk hour - friends who work in London tell me that their companies are already working out who an wfh etc during peak times....
Click to expand...
 
badattitude said:
I have been to the Edinburgh Festival and to the city on other occasions, including quite recently for a wedding which was rather a large grand affair to say the least. But Edinburgh cannot compare in size to London, nor in volume of traffic or bodies on the ground or tourists or anything else even during the festival. The festival does not require motorway and A road closures like those which will affect the M25 and the Blackwell Tunnel. There is just no comparrison to be made which is why I suspect no one has bothered answering your point.
Click to expand...

I actually find it much easier to drive in London (even Central London) than Edinburgh. Edinburgh is much smaller and its traffic is concentrated in a small area. During the month of the festival, the very pavements are so crowded it is actually necessary to walk on the road. And it lasts a month - the whole of August. Many locals hate it, but endure it because presumably emphasising with other's needs is something you do in a city. Those who can't move out, either temporarily or permanently. I do think that if I couldn't bear the public aspect use of a city, I would make a point of living in as remote an area of countryside as I could!

badattitude said:
As a runner in the Park and other places, I would assume you are aware that for major races the start is staggered, the London Marathon definately is, because the capacity of the park (which is obviously is without the Olympic infrastructure and therefore more open) is only thought to be safely 21-25000 on a one off very short term basis. A point which none of you defending the cause has answered if it is an argument you want.
Click to expand...

No, the 10k in Greenwich Park does not have a staggered start. Neither does the Park Run in Avebury Park every Saturday morning. They run without any problems. Neither is the London Marathon, which funnels its competitors along a narrow roadway and is staggered by the estimated finishing times of the competitors to primarily enable fast times to be run, not to avoid inconveniencing the locals.

badattitude said:
I do not think the venue will be changed now despite Ms Marwoods efforts but that does not make it a good choice.
Click to expand...

The protestors are seeking to change a decision which has already been made. Therefore it is up to them to prove their case, not the other side to prove theirs. They would be required to do this in law, otherwise any changes (which I really doubt will ever happen) would be subject to allegations of personal interference and unjustice.

I really wonder why so much effort is being put into this by certain people. Its almost certain to go ahead, the majority of the population appear not to mind, and the only way they can succeed is by convincing the majority that the extreme localisation of the issue trumps all other concerns. Even then, with the timescale given, it is simply not going to happen. So why continue?

Rachel Mawhood is an interesting character. She has quite a history of involvement in "niche" issues, such as this over the years, ranging from appearance in a property tribunal case (unsuccessful, but this is where I recognised the name from - she is no lawyer as it was obvious that her case would not succeed) to unsuccessful attempts to be elected as a local councillor. This is all in the public domain. Its certainly quite profile-raising. And why was the decision not challenged by the legal mechanism provided by law - judicial review, rather than individualising it?
 
I should imagine your answer to the judicial review question is the obvious one; that is money. Who would foot the cost of such an action initially?
As for your comments about the 10k run and weekend park runs, neither of them has anywhere near the amount of people expected for the olympic games and on Marathon day from my own observation, the start takes ages, the whole 30000 or whatever it is dont all start en masse but never the less it is only a few hours although obviously signs of the imminent approach of the marathon are evident for a while before hand.
I totally understand what you are saying about driving in edinburgh, it is why I generally don't when the festival is on. But it still is not a good comparisson. Anyone who has to drive across the river in the South East of London will tell you what happens when there is an accident in the Blackwall Tunnel. Total gridlock, for hours. LOCOG are proposing to close half of it for a month in addition to the closures on the A12, M25 and other major arteries. The DLR has not been significantly improved this far although work is apprently ongoing. At the last meeting of Greenwich traders and LOCOG they mentioned that it was their intention to get many of the visitors off the train at North Greenwich ( thats the station for the o2) and then either shuttle them or encourage them to walk ( i would reckon it is a good twenty minute walk at least probably half an hour). There is no equivalent to this scenario in Edinburgh and yes the residents put up with it because the tourist benefits are immediately apparent. The entire Games (already over budget) will not help the local economies enough to compensate them for the loss of business etc when staff and goods cannot travel freely. This has been acknowledged I believe but thus far there are no plans for compensation packages that i am aware of. Everyone need to see the bigger picture here, this is not just about equestrian and getting a nice view, it is about making the Games work for everyone. There is an excellent study on the cost of past Olympics which shows the cost of a Games is not fully felt for six to eight years. I think it is fair to say most people now are aware where Greece is seven years after their expenditure. Consequntly I personally believe it is very important for all objections to be publicly noted regardless of whether they will affect outcome or not because afterwards people will need to be held accountable and there will be no saying certain matters were not brought to their attention this way.
 
badattitude said:
To whom are you refering in your rude and uncouth way? Do you think that being rude is a 'clever' retort? There is no whining here as far as I can see from either side of the debate and as it happens the opening poster has made her views very clear to LOCOG as have I and a great many other people.
Click to expand...

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway accommodates 250,000 spectators on 220 acres. Greenwich Park is 180 acres. What is the problem ?
 
badattitude said:
I should imagine your answer to the judicial review question is the obvious one; that is money. Who would foot the cost of such an action initially?
Click to expand...

One would have thought that, if the cause were so important to those concerned, they would have found some way of doing so. Ms Mawhood has represented herself in legal proceedings before, albeit unsuccessfully.

badattitude said:
Everyone need to see the bigger picture here, this is not just about equestrian and getting a nice view, it is about making the Games work for everyone. There is an excellent study on the cost of past Olympics which shows the cost of a Games is not fully felt for six to eight years. I think it is fair to say most people now are aware where Greece is seven years after their expenditure. Consequntly I personally believe it is very important for all objections to be publicly noted regardless of whether they will affect outcome or not because afterwards people will need to be held accountable and there will be no saying certain matters were not brought to their attention this way.
Click to expand...

Again, this is exactly why judicial review of the decision is the appropriate way forward. It is the best way of making people accountable (and I am sure that Ms Mawhood, as a seasoned "complainant" on numerous community related matters, is aware of this). You should also be aware that if you do go down any legal route, commenting on it on various forums on the internet may prejudice your case.

But what on earth do you hope to acheive now? A last minute change of venue? I doubt that would happen. But if it did, who would fund it? The taxpayer?

I also have to say that again, that it is up to you and your fellow complainants to prove your case. In other words, you need to convince other people that you are right. The other "side" do not need to convince you that they are not wrong. I was honestly quite shocked by the poorly written letter in the OP, and by some of the poor grammar and sentence construction in later supporting replies. It would not convince me that the writer has particularly good judgement, and that I should believe what she says.

Despite this, the writer (and some of her supporters) are rather condescending in their later replies (I got the feeling they think anyone who disagrees with them is rather stupid/unworldly/inexperienced, when personally I rather suspect that the opposite is true). Again, this does little to convince me of the efficacy of their arguement, and I doubt I am not the only one.
 
If it is points of grammar you wish to score, please be clear to whom you are addressing your statements. I have supported Rachel Marwood on this forum because there are a great many people who have been extremely rude to her when their replies appear to have been based little on fact or actual experience but mostly on hearsay and propaganda.
But I do believe the Olympic venue is a done deal and will not be moved and therefore certainly do not need to 'prove a case' to anyone. I would also have to say that both sides are as convinced they are entirely right and the others are either ignorant or just whinging/making difficulties/loooking through rose tinted glasses. As for being condescending, that also applies to both sides, including yourself. I do believe as an experienced horse person that Greenwich is the wrong place and persisting in this for the sake of a good view and a compact games will be the kiss of death for Olympic equestrian. But that is my opinion and this this is merely a forum for a debate on a subject I did not bring up.
And it is a low shot passing comment on other people's grammar and spelling in a forum when you do not know their circumstances. Dyslexia, astigmatism, partial sight, learning difficulties, old/faulty equipment etc etc etc any of these can be a factor on a forum where people are likely to be typing freehand without using a WP programme or from their phone where it is easy to make mistakes. These are not legal documents, just opinions. However, it is my personal opinion, that in any debate, when people resort to cheap shots it is because their real argument lacks substance. Nobody, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter, has given a good reason for locating the equestrian where it is apart from the nice view. Great Leighs for example (which I realise has subsequently been under a cloud but was not when the bid went in) is almost exactly the same distance east of the Olympic Village as Greenwich is south, the company owned at least 200 acres of the surrounding countryside and it has excellent access for people and horses as well as being much closer to good equine veterinary facilities. But aside from being on the bid list, it was never realistically considered. That fact alone says much about the attitude of LOCOG to these games. People in offices with little practical experience deciding that they knew best. Because surely no experienced horse person could support a venue that will only have basic veterinary care and for all major injuries the horse will have to be driven through south London to Bell Equine? One hopes a police escort will be provided on that occasion.
 
Last edited:
cefyl said:
This must be the most hilarious analogy (or most Naive) I have ever heard!
Click to expand...

Why ?

badattitude said:
Because surely no experienced horse person could support a venue that will only have basic veterinary care and for all major injuries the horse will have to be driven through south London to Bell Equine? One hopes a police escort will be provided on that occasion.
Click to expand...

It appears that you are ignorant of the facilities provided at Olympic events.
 
Last edited:
Mithras said:
Ms Mawhood has represented herself in legal proceedings before, albeit unsuccessfully ... I am sure that Ms Mawhood, as a seasoned "complainant" on numerous community related matters
Click to expand...
It seems to me that your comments on Rachel Mawhood in your last two posts are a, somewhat shabby, attempt to discredit her. I don't agree with everything that she says or does, but I respect her for standing up so valiantly and doggedly for what she believes is right. It seems curious to me that you have researched her background. May I ask: do you have a professional interest in this matter?

Returning to the discussion, here is the official justification for holding the Olympic equestrian events Greenwich Park (http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/why-greenwich-park.html):
The Park was chosen for a number of key reasons:

* The Park’s closeness to the Olympic Village ensures the Equestrian events are placed at the heart of the Games. Travel time for athletes will be kept to a minimum, enabling them to feel part of the action.

* It’s cost effective. Modern Pentathlon takes place over one day in which the athletes need to access the fencing and swimming facilities in the Olympic Park and riding, shooting and running facilities close by. Holding Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events in the same location in Greenwich Park removes the need to build duplicate facilities. This reduces costs and makes it easier for the athletes competing.

* Using a popular London location allows spectators to travel to the venue by public transport and ensures they enjoy the buzz of the city during the Games.

* New urban audiences have a chance to see elite-level Equestrian events at first hand.

* This iconic location showcases Greenwich and London to audiences worldwide.
Click to expand...

Does anyone find this case remotely convincing? Does it justify spending 60 million pounds (so far) on an unsuitable venue (for cross-country horses and riders, and for spectators), leaving no positive legacy, seriously inconveniencing tens of thousands of regular Park users and millions of visitors to the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (for nearly a year), and causing great damage to the Park?
 
Equibrit said:
Why ?



It appears that you are ignorant of the facilities provided at Olympic events.
Click to expand...

Equibrit it is you who is showing ignorance, Bell equine has been named by the organisers as the treatment centre for any major incident. Both Sha Tin and Markopolous (sp) are permanent centres with veterinary hospitals either already in place or specifically built and remain there to this day still in use. THERE IS NO ROOM at Greenwich for such a facility, there will be the medical treatment one would expect at any decent three day event but unlike the last few Games, anything more extravagant will require moving the horses. Originally the plan was to transport the horses to Potters Bar or Newmarket but even the organisers realised the latter was too far and the former the opposite side of London. This is all well documented in various documents.
 
Orwell, once again well said. I would also like to point out that the point stated as a reason regarding the modern pentathalon is completely moot. There have been many occasions when the equestrian phase of this event has taken place in a different one to the other horse events, Bejing for example. That is because there is no requirement to stable the horses, there are shipped in, the riders draw for who rides which, and then the horses go home again. Any of the riding schools close to the Olympic Park with an arena could have sufficed (Trent Park, Mudchute Farm, Aldersbrook, etc etc etc) particualrly if some of the money was used to improve their facilities, which would also have been some sort of legacy.......

Oh yes and the urban audiences appear to have little chance of seeing the sport close up, we don't know anyone, neither do our children, that is going to the equestrian section. Not for want of trying either.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
It seems to me that your comments on Rachel Mawhood in your last two posts are a, somewhat shabby, attempt to discredit her. I don't agree with everything that she says or does, but I respect her for standing up so valiantly and doggedly for what she believes is right. It seems curious to me that you have researched her background. May I ask: do you have a professional interest in this matter?
Click to expand...

No, I became curious as to why this individual repeatedly uses this online equestrian forum to publicise her own special interests. She does not contribute to debates, (albeit in the past she has insulted regular posters for failing to agree with her). Upon googling her name, which is done very quickly and easily, I discovered that she has been involved in a number of similar projects, without a great deal of success. Particularly I was somewhat surprised by the case she brought herself (without the usual assistance of a solicitor or surveyor) to the property tribunal. It was so obvious it would not succeed from the word go. I am suspicious of what we term "barrack room lawyers" (non legally qualified people who think they can bypass legal training to state the law).

If on the other hand, she had a more impressive record and perhaps a less selfish interest in it, and presented her written work in a more orthodox and convincing fashion (surely she can ask someone to check it for her?), I would be more inclined to treat her views as having some merit. Although that does not negate their lack of substantive merit.

I am afraid that if she wishes to use a forum in this manner (i.e. using her own name quite deliberately so that it is connected with it), it is in the public domain and any other relevant information also in the public domain may be found by other users.

Furthermore, if you are attempting to present a case to persuade others to your way of thinking, do not then complain if others pick it apart or find fault in it! It is your job to present a more well researched, more convincing case, not the fault of the critic surely?
 
badattitude said:
Orwell, once again well said. I would also like to point out that the point stated as a reason regarding the modern pentathalon is completely moot. There have been many occasions when the equestrian phase of this event has taken place in a different one to the other horse events, Bejing for example. That is because there is no requirement to stable the horses, there are shipped in, the riders draw for who rides which, and then the horses go home again. Any of the riding schools close to the Olympic Park with an arena could have sufficed (Trent Park, Mudchute Farm, Aldersbrook, etc etc etc) particualrly if some of the money was used to improve their facilities, which would also have been some sort of legacy.......

Oh yes and the urban audiences appear to have little chance of seeing the sport close up, we don't know anyone, neither do our children, that is going to the equestrian section. Not for want of trying either.
Click to expand...

I'm loving the idea of an Olympic event being held at a local riding school! Perhaps they could even use the riding school ponies, and double up...

I have to say, I think the fact that the London Olympics are not going to be spread out in isolated locations all over, and the subsequent loss of atmosphere that occurs from this, great.
 
Mithras, that is precisely what did happen in Beijing! The horses for modern pentathalon are always borrowed and usually not of a very high standard. And I was not suggesting using the riding school ponies, please read properly before commenting, just the arenas. And for your information Mudchute Farm is closer to the main Stadium than Greenwich, you will find it on the north side of the river directly between Greenwich Park and most of the 'iconic view"...... Lee Bridge also has an arena as close as Greenwich. And as I said there has been money available to waste on the Greenwich site, it is a pity one of these existing equestrian sites couldn't have been improved enough for 70 rounds at a meter high. And I am wondering why you feel the need to rubbish everything any objector says when you also have not bothered to get all the facts. As I keep repeating, I personally am not expecting the venue to change now, but heaven forbid I should just decide to smile and say I love the idea just because government propaganda says I must. There was an excellent article by a former member of this forum which listed several other broken promises made to Londoners by LOCOG, there are a great many people who have been disillusioned about these Games. Just because they are not all horsey and posting on here, it does not mean they are not there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top