Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[Orwell]

Thank you for your replies.

Wishful's reply is particularly interesting. It suggests that the reason why the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park is because it is desperately trying to persuade the IOC to keep the equestrian events in the Olympics.

Wishful says that equestrianism is not particularly universal, it

costs a fortune and there is a perception that the events can only be run in the grounds of a stately home, or on a dedicated horse stadium, things which don't really exist in the parts of the world the IOC is keen to hold the Olympics.

So, in order to challenge these views, it was decided to hold the Olympic equestrian events in a London park. Because:

IF the UK can pull off a good equestrian games in the heart of the Olympic city this ... would show that any city with a decent park (not even a golf course) can hold the equestrian events at the heart of the games, and should help eventing's fight to stay in the Olympics.

This might have seemed like a good idea when considering Olympic politics, but it should quickly become apparent that it is a very bad one when one starts to consider the practicalities.

Holding an essentially rural event in a city park is fraught with difficulties; because they are vital recreation areas for hundreds of thousands of people, because of disruption to the surrounding areas, and because of congestion on the streets and in the public transport systems. And all of these problems are amplified if the city also happens to be hosting the Olympic Games and the park is close to the centre of them.

As if these considerations were not headache enough, the BEF have made life virtually impossible for themselves by choosing Greenwich Park. It is too small for a cross-country course, the terrain is unsuitable, and large parts of the park are protected. So the course will be compromised and potentially dangerous (especially in the wet). Even building a stadium is difficult enough as they are not allowed to dig in the park (in this case because of sewers). In order to ensure a level field of play on sloping ground it is necessary to build a massive platform and to devise a suitable surface for it (a problem which has not yet been solved). And then there is the fact that the park is part of a World Heritage Site, with millions of visitors each year. As a nation we have a duty to keep it open and to do what we can to ensure that those visitors see it at its best.

According to other comments, especially by Rachel Marwood, the cost of holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park has already risen to £60m. Who knows what the final cost will be. And, on the basis of the evidence of the Test Events, there is the real danger that the Olympic events themselves will be compromised. The fact that spectator numbers will be severely limited will also add to the perception that the sport is elitist.

If the BEF persist with Greenwich Park, they are likely to demonstrate conclusively (to many they have done so already) that the equestrian events cannot be held in an urban park, that they really do cost a fortune, and that they are essentially the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful.

That is, in choosing Greenwich Park and persisting with it, the BEF are likely to prove the very opposite of what Wishful thinks they are trying to prove.

Fortunately there is still time for them to realise this and to change the venue.

Wishful is against using an existing venue because:

Holding the event at Burghley (or any other established venue) would do nothing for the sustainability of eventing in the Olympic movement as it would show that even with the much vaunted British expertise at running equestrian events, we have to fall back on pre-existing infrastructure.

But, given that time is short, it seems to me that this is the rational choice. At least the BEF could count on staging successful Olympic equestrian events, on keeping the costs down, and on demonstrating that the events have a large following.

Wishful's aside -- "not even a golf course" -- also suggests an idea for the future of Olympic eventing. The hosts of future Games may well not have established equestrian venues, but they probably do have golf courses and these would, it seems, make ideal venues; certainly far less problematic and costly ones than inner city parks.

 

[mtj]

Thank you Wishful. Its a pleasure to see the voice of reason on this thread. I have worked (in London) at national and international sport and can confirm Wishful's comments on olympic v non olympic sports.

I'm going to sign off this now as I have not been moved by the protestors posts. If anything you have reinforced my view that you are throwing a wobbly about the temporary inconvenience.

If you are truely concerned about the children/youth you normally use the park, why not use this energy to set up some projects to entertain them next summer.

 

[cefyl]

Well it certainly is clear the camps are clearly divided in to for and against Greenwich.

Those FOR: Want it at Greenwich come hell or high water. It is the LONDON Olympics full stop, the UK equine community and those outside of London be damned. And the suitability of the site for an equine event of this magnitude is irrelevant as is the welfare of the competing horses and riders. Tough luck that the huge volume of UK supporters will not be able to attend their Olympics due to retricted space and face and favour ticket allocation. And so what that at the end of the day they have poured all that money down the drain, who cares it did not come from my pocket.

Those AGAINST: Nothing left at the end of the Olympics for the UK equine community and all that money poured away is mind blowing - the question of a suitable alternate venue be used where a legacy for the benefit and future of the sport in the UK will be left, e.g. a college springs to mind that already has excellent basic facilities in place, has been ignored. We have waited a long time for the Olympics on home soil, particularly for events where the UK stands a great chance of success, the hope of being there in person to witness it blown away with severly restricted spectator capacity. Welfare of the horse and rider is paramount and the reports following the test event basically was an "I told you so" from the experts that Lord Coe et all have chosen to ignore from the start.

So will this be the final nail in the coffin for equine events in future Olympics? Well if even the slightest little mishap occurs at Greenwich that will probably seal it's fate. Already the whole shambles is going a long long way to making 2012 history for all the wrong reasons. Arrogance, inflated egos, and cowardice rule Greenwich 2012.

 

[toffeesmarty]

Wll done Wishful and mtj: intelligent and considered posts.

Will the huge demand for tickets hold any weight in securing the future of equestrianism? You'd have to hope so, or am I just being naive?

 

[badattitude]

Wishful would has made some excellent observations but he/she is slightly in error on one aspect. I think when the IOC sit down to debrief as they do after each Games and then vote on which sports will be in or out for, in this case the 2020 Games (Rio is already decided more or less) the huge cost of running a venue with no legagy what so ever IN A NATION POSSIBLY ONE OF THE MOST HORSEY ON THE PLANET, will be seen as a huge waste of money. If they had used Richmond (for example) where existing equine facilities could have been improved and then used afterwards, this cost could be justified but I expect the IOC delegates from other countries and other sports are currently rubbing their hands with glee. The IOC can lose/change a catagory within a sport if it likes so I believe show jumping and dressage are safe for a while longer but eventing, as an Olympic sport is doomed. Rio is prepared to have eventing but adding the cost of building an xc course which will probably get no significant use unless the Pan American games are located there again will just be another black mark added to the huge cost of flying all the horses out to Rio, whatever their discipline. As far as the IOC are concerned dressage and showjumping are the money making disciplines, they attract the biggest audience and the greatest amount of participation. Reining is very keen to get into the Games (supported by the huge weight and finance of the AQHA) as is vaulting (supported by some very well off countries) and endurance (Arab money there) and even though this is not entirely true, as far as the IOC is concerned, two of these alternatives to eventing can be run in the same arena. If equestrian makes it to 2020 in any form we will be lucky but if it does, eventing will almost certainly not be part of it and that sadly is the legacy LOCOG and the BEF will leave British equestrianism.

 

[SusannaF]

At the moment, the two sports at the top of the IOC hit list are fencing and equestrianism - they would like them to be replaced by golf and rugby sevens (or not replaced) as neither are particularly universal and equestrianism costs a fortune and there is a perception that the events can only be run in the grounds of a stately home, or on a dedicated horse stadium, things which don't really exist in the parts of the world the IOC is keen to hold the Olympics...
Plus there are subjective judging issues with both, which the IOC also dislikes.

Fencing (my other sport) has been working unbelievably hard to make the IOC keep it in the olympics as not being an olympic sport would probably kill it stone dead as an international sport. Fortunately Beijing made the Chinese interested, so suddenly it is not dominated by Europe and the USA, which in combination with the new technology (wireless and video replays) gives us a chance of staying part of the Olympic movement.

IF the UK can pull off a good equestrian games in the heart of the Olympic city this will do far more for the future of equestrian sport in the UK than fantastic facilities which get mothballed as the UK sport funding is pulled when equestrianism gets dumped from the Olympics (the difference in funding between the Olympic disciplines and Carriage Driving/Vaulting which aren't Olympic sports is massive). Holding the event at Burghley (or any other established venue) would do nothing for the sustainability of eventing in the Olympic movement as it would show that even with the much vaunted British expertise at running equestrian events, we have to fall back on pre-existing infrastructure. Holding a successful event at Greenwich would show that any city with a decent park (not even a golf course) can hold the equestrian events at the heart of the games, and should help eventing's fight to stay in the Olympics.

I was disappointed not to get tickets, but I'd far rather watch eventing at many future Olympics than see it live once, and never see it again as the IOC managed to ditch it in favour of golf!

Thank you - this is what I was trying to convey about BEF and the Olympic Federation, without having half of your intelligence (in both senses).

 

[Orwell]

Wll done Wishful and mtj: intelligent and considered posts.

Will the huge demand for tickets hold any weight in securing the future of equestrianism? You'd have to hope so, or am I just being naive?

The conclusion established by some of the recent posts is that the only hope of keeping the cross country in the Olympics is to show that it can be staged for a reasonable sum and that it attracts a large following. Greenwich Park fails disastrously on both counts.

I can't help thinking that many of the posters on this forum, and I suspect the officials of the BEF also, are aware that they are making a terrible mistake but that they cannot bring themselves to admit it. In colloquial parlance, they are "in denial". People don't want to know that they have made a mistake or even that a mistake has been made for them.

 

[watertray53]

^^^ Bravo! Well said Orwell. I totally agree!

 

[Wishful]

Thank you for your replies.

Wishful's reply is particularly interesting. It suggests that the reason why the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park is because it is desperately trying to persuade the IOC to keep the equestrian events in the Olympics.

Wishful says that equestrianism is not particularly universal, it
So, in order to challenge these views, it was decided to hold the Olympic equestrian events in a London park. Because:

This might have seemed like a good idea when considering Olympic politics, but it should quickly become apparent that it is a very bad one when one starts to consider the practicalities.

Holding an essentially rural event in a city park is fraught with difficulties; because they are vital recreation areas for hundreds of thousands of people, because of disruption to the surrounding areas, and because of congestion on the streets and in the public transport systems. And all of these problems are amplified if the city also happens to be hosting the Olympic Games and the park is close to the centre of them.

As if these considerations were not headache enough, the BEF have made life virtually impossible for themselves by choosing Greenwich Park. It is too small for a cross-country course, the terrain is unsuitable, and large parts of the park are protected. So the course will be compromised and potentially dangerous (especially in the wet). Even building a stadium is difficult enough as they are not allowed to dig in the park (in this case because of sewers). In order to ensure a level field of play on sloping ground it is necessary to build a massive platform and to devise a suitable surface for it (a problem which has not yet been solved). And then there is the fact that the park is part of a World Heritage Site, with millions of visitors each year. As a nation we have a duty to keep it open and to do what we can to ensure that those visitors see it at its best.

According to other comments, especially by Rachel Marwood, the cost of holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park has already risen to £60m. Who knows what the final cost will be. And, on the basis of the evidence of the Test Events, there is the real danger that the Olympic events themselves will be compromised. The fact that spectator numbers will be severely limited will also add to the perception that the sport is elitist.

If the BEF persist with Greenwich Park, they are likely to demonstrate conclusively (to many they have done so already) that the equestrian events cannot be held in an urban park, that they really do cost a fortune, and that they are essentially the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful.

That is, in choosing Greenwich Park and persisting with it, the BEF are likely to prove the very opposite of what Wishful thinks they are trying to prove.

Fortunately there is still time for them to realise this and to change the venue.

Wishful is against using an existing venue because:

But, given that time is short, it seems to me that this is the rational choice. At least the BEF could count on staging successful Olympic equestrian events, on keeping the costs down, and on demonstrating that the events have a large following.

Wishful's aside -- "not even a golf course" -- also suggests an idea for the future of Olympic eventing. The hosts of future Games may well not have established equestrian venues, but they probably do have golf courses and these would, it seems, make ideal venues; certainly far less problematic and costly ones than inner city parks.

Universiality as far as the IOC is concerned is nothing to do with the demographic within a country - they want diversity of competitors and nationality. Alex Hua Tian, the Japanese team, Samantha Albert, and ideally someone representing an African country, somewhere close to the top of the world rankings would be the major thing to make the IOC very happy with their universiality criteria. Equestrian events rank fairly lowly - the majority of medals go to Europe, USA/Canada and Australia/New Zealand. The chances of a non "Western" medal are relatively low.

Hills are a feature of most XC courses - many courses are notoriously hilly (Blair) - far better than fake hills (Fontainbleau?).

The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ - this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.

Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event. Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.

I also don't think London has a suitable golf course... Happy to be corrected though. Richmond/Hyde Park might also have been possibilities but Richmond is a total git to get to (far worse than Greenwich) and Hyde Park was going to be used for softball (and is a bit on the flat side).

 

[Orwell]

Hills are a feature of most XC courses - many courses are notoriously hilly (Blair) - far better than fake hills (Fontainbleau?).

Hills are a feature of most XC courses, but in the hills and tight turns of the Greenwich course make it particularly difficult in good weather and dangerous when wet. The riders at the test event reported that the course was: intense, in your face, like riding in a tumble dryer, like a BMX course, etc. And that was on a gloriously sunny day. It could just as well have been raining heavily making the steep slopes treacherous. The organisers were lucky that there weren't any serious accidents. In her blog, in the Telegraph on the 6th of July, Pippa Cuckson says that

Greenwich is a punishing terrain, without the jumps. ... If it were in the middle of nowhere, this topography would never be sanctioned for a championship cross-country course.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...st-event-lets-hear-it-for-the-screaming-kids/

Universiality as far as the IOC is concerned is nothing to do with the demographic within a country - they want diversity of competitors and nationality. Alex Hua Tian, the Japanese team, Samantha Albert, and ideally someone representing an African country, somewhere close to the top of the world rankings would be the major thing to make the IOC very happy with their universiality criteria. Equestrian events rank fairly lowly - the majority of medals go to Europe, USA/Canada and Australia/New Zealand. The chances of a non "Western" medal are relatively low.

Thanks for the explanation. But if you were going to choose a course which encouraged universality, you wouldn't pick an extremely challenging course like Greenwich. It may well be too challenging for some of the Olympic competitors.

The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ - this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.

Yes but a great deal of money has been spent on it, expenditure which would not have been necessary at an established venue and which just adds to the IOC's impression that equestrianism is too expensive. Moreover the problem of producing an adequate artificial surface for the arena has not yet been solved. See, for example

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/lon...011/jul/06/showjumpers-greenwich-olympic-test

Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event.

I don't know about the park in Malmo and so can't comment. But I suspect that the circumstances are very different.

Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.

Parks in London are used for events but these normally only occupy part of the park in question. I can't recall an example of an event which closed a major London park completely for even a few hours. In particular Greenwich Park has hosted the start of the London Marathon since 1981. This is an entirely appropriate use of a public park: there is some disturbance for two weeks or so during the preparations and the clearing up afterwards, and parts of the park are closed for half a day. As far as I know nobody objects to this, and most locals welcome it.

But for the Olympics, LOCOG propose closing Greenwich Park for four weeks in midsummer, largely so that the XC riders can ride around it once.

http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/frequently-asked-questions.html

This is a completely inappropriate use of an urban public park. Moreover, as has been oft repeated, Greenwich Park is part of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. It has over 4 million visitors a year. Who but a mad dictator would think of holding an Olympic XC event there?

I also don't think London has a suitable golf course

As I said earlier, I think that the BEF should move the events to an established venue. If they do so, and if as a result the XC is still an Olympic event, then the golf-course idea could be proposed for the 2016 Games in Rio.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ - this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.

Only if you can afford the £2 million or so to rent it. Not much of a legacy if no one can afford it.

Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event. Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.

You are not comparing like with like. Greenwich Park is a World Heritage Site, among other things because it is the finest baroque landscape in England. It was laid out according to a set of aesthetics, to capture certain effects. It is also a Conservation Area of national importance.

Greenwich Park has never before been built on, in 400 years or more. It is unlikely that the Secretary of State really has the power to enclose it. It is still illegal to ride horses in Greenwich Park (other than on the tarmac road between Blackheath Gate and St Mary's Gate). Government should act within and uphold the law. That the Government and Greenwich Council are conniving with LOCOG to organise illegal equestrian events in Greenwich Park is an obscene abuse of power - in my view - and shows how uncivilised the DCMS, the Council and LOCOG all are.

 

[HashRouge]

I'll admit I hadn't given a lot of thought to where the equestrian sports should be held before reading this thread. I assume there is little chance they will be moved elsewhere. But one thing that has struck me after reading all your posts is the implication that there would potentially be more tickets for the XC if it were held elsewhere, because the Greenwich site has invariably been described as too small and somewhat cramped. As one of the many people who tried and failed to get XC tickets, I can't help feeling a bit miffed about this! Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't one of the priorities be maximizing crowd sizes?

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

I'll admit I hadn't given a lot of thought to where the equestrian sports should be held before reading this thread. I assume there is little chance they will be moved elsewhere. But one thing that has struck me after reading all your posts is the implication that there would potentially be more tickets for the XC if it were held elsewhere, because the Greenwich site has invariably been described as too small and somewhat cramped. As one of the many people who tried and failed to get XC tickets, I can't help feeling a bit miffed about this!

If the 2012 equestrian events were held at somewhere like Badminton, you'd have about 200,000 more chances to obtain tickets for the cross-country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't one of the priorities be maximizing crowd sizes?

And maximising revenue from ticket sales. LOCOG is behaving as if they were funded by the Bank of Mum and Dad: throwing money around like water (£60 million and counting) to create a very exclusive teeny weeny Olympics event.

The more tickets LOCOG sells to the cross-country, the less the poor trodden-down taxpayer will have to subsidise them. It is obvious that LOCOG have a duty to sell as many tickets as possible. LOCOG will be lucky to get even 50,000 into Greenwich for the cross-country.

 

[teapot]

Thanks for the explanation. But if you were going to choose a course which encouraged universality, you wouldn't pick an extremely challenging course like Greenwich. It may well be too challenging for some of the Olympic competitors.

That very reason is why the difficulty level of the Olympics was lowered. Sydney was chaos for the lesser nations. On the flip side, given the qualifying nature of eventing for the Olympics, they have to be of a certain standard anyway. If they are below that standard for any reason, then should they really be there (am talking individuals, not nations).


This is interesting: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/308774.html

 

[Orwell]

Sydney was chaos for the lesser nations.

There is very little scope to make the Greenwich course less challenging; I believe that the designer, Sue Benson, has talked of the proposed course already being "set in stone". So if the events are not moved to a more suitable venue, there is bound to be chaos again and, given the terrain, probably on a larger scale. As Al Jolson used to say, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"

This is interesting:http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/308774.html

Equestrian volunteers and officials might receive "a portion of the additional free tickets -- rumoured to number 60,000". Good, but how big a portion of the rumoured number? And what about all those followers of eventing who applied for tickets and didn't get them. I think that I am right in saying that if the events were moved to Badminton then everyone who applied could have been given tickets. Inclusiveness should, where possible, be a central criterion of any Olympic event.

In contrast, Greenwich would be exclusive. At most 50,000 spectators could be admitted to the XC. I wonder how many of the available tickets have been allocated to "important people", and how many corporate hospitality packages there will be.

It looks very much as if the BEF want the rest of the world to see a "typically English" event: restricted to the Establishment, hugely expensive, and held in an urban public park which has been "privatised" for four weeks for the purpose. And this feudal throwback is supposed to convince the IOC that eventing should be retained at the expense of Golf or Rugby Sevens?

 

[Wishful]

I don't think the Olympics should be less challenging - the approach should be to help the "up and coming" nations to improve to a level where they are competitive - through training etc. It's coming - but it would be good to have things to point at to say - we are doing this to help the non- established nations.

Ideally the course would have long routes so it's possible for less experienced competitors to complete safely, but with some time faults.

I really don't think that Badminton or Burghley would increase the number of tickets available. Suppose there are 24 fences on the course, 50,000 tickets means 2000 people per fence - anyone think there's going to be much of a view if you double or quadruple that number. The ONLY way that Badminton and Burghley work with their entry numbers is that there are tradestands and some people go only to shop. Burghley would be marginally better than Badminton as the hilly terrain gives better viewing for more people at more fences. At Badminton viewing is ropey unless the weather is pants. They also don't put big screens out on the course where you can see both a fence and the big screen - Burghley at least does this. There is no point maximising crowd sizes if you will struggle to see any of the action.

As for Burghley/Badminton being the holy grail of places to hold the equestrianism:

1. Modern Pentathlon is sharing the facilities - they need the Olympic infrastructure (pool + suitable sized hall) for the swim and the run. Very wasteful to build two equestrian stadia.

2. Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.

3. Having everyone drive to an Olympic event would be a logistical nightmare. The Olympics have far more stringent security requirements than Badminton or Burghley. Each car would need to be searched/checked by sniffer dogs. The queues would be astronomical. Course-side parking would probably be banned, taking out a large proportion of the parking used for the normal 4* events, so the theoretical capacity is smaller. Likewise on site camping would not be allowed, decimating the affordable accommodation options used for the normal events.

4. Transport. Everyone would need to drive. There are no realistic public transport options for the numbers involved. There is no rail service to Badminton - Chippenham is the nearest, and is on the First Great Western route which is running at/beyond capacity. From Chippenham, the only option would be a chartered bus. Burghley is on the rail network, but on a branch line which is largely single track and set up for 2-3 coach rural stopping services. The major railhead would be Peterborough, but there aren't any frequent public services to Stamford from there. Buses have a capacity of 50 or so people - 1000 bus journeys?

Perhaps Richmond Park or Hyde Park would have been better, but the decision has been made, changing now will not work as none of the other possible venues could be ready in time (unless SJ + Dressage get treated separately from the eventing), massively adding to the cost as you'd then need 3 equestrian venues or a new 50m pool somewhere near the equestrian facilities.

 

[teapot]

There is very little scope to make the Greenwich course less challenging; I believe that the designer, Sue Benson, has talked of the proposed course already being "set in stone". So if the events are not moved to a more suitable venue, there is bound to be chaos again and, given the terrain, probably on a larger scale. As Al Jolson used to say, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"

Sydney was chaos because the course itself was too hard, ie - technicality, height and width with lesser nations also coming in too fast to fences. As far as I remember, terrain didn't come into it, and it had some pretty steep slopes on it at the time.

 

[teapot]

Size wise - Horsely Park/Sydney International Centre is only roughly 40 acres more than Greenwich in size, with Beas River being about 70 acres smaller than Greenwich.

 

[Orwell]

I don't think the Olympics should be less challenging - the approach should be to help the "up and coming" nations to improve to a level where they are competitive ... Ideally the course would have long routes so it's possible for less experienced competitors to complete safely, but with some time faults.

Ideally, but this doesn't look possible in Greenwich Park. You can't go half-way up a hill and there is hardly enough room for the Olympic course and a few spectators, let alone alternative routes.

I really don't think that Badminton or Burghley would increase the number of tickets available. Suppose there are 24 fences on the course, 50,000 tickets means 2000 people per fence - anyone think there's going to be much of a view if you double or quadruple that number.

Well, for a start they could build a few temporary stands. And, as you say, they could

put big screens out on the course where you can see both a fence and the big screen

As for Burghley/Badminton being the holy grail of places to hold the equestrianism:

1. Modern Pentathlon is sharing the facilities - they need the Olympic infrastructure (pool + suitable sized hall) for the swim and the run. Very wasteful to build two equestrian stadia.

The tail wagging the dog. The XC course should not be compromised (as in Greenwich) for the sake of the equestrian element of the Modern Pentathlon. It should be very easy to accommodate the Modern Pentathlon using existing facilities; all you need is a stadium and a bit of a track. Wikipedia: "The riding discipline involves show jumping over a 350–450 m course with 12 to 15 obstacles".

2. Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.

The platform that they have built for Greenwich could equally be used at Badminton nor Burghley.

3. Having everyone drive to an Olympic event would be a logistical nightmare. ... 4. Transport. Everyone would need to drive. There are no realistic public transport options for the numbers involved. ... The major railhead would be Peterborough, but there aren't any frequent public services to Stamford from there. Buses have a capacity of 50 or so people - 1000 bus journeys?

I agree that transport would be a problem, but it should be possible to solve the problems by enhancing existing public transport. After all, Badminton usually has 100,000 visitors. Moreover, the transport problems associated with Greenwich should not be overlooked. Greenwich is embedded in south-east London. Public transport is already overloaded and the smallest accident on the roads can lead to widespread gridlock.

Perhaps Richmond Park or Hyde Park would have been better, but the decision has been made, changing now will not work as none of the other possible venues could be ready in time.

I don't see why Badminton of Burghley couldn't be ready in time. They have nearly finished demolishing the stadium that they built in Greenwich Park this year. Next year they plan to build one about 10 times as big. Why could they not build appropriate temporary stands at Badminton of Burghley?

 

[teapot]

I agree that transport would be a problem, but it should be possible to solve the problems by enhancing existing public transport. After all, Badminton usually has 100,000 visitors. Moreover, the transport problems associated with Greenwich should not be overlooked. Greenwich is embedded in south-east London. Public transport is already overloaded and the smallest accident on the roads can lead to widespread gridlock.

Think the point that Wishful is making is that there is NO public transport within the immediate area of either Badminton or Burghley (or Hartpury either actually). They have enough problems on the local country lanes for the relevant events, let alone something Olympic wise. Add into that the logistics of security, parking and everything else Wishful mentioned...

I don't see why Badminton of Burghley couldn't be ready in time. They have nearly finished demolishing the stadium that they built in Greenwich Park this year. Next year they plan to build one about 10 times as big. Why could they not build appropriate temporary stands at Badminton of Burghley?

Stands wise - it could be do-able. Ground and course wise, less so, especially for Badminton. Outside of the actual track, the ground at Badminton is pretty bad and the whole lot is deer & sheep grazing with the course fenced off months in advance. It took them a LONG time to get decent going post the mass withdrawl debacle year a couple of years back so there's only a specific track which would be event standard. Badminton is early May with the Olympics being the end of July. No organiser would want 80 horses galloping down a track + the 20000 odd spectators at an Olympic site weeks before the Olympics kicked in. The track wouldn't get as much damage as the outside bits. Think this pic shows exactly what happens during a wet year. Look at the difference between course and standing crowd. That wouldn't recover in time to provide good enough ground for an Olympic event:

I can see your reasoning but there are so many ifs and buts, given the proximity of Badminton to the Olympic event. And whilst we all know fences can be put in pretty quickly, event set up for big BE events takes months, not weeks...

 

[Rambo]

Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.

I don't know about the dressage diva's but the SJ'ers could compete on grass....no problem.

Think back to Athens, Barcelona, Seoul, Montreal....and non-olympic events such as Aachen and Hickstead....Falsterbo and La Baule

 

[Orwell]

Think the point that Wishful is making is that there is NO public transport within the immediate area of either Badminton or Burghley (or Hartpury either actually). They have enough problems on the local country lanes for the relevant events, let alone something Olympic wise. Add into that the logistics of security, parking and everything else Wishful mentioned...

I'm not saying that these problems will easily be solved, just that they could be if the will was there. Badminton usually has 100,000 spectators for the XC. Even this many is 50,000 more than Greenwich.

As I said before, Greenwich also has transport problems, and these will be exacerbated during the Olympics because of all of the additional visitors to London and the additional demands on the transport system. Remember the fiasco on Millenium night when the grandees were left stranded at Stratford Station? As Al Jolson said ...

Outside of the actual track, the ground at Badminton is pretty bad and the whole lot is deer & sheep grazing with the course fenced off months in advance. ... No organiser would want 80 horses galloping down a track + the 20000 odd spectators at an Olympic site weeks before the Olympics kicked in.

Again, it seems to me that where there's a will there's a way. Tens of millions of pounds have been spent making the impossible possible in Greenwich Park. It seems to me that for a fraction of that amount they could solve the problem of the trackside turf at Badminton. All that is needed is a surface that the spectators can use for a day.

Your photo will make lovers of Greenwich Park weep. If the events go ahead there, then the sort of damage shown in the photo can be expected to the lawns, including protected areas such as the ancient acid grasslands.

 

[teapot]

Your photo will make lovers of Greenwich Park weep. If the events go ahead there, then the sort of damage shown in the photo can be expected to the lawns, including protected areas such as the ancient acid grasslands.

Only if it chucks it down, has 200 000 people on it and numerous cars (as some of that is traffic damage). Damage control will be in place at Greenwich given its location so no traffic on the grass, fewer spectators and hopefully not monsoon like weather.

 

[Orwell]

Damage control will be in place at Greenwich given its location so no traffic on the grass, fewer spectators and hopefully not monsoon like weather.

There has already been serious damage to Greenwich Park, and further damage is inevitable if the events go ahead there next year. There is also no guarantee that any serious attempt would be made to restore the park afterwards. The organisers, LOCOG have no legal obligation to restore it and, to date, have not set any money aside to do so.

Then there is also the human cost. As a result of the closures and the construction work, regular park users (from Greenwich and further afield) and visitors to the World Heritage Site have been badly abused this year. And if the events go ahead in the park next year, then the disruption will be much worse. The closures will be longer, there will be about 10 times as much construction work, there will be at least 10 times as many spectators to cater for, there will be at least 10 times as much congestion on the roads, etc.

Rachel Mawhood has already raised many of these issues during this discussion, and there is ample evidence for all to see on NOGOE's website and its flickr diary.

These factors are already more than reason enough persuade anyone who considers them with an open mind that the events should be moved. But, as I have been trying to point out in my earlier posts, holding the events in Greenwich Park would also be contrary to the interests of equestrians.

It is not too late to move the events to a more appropriate venue. But time is short, so courageous decisions and bold actions are needed. Given these, and given the Olympic windfall, it should be possible to use one of Britain's leading venues to stage the greatest eventing event ever seen. It seems to me that this would be the best way to promote eventing in this country and to try to ensure that it remains as an Olympic sport.

 

[bseage]

Everything I have read about the test event and the comprehensive coverage in this forum persuades me the Greenwich is a totally unsuitable site for an Olympic standard 3 Day event. That the test event in no way replicated the parameters of the full 2012 event but is being regarded as a success and extrapolated into what will happen on the day in 2012 is just bonkers.

Damage to the Park, disruption of Greenwich and its folk, the cost, the lack of room for spectators, the lack of legacy etc are all serious issues, but are in my view insignificant compared to the danger the course would pose to even the best prepared horse and even more so on a wet day. After all, they would not dare to cancel it because of the weather, would they?


I have had a response from a potential member of the Olympic 3 day event team, in which they recognise the difficulties presented by the course, regard the location as unsuitable, but continue by explaining that the decision on Greenwich as the venue has been made and that we should all now rally round and support the event at Greenwich Evidence, I feel that the pressure by sponsors and the desire to be in the team and so win a medal overrides considerations of horse safety and all the other factors that make Greenwich totally unsuitable as an Olympic 3 Day Event venue.

You can still get a package from a travel agent which will include 2012 cross country day, but it would cost £2k per person!

 

[watertray53]

I have had a response from a potential member of the Olympic 3 day event team, in which they recognise the difficulties presented by the course, regard the location as unsuitable, but continue by explaining that the decision on Greenwich as the venue has been made and that we should all now rally round and support the event at Greenwich Evidence, I feel that the pressure by sponsors and the desire to be in the team and so win a medal overrides considerations of horse safety and all the other factors that make Greenwich totally unsuitable as an Olympic 3 Day Event venue.

Thank you bseage for posting this piece of information......You have highlighted what pressures a place on the Olympic team puts on riders/owners when they are prepared to risk their horses for the sake of glory, be it for their country or for themselves.

When I started reading this thread I very naively believed that equestrian sport at London 2012 was going to be a show case for what this country does best & that there would be a lasting legacy for the future, well for equestrianism at Greenwich the judge & jury is still out !

 

[brighteyes]

watertray53, bseage, Orwell, badattitude, teapot and to huge extent Rachel Mawhood have all IMO got it right. Is the damage to the park, the complete unsuitablilty of the venue, in terms of size and safety and appropriateness for an 'event', the inexcuseable lack of a legacy and flawed choice of location going to leave us with the unacceptable taste of needless deaths (horse or rider) and egg on our faces? My guess is yes. That the unfathomable (or is it?) decision to use Greenwich Park instead of a much more suitable venue even on the grounds of fairness to the horses and riders in itself is enough to show this to be a choice not based on anything other than 'looking good'. What an awful position to put our event teams in. The lack of any legacy for the riders of GB, and irreparable damage to the Park is pretty much par for the course. They don't care beyond the closing ceremony.

 

[cefyl]

watertray53, bseage, Orwell, badattitude, teapot and to huge extent Rachel Mawhood have all IMO got it right. Is the damage to the park, the complete unsuitablilty of the venue, in terms of size and safety and appropriateness for an 'event', the inexcuseable lack of a legacy and flawed choice of location going to leave us with the unacceptable taste of needless deaths (horse or rider) and egg on our faces? My guess is yes. That the unfathomable (or is it?) decision to use Greenwich Park instead of a much more suitable venue even on the grounds of fairness to the horses and riders in itself is enough to show this to be a choice not based on anything other than 'looking good'. What an awful position to put our event teams in. The lack of any legacy for the riders of GB, and irreparable damage to the Park is pretty much par for the course. They don't care beyond the closing ceremony.

Well said in a nutshell - they really do not care beyond the closing ceremony.

As for the issue of "public" transport to an ideal location such as Hartpury this is not something that affected the decision to use Weymouth as a sailing venue! Not exactly just off a motorway network is it. The problems of resident access and parking in the area, on top of that spectator and competitor access is already looking like a nightmare. And if you are not involved in sailing you have no idea of the amount of "kit" that needs to be taken into a competition venue by road. I do as that is my husbands sport. Hartpury has a far far better access to motorways, and A / B road access that could well be utilised as a "one way" system for in / out traffic during events. Interesting to read the planning application for Weymouth - Portland Harbour for 2012 where it repeatedly mentions LEAVING A LEGACY afterwards. What happend to any equestrian legacy??? But then the powers that govern sailing are not held under an iron grip of fear by someone with no earthly interest in the sport in the UK.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

One of my colleagues wrote to Badminton to ask for accurate, up-to-date figures on spectator numbers.

We have no restriction on spectator numbers for the Cross Country and usually have approximately 100,000 visitors. Similarly, there is no restriction on admittance for the Dressage and Show Jumping days. However, the Main Arena is limited to seating approximately 14,000 people and others can still come to the event and watch the Show Jumping on the Big Screen. The seating numbers for Dressage are about the same but there would not be the same demand for Dressage seats. ...

not sure if we could admit 300,000 - there would be a point when we would run out of car parking - but to date (since 1949) this has never happened!

So there you have it. If the proposed temporary stadium (capacity 23,000) were erected at Badminton instead of at Greenwich, and if - say - a shuttlebus service were laid on from the nearest railway station(s), 200,000 more people could have tickets to the cross-country. More money for LOCOG, smaller exposure to risk for the poor taxpayer. Plus legacy - upgraded facilities - for the UK equestrian sport.

To those who think that it will be easy to use public transport to get to/from Greenwich Park events in 2012, think again. Transport for London's own crowd-modelling exercise revealed - to everyone's horror, I think - that it could take up to TWO HOURS for everyone to leave the Park at the end of the day and go to the nearest railway station. That's TWO HOURS to accomplish what is usually a five minute walk. The worst case scenario was eight hours. Then you have the rest of your journey home, starting by crossing London in Olympic season, with the disruption expected to be caused by the implementation of the "Olympic lanes".

 

[Wishful]

It's taken 3-4 hours to leave Badminton (i.e. get off the carparks on the queues in the roads) in the past - of course it's going to take hours to get out of Greenwich, it's going to take hours to get out of the Olympic stadium proper, the swimming centre and all the rest of the games. It takes forever to get out of concerts - it is pretty well to be expected. It's even taken me the best part of an hour to get out of a point to point.

Yes, the Olympics is going to be inconvenient - sort of comes with the lots of spectators, athletes thing involved...

Badminton with its normal number of spectators is "just" acceptable, if you don't mind waiting for 2 horses to go past a jump before you can actually wriggle to the front to see the jump. More, and I would stop going, as you see far less than you do on the TV... Putting 200k spectators into Badminton would not encourage me to go - you'd barely see a horse go past - that's about 10,000 people per fence and about the only place that is possible, even with mini stands, is the lake.