Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[teapot]

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..

It can take up to 2hrs to leave Badminton after the show jumping has finished and that's in a car, let alone on foot. This is mainly because they only open certain car parks on the final day which all share the same entrance/exit. Same for Hickstead on Derby day. It actually took me close to an hour to get onto a train at Wembley post a Take That concert the other week.

Same issues, different venues.


Interesting with regards to the team member's opinion. Wonder whether different voices would be being raised if the Brits weren't so high up the medal contender list...

 

[cefyl]

Can those of you pushing Badminton tell me why you favour it over say a site with more of the basic infrastructure inplace such as an international all weather arena, more stabling, indoor arenas for working in, the facility for an on site vet clinic, and so on such as one of our good equine colleges? At Badminton their still would be no lasting legacy for the equine "public" as it is privately owned, yet a college would benefit all.

 

[Sleighfarer]

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



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".

Did your colleague ask the Duke of Beaufort if he would like to host the Olympic event? It is a private estate, not a public park.

 

[Wishful]

I'm sure that the XC at Greenwich will be testing - suits us far better than a dressage competition - also much easier to select horses that do well at twisty, hilly CICs as we know now that's what we need. Home field advantage is good.

Having been to Hartbury, it's FAR worse to get to than Badminton or Burghley and why should the taxpayer fund a private, feepaying college over all it's competitors, unless Hartpury (or other college) fancied paying for the legacy facilities.

Can anyone suggest an existing equestrian facility which is hilly, close (5 miles or so) to a train station on a main line, has substantial parking available not within the course area, an international size and standard arena, warm ups and is close to the major road network, but has 3 or 4 different routes to parking areas??? In the UK? I certainly can't think of one...

 

[Zebedee]

Did your colleague ask the Duke of Beaufort if he would like to host the Olympic event? It is a private estate, not a public park.

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out. All major equestrian venues are privately owned (including Windsor Park). There would never be any legacy if the events were held at private venues as it would be seen as investing in an individual property, increasing its value etc.
At least this way Ebony is getting some well needed & deserved support.

I gather also that the main concern of the majority of Greenwich residents (when questioned door to door by a local councillor) was whether or not their bins would still be emptied on time during the Olympic events.

 

[teapot]

I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

At least this way Ebony is getting some well needed & deserved support.

Mudchute - in an Olympic borough - isn't getting any support, despite needing it and being just as deserving. The decision to support Ebony is purely political.

I gather also that the main concern of the majority of Greenwich residents (when questioned door to door by a local councillor) was whether or not their bins would still be emptied on time during the Olympic events.

I think that you must have made that one up. I have never ever heard that "concern" mentioned before. And our councillors are not known for going door to door, even when there is a council election in the offing.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.

Well, whereas Windsor and Badminton are established equestrian venues, in Greenwich Park riding horses is illegal.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

It can take up to 2hrs to leave Badminton after the show jumping has finished and that's in a car, let alone on foot.

In Greenwich, you won't have the option of arriving or leaving by car. You will have to be on foot, using public transport. Whatever the weather. And in the "last mile" - the bit between the railway station and the Park - people will be very vulnerable to terrorist attack. All crowded places will be prime terrorist targets in the summer of 2012.

 

[teapot]

Well, whereas Windsor and Badminton are established equestrian venues, in Greenwich Park riding horses is illegal.

You MUST have a permit to ride in Windsor Great Park, it is not open access. And only the sand based arena is permanent at Windsor, nothing else and it's not Olympic sized by any means. The ground for any form of xc course is shockingly bad too, even where the old 3* course used to be.

Badminton - the only things permanent are the ditches and the stables. The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough. Also, Badminton isn't open to the general public to ride in, and given it's private land, it would be illegal to do so without prior permission from the Duke.

Windsor, Badminton, Burghley, Gatcombe etc etc are established but only in name alone, none of the event related things are permanent. If you want permanent, you would have to go down the equine college route.

 

[Zebedee]

I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.

Sorry - this has dragged on for so long I've forgotten who's already said what - I tend just to dip in from time to time, more in amazement that it's still going than anything else

As for the making things up (as suggested by RM) - nope sorry, not the case.

 

[teapot]

In Greenwich, you won't have the option of arriving or leaving by car. You will have to be on foot, using public transport. Whatever the weather. And in the "last mile" - the bit between the railway station and the Park - people will be very vulnerable to terrorist attack. All crowded places will be prime terrorist targets in the summer of 2012.

All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times. The UK level of security will go up next summer without a doubt (it's only just gone down from the highest level anyway) but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.

 

[Zebedee]

All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times. The UK level of security will go up next summer without a doubt (it's only just gone down from the highest level anyway) but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.

Stop being so logical in the face of such desperate straw clutching

 

[teapot]

Stop being so logical in the face of such desperate straw clutching

Sorry

 

[Orwell]

... in Windsor Great Park The ground for any form of xc course is shockingly bad too, even where the old 3* course used to be.
Badminton ... The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough.

They would have a year to prepare a course. If this can be done at Greenwich, surely it can be done elsewhere? Remember also that the hills in Greenwich Park make it unsuitable; especially when wet. On one slope they have had to resort to a "sandpaper" strip (a 10-15 foot strip of gravel and small stones) to try to ensure that the horses don't slip.

Also, Badminton isn't open to the general public to ride in, and given it's private land, it would be illegal to do so without prior permission from the Duke.

If the BEF asked for his help at a time of crisis, do you think that he would refuse?

 

[Orwell]

Badminton - the only things permanent are the ditches and the stables. The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough.

As you say, it would depend on the Duke, but the legacy could be a much better ground, improved car parking, etc. There could also be a "mobile legacy"; that is, equipment and temporary structures that could be used at any venue (such as display screens, public address systems, and stands).

There would also be the human legacy of, at least, 50,000 more spectators. Many young people who are keen on eventing could be there on the big day.

Then there might be the Olympic legacy. As I have argued before, the best way to keep eventing as an Olympic sport is to show that it can be staged cheaply and that it has a large following. A traditional venue would also offer far more scope to address the universality question; that is, to make it possible for weaker nations to compete credibly.

Again, as I have argued before, Greenwich would fail badly on all of these criteria. It would be (as has already been established) hugely expensive, perceived of as being exclusive, hugely disruptive, destructive, the course would be potentially dangerous and it would be too difficult for emerging equestrian nations. The "victory" of going to Greenwich could result in disaster and would most probably result in eventing being dropped as an Olympic sport.

(I have enjoyed the discussion. Unfortunately I will be unable to respond for a few days.)

 

[Wishful]

Why would Badminton need improved ground off the 4* track?

Greenwich would have the same mobile legacy...

I also don't see how Badminton could be a softer track than Greenwich - it's probably the toughest of the 4*s globally. If Greenwich's terrain is tougher, the fences can be softer but still be a 3.5-4* test. With flat terrain (quite apart from the viewing being worse) the fences have to be tougher to maintain the test.

Burghley's terrain is tougher, but it is seen as more suitable for a first 4* than Badminton.

 

[Sleighfarer]

I think Rachel makes many valid points but the transport argument just doesn't wash. *Everybody* who is travelling in or to London is going to be inconvenienced by the Olympics: there will be VIP-only lanes of traffic in the centre of the city!

London hosts any number of events that involve huge numbers of people trying to get about: football matches (80,000 in the Emirates stadium; even Charlton FC manages to pack in 27,000 people every fortnight); concerts (90,000 at Wembley); political demos (god knows how many).

When the London bombings happened (the day after the successful Olympic bid was announced) I managed to get to work in the morning (the tube bombs went off while I was on my way) and I managed to get home in the evening. That was with the *entire* tube network closed down.

The only time I have felt seriously inconvenienced by anything (and a little frightened too) was when somebody decided it would be a good idea to drive Formula One cars round central London in the late afternoon on a weekday without publicising it properly or providing enough police to manage the crowds. Getting out of Oxford Circus tube station (which should have been closed) was not fun.

 

[teapot]

Why would Badminton need improved ground off the 4* track?

Outside of the Badminton course (which is now pretty much exactly the same blades of grass each year) the ground is rubbish, well maybe not rubbish but the difference is pretty huge. Now they either have the Olympic course exactly on the Badminton course (or vice versa in terms of what would follow what next year) in which you could run the risk of the course not recovering in time post 80 horses on Badminton xc day if the weather was bad or marking out another track around the park.
Preparing a track from scratch in less than a year is a tall order. It's partly why the Grassroutes share most of the same ground, as the going elsewhere is pants.


Think Wishful's right about course standards though, Badminton's seen as the best of the best.

 

[Wishful]

Outside of the Badminton course (which is now pretty much exactly the same blades of grass each year) the ground is rubbish, well maybe not rubbish but the difference is pretty huge. Now they either have the Olympic course exactly on the Badminton course (or vice versa in terms of what would follow what next year) in which you could run the risk of the course not recovering in time post 80 horses on Badminton xc day if the weather was bad or marking out another track around the park.
Preparing a track from scratch in less than a year is a tall order. It's partly why the Grassroutes share most of the same ground, as the going elsewhere is pants.


Think Wishful's right about course standards though, Badminton's seen as the best of the best.

I guess I was wondering why a second track would be a useful legacy- Badminton is hardly going to be able to run a separate event and keeping the deer and the hunt of the other track would probably cause more hassle - so just unsure why having a new track at Badminton would be any more of a legacy than using Greenwich.

 

[teapot]

I guess I was wondering why a second track would be a useful legacy- Badminton is hardly going to be able to run a separate event and keeping the deer and the hunt of the other track would probably cause more hassle - so just unsure why having a new track at Badminton would be any more of a legacy than using Greenwich.

Haha yeah it's a good point! Same goes for Burghley, Chatsworth, Blenheim, Bramham...

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times.

No, that is not true. The Olympic sites are, for obvious reasons, attractive - ie "prime" - targets for all terrorists: global tv coverage, maximum publicity for their cause, etc.

but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.

I don't want to use this forum to suggest ideas to terrorists for how to blow up Greenwich. But you are wrong. There are zillions of opportunities for terrorists in Greenwich that have been DESIGNED OUT of the purpose-built stadia. If you want to know more, you will have to send me a private message.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

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.

Re Beas River, here are two excerpts from a thread on this H&H forum of nearly three years ago:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=192491

there is not enough room to house everything there [in Greenwich Park],(beas river 92 acres, park 180 ish but Hong Kong xc course only 8 minutes and NOTHING else was held there)

At Sha Tin Racecourse there was seating for 18,000 in the grandstands, 13 schooling arenas, gallops for fast work, state of the art stabling, and the racecourse veterinary hospital. Greenwich is starting from scratch and is expected to find room for everything: cross country course, main arena, schooling and warm-up areas, stabling for over 200 horses (based on this year's numbers), storage facilities for show jumps, tractors, levelling and raking equipment, media facilities, veterinary and first aid sites and a drainage system to be constructed. You only have to look at the Environmental Impact Assessment Report of 2005 put together for the Hong Kong Jockey Club to realise the enormity of the site at Sha Tin, which is far greater than was visible on television. I fail to understand how Greenwich can accommodate a fraction of this, and erase all trace of it afterwards.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

http://www.timeout.com/london/gallery/1310/seb-coe-on-the-2012-olympic-and-paralympic-games

Lord Coe omits to say that Greenwich Council set more than 42 planning conditions, that LOCOG are driving the proverbial coach-and-four through these conditions, that LOCOG found Thames Water's conditions "too complicated" to fulfil so tried a "creative" approach that resulted in their running out of water at the Test Event; and, last but not least, LOCOG organised a horse-riding event in Greenwich Park where horse-riding is a Prohibited Act (ie unlawful).

Note that his answer to the question about the legacy is not actually a response to the question.

 

[LCH611]

No, that is not true. The Olympic sites are, for obvious reasons, attractive - ie "prime" - targets for all terrorists: global tv coverage, maximum publicity for their cause, etc.



.

So to that end it doesn't matter where the event is sited, it is still going to be a prime target?

I went to Greenwich for the test event & came away not completely convinced - but then I am not overjoyed that the Olympics are here anyway as I don't think that we can afford the massive debt that we will undoubtedly be left with. However, putting that to one side the reality is that we have got the Olympics in London so we might as well embrace the positives!

It was many pages back, but I entirely agree with whichever poster suggested that Rachel Mawhood had alienated potential support. I admire campaigning zeal but unfortunately the tone of the posts has rather rubbed me up the wrong way and I have therefore given more time to considering the opposing camp than I thought I would! Hosting the Olympics is going to cost an eye-watering amount of money (and I am sure that many disciplines are experiencing the same mounting costs) & I am not keen that even more is spent trying to fast-track a 4 year process i nto less than 12 months.

It isn't just Greenwich residents that are going to be inconvenienced by the Olympics - for example there is already a radio campaign advertising the disruption that will be caused by some test cycling event & preparations thereafter. To a greater or lesser extent everyone who lives and works in London is going to be inconvenienced at some point during the next 12 months, but ***** happens, the world won't stop turning, there will still be famine in the Africa & calamitous events closer to home.

As a UK resident aren't I also a stakeholder Greenwich Park? Why should it be purely up to local residents to have a view about what takes place there? Why is turf & wildlife in other parts of the country any less important than that of Greenwich? Presumably it would be subject to the same kind of negative impact, so isn't it pure NIMBYism to push it elsewhere? Isn't there also a view that environmental change fosters the evolution of species (am thinking back to O level days & that moth that cunningly adapted to deal firstly with pollution & then changed its colouring back again when its environs became less polluted)? Who knows what future generations may be looking at as a result of fundamental changes that will apparently be made to the habitat in Greenwich park.

In short we can blather on all we like about what it should or shouldn't be at the Olympics, but the die is cast & those with campaigning energy to spare might like to put their efforts into other more worthy causes.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

So to that end it doesn't matter where the event is sited, it is still going to be a prime target?

Yes. Now ask yourself: is it responsible to site your prime terrorist target within a densely populated (residential) area.

As a UK resident aren't I also a stakeholder Greenwich Park? Why should it be purely up to local residents to have a view about what takes place there?

Are you a Park user? Nope? Is your buildings insurance going to go through the roof next year just because the Park has been turned into a prime terrorist target? Nope. There's your answer.

Why is turf & wildlife in other parts of the country any less important than that of Greenwich?

You are not paying attention - Greenwich Park is a Conservation Area of national importance.

Presumably it would be subject to the same kind of negative impact, so isn't it pure NIMBYism to push it elsewhere?

What - NIMBYism to push it to a venue that is not a Conservation Area, a World Heritage Site, and where there would some chance of leaving a legacy for UK equestrian sport out of that £60 million and counting?

Isn't there also a view that environmental change fosters the evolution of species

Not if those species are dead, no.

(am thinking back to O level days & that moth that cunningly adapted to deal firstly with pollution & then changed its colouring back again when its environs became less polluted)?

That was adaptation to gradual change.

Who knows what future generations may be looking at as a result of fundamental changes that will apparently be made to the habitat in Greenwich park.

We already have a pretty clear idea of what the result of the fundamental changes will be. Loss of rare acid grassland, loss of a "stronghold" of the stag beetle (a Protected species), and possibly loss of bats. LOCOG's behaviour re the bats has been particularly repulsive. Also, more than 10 per cent of the trees in Greenwich Park have had branches cut off that would not in normal circumstances have been cut off, just to accommodate LOCOG's construction vehicles. Other trees have been severely damaged by the construction/course maintenance vehicles travelling too close. Some trees don't survive that sort of treatment but LOCOG has no plans to replace any trees that die as a result of their "development".

In short we can blather on all we like about what it should or shouldn't be at the Olympics, but the die is cast & those with campaigning energy to spare might like to put their efforts into other more worthy causes.

The counsel of despair. That's what LOCOG would love you to believe. For us, at the moment, there is no more worthy local cause than expelling LOCOG from Greenwich Park. They have no right to be there at all.

 

[LCH611]

hmmm, that will be the patronising attitude that I mentioned earlier than Rachel!

The whole Olympic games will take place in a densely populated residental area - London. I can't see how it isn't NIMBYism to be trying to push the threat of terrorism (and if I recall from your numerous posts you think that an advantage of moving to an alternate site would be to enhance the visitor numbers and make the event more dense with people?), and the rise in insurance costs to an area that you don't happen to live in?

How on earth are you able to comment on whether I am a park user at present, or whether I may intend to become a park user in the future if I decide to come back post-Olympic games because I liked the venue so much?

You don't seem to understand that Greenwich Park is not the only Conservation Area in the country & plenty of events take place in such places without all this bleating and hoo-haa. We have an annual world-class event that happens near us and conceivably could be viewed as a massive PITA for those that are trying to go about their business as the transport routes are woefully inadequate. Alternatively it can be viewed as a positive and an opportunity to see people enjoying themselves, benefitting the local economy and continuing our heritage and tradition.

It would be hard to imagine a use of a landscape that is more at odds with what usually happens there, then Glastonbury, but grass regrows (as it is wont to do), and animals continue to reproduce - especially when they have vigilant guardians that will do all they can to encourage optimum conditions to be reinstated - and life goes on.

I find it extremely hard to believe that any species is going to die out as a result of the Olympic horse trials. Nor can I get overly excited about some judicious pruning of branches - I find it far sadder to see a magnificient old tree that has been struck by lightning, or simply lost a bough because it has become too heavy. Actually on that note I am sure that under H&S grounds given that it is a public space, there must be an ongoing programme of maintenance to ensure that heavy branches are lopped off before they fall on the heads of the many 1000s of people that use the park each day? Has the indigenous wildlife population suffered a terminal decline as a result, or has it managed to weather the storm has it has done for many 100s of years? My point about the moth is that it is wrong to assume that species aren't capable of adapting to change - even aggressive change.

I would be surprised if all park users were as attuned to the needs of the local wildlife as you are and conceivably a significant number of them also do damage/cause destruction by climbing trees, leaving litter and so on?

In my view your points about legacy are less convincing than those in the opposite camp (and that was previously my prime objection to using Greenwich).

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

You believe what you want, you are obviously going to, anyway. There is too much speculation and false premise (eg about how the Park is managed) in your post for me to deal with all of it.

Park users climbing on trees? Doesn't happen because if they did, they could be prosecuted. The Met police the Park.

Heavy branches lopped off before they fall on people? No, of course not. Every tree is recorded on a tree schedule, with its state of health. Many trees can continue to carry their heavy branches safely for hundreds of years. If LOCOG isn't around.

As for your comparing Greenwich Park with the fields in Glastonbury ...

 

[bseage]

I feel my previous comment of 'So, for an ego trip for Coe who wants a spectacular in London, to ensure eventing remains an olympic event, to please the sponsors, and to give their riders a chance of a medal, horses will have to compete at a totally unsuitable venue from which there will be no lasting legacy for Greenwich or London' remains very relevant.

The test event was not a success in that it failed on all counts to replicate the conditions that will prevail on the day.

The horses will have to complete a 'BMX' course of 5700 metres over 40 jumps and requiring 3 ascents and descents of Greenwich Hill which has a 20% gradient. And if its a wet day it would be highly dangerous.

Event riders get killed depressingly frequently but they have the choice to compete or not. The horses often get damaged though fatalities are rare, but this unsuitable course on a wet day when the pressure from LOCOG and the sponsors is there to compete and win will greatly endanger the horses.

Who is representing them?

 

[LCH611]

Park users climbing on trees? Doesn't happen because if they did, they could be prosecuted. The Met police the Park.

Heavy branches lopped off before they fall on people? No, of course not. Every tree is recorded on a tree schedule, with its state of health. Many trees can continue to carry their heavy branches safely for hundreds of years. If LOCOG isn't around.

As for your comparing Greenwich Park with the fields in Glastonbury ...

Please don't tell me that every small boy shimmying up a tree is prosecuted! And of course the threat of prosecution is absolutely enough to deter it from happening..........What kind of heritage is that for our children to enjoy? Or is our countryside in your view something to be looked at rather than to interact with? I would far rather that the Met Police were out dealing with the heavy terrorist threat than prosecuting those deprived inner-city children that rely on the park for their access to the countryside, because they are climbing trees.

I am aware of how tree schedules operate, and if there is a dangerous branch in a public place you would have no otion but to lop it off. Of course trees are capable of supporting heavy branches, but frequently those heavy branches become dangerous - which is a problem in a public place. Unless there is somehow a dispensation because the life of a tree is more precious than anyone who may be passing underneath it at the wrong moment? I am sure that the tree schedule will provide an accurate record of all tree surgery that has been carried out in the park and with the detailed information that you have about the wildlife species you will presumably be able to track the impact that it has had?

The Glastonbury reference was to set your mind at rest about the ability of nature to regenerate even in adverse conditions.