Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[Rachel Mawhood]

Hmmn. Localisation of national issues, obsession, objectivism, bringing in all possible angles, however remotely connected, bit of name dropping.

You've never heard that all politics is local? As for the rest of this paragraph - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I'm not that worked up either way. But as a taxpayer in the UK, I do believe I have as much right to see the Olympics in my capital city

And your rights count more than anyone else's rights? I don't think so.

If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't live there. In fact, if I couldn't cope with other people, I'd make damned well sure I lived in large country estate that I control to my exact demands.

Are you for real? I actually live half an hour's walk from Greenwich Park but life for everyone in Greenwich is going to be massively disrupted, and travelling pretty well insufferable, just for an event that does not have much to do now with sporting excellence. As for recommending living in a large country estate: well, if you have a spare one about your person that you could let me have, that would be most acceptable.

In fact, if it bothered me as much as it does you, I would be buying up cheap properties at auction and combining their gardens so as to create my own park, or campaigning against the taking over by new build housing estates of virtually all building in this country, and the subsequent social problems that policy creates.

What an incredibly dull and limited outlook you seem to have.

There comes a point when obsessive arguing against the national interest becomes sociopathic.

It is not in the national interest to trash an ancient park, destroy rare habitat, threaten protected species, oppress local businesses, close a site that is one of the few places where young people can socialise safely, and deprive people who live in cramped flats of the green and open space. Just so that a handful of people can ride round in circles for 17 days - when they can do that at a more appropriate venue.

 

[Rachel Mawhood]

surely the whole idea of having it there is to site the equestrian sports right in the centre of things, and not out on a limb? And wouldn't it be great if so many people who normally never experience such sports could widen their experience by this choice of venue?

Well, that's the British Equestrian Federation's view - they even portrayed the Park as twice as large as it actually is, in the London Bid, all to get it "in the centre of things". Idiots.

Sadly, some people are never destined to get as much out of their lives as they could do with a slightly more open mind.

You know nothing about me but, from what you have written here, your life and outlook sounds awfully circumscribed - and rather cruel towards others less fortunate than yourself.

 

[Mithras]

You've never heard that all politics is local? As for the rest of this paragraph - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And your rights count more than anyone else's rights? I don't think so.

Are you for real?

etc..

To be honest, you are now beginning to sound like a child who is making up whatever story fits best.

I can't say your replies have convinced me of anything other than your possession of an unfortunate psychological condition.

I am not saying that people with views similar to your own have no credibility. Just that with your obsessive approach, you are actually beginning to be detrimental to their credibility.

 

[teapot]

I had a Greenwich resident at work earlier this week and we got chatting (well I actually asked) about how she felt with regards to the use of the park, it being closed for so long, potential damage etc.

She was very honest and open when she said that 'whilst the damage/potential damage must be contained & controlled in a detailed way, if it means Greenwich gets a lick of paint, some nice publicity on the news, the world's attention on the area then it's a very good thing'. She also went onto say that 'those small number who are determined with their 'NIMBY' approach to protest against the Olympics in the park are being incredibly short sighted'.

I thought it was a very interesting reply...

 

[bseage]

Surely it is not obsessive to consistently present valid reasons why Greenwich Royal Park is not a suitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event. Of course 3DE should be at the centre of the Olympics and being central would mean that it is welcomed by the residents of the area in which it takes place, would leave a lasting legacy for the estimated £64m it will cost, is accessible to a large number of 3DE supporters, does not damage the environment, and is as safe as such a challenge can be for the horses.

Greenwich meets none of these very reasonable requirements. Sailing is at Portland because it needs sea and wind to be a success. Some of the arguments deployed in favour of having 3DE at Greenwich would also, in terms of centrality, support having sailing in the Pool of London part of the Thames which has water and the occasional breeze. But just as sailing needs sea and wind and the sailors have not compromised on this, 3DE needs country and a tried and tested course, but BE, BEF and H&H have chosen to accept a venue that is a very unsatisfactory compromise.

As an owner of an event horse and past eventer, I support those who consistently and as is mainly the case, reasonably, point out that using Greenwich Royal Park for the Olympic 3DE is for many reasons a very bad compromise.

 

[Mithras]

Surely it is not obsessive to consistently present valid reasons why Greenwich Royal Park is not a suitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event. Of course 3DE should be at the centre of the Olympics and being central would mean that it is welcomed by the residents of the area in which it takes place, would leave a lasting legacy for the estimated £64m it will cost, is accessible to a large number of 3DE supporters, does not damage the environment, and is as safe as such a challenge can be for the horses.

I don't think the physical "legacy" is the only part of the legacy effect (itself only a small part of a greater whole) - the number of our Olympic hopefuls who testament to having been inspired to taking up their particular discipline by watching their fellow countrymen competing in person or by just seeing them on tv is huge. I'm thinking of Jenny Meadows, Paula Radcliffe and Jess Ennis, but there are undoubetedly many more.

Rather than being elitist in siting the event in Greenwich, it is surely the opposite. Imagine if even one child watching the event is inspired to take up equestrian sport, even in a non-competitive capacity. That to me, is worth far more than inconveniencing someone's drive to Waitrose.

As an owner of an event horse and past eventer, I support those who consistently and as is mainly the case, reasonably, point out that using Greenwich Royal Park for the Olympic 3DE is for many reasons a very bad compromise.

Any venue is going to be a compromise to some extent though. If you site it somewhere like Badminton, it will be out on a limb and do you really think some of the Olympic nations are capable of going round Badminton safely?

My obsessive comment was directed specifically at Ms Mawhood. I have to say there is something about her posts, and their scattergun, bring anything in, approach that speaks to me of a hatred and despising of anyone who disagrees with her. She lost me early on in her argument in an academic sense when she complained, in one vein, of the elitist aspects of eventing, and in another used Sally Gunnell's parents' planning application refusal as an example of "lack of fair play" - as if the general readership, such as myself, will be swayed by a bit of name dropping, due to our lack of understanding of the subject. I am sure plenty of Joe Bloggs have had their planning applications turned down, so why specifically mention Sally Gunnell's parents?

I actually think people like her are quite harmful for society. She masks her dislike of anyone who disagrees with her opinions behind increasingly strong rhetoric, seemingly based on the notion that he who shouts the loudest wins. I actually find it staringly obvious that she cares not one jot for most of the interests she brings in to support her cause, and I find her rather fake. Her main interest is herself, her own inconvenience and how much she can impose her will on others.

Can I just point out that right now, Glasgow City Centre is closed for the filming of a Brad Pitt zombie film, and has been for the past week? I have heard no adverse comments about it at all. Likewise, Edinburgh City Centre is a nightmare for local residents for the month of August every year - but theres no movement to ban the Edinburgh Festival!

Go to France, The Netherlands, Belgium and you will find towns closed down for local festivals, cycling races, triathlons and so on. It works because the community works together to appreciate the benefits that such minor inconveniences bring. Greenwich doesn't have many of the events that rural life has to bring communities together, and I find it sad that it seems to be represented by people who put their own alleged "right" not to be mildly inconvenienced during a special national event before any national or community benefit.

Its also a very urban view, indicative of a greater loss of culture, that labels equestrian events wrong because they are elitist. On that reckoning, any sporting event is elitist. Yet the social benefits of sport and indeed involvement with animals for the underprivileged are immense. I actually think it is elitist for some big mouthed NIMBY to try to stop it.

Anyway, she misunderstands our history and culture if you think Greenwich Park should be preserved as an environmental icon in its current state, free from any of the influences which shaped its current state over the last centuries. This would be changing its historical function over the last 1200 years - it never has been a sterile, controlled environment, and if it were, dogs would be banned. I'm not even 100% British, but even I am aware that its not a particularly British cultural trait to have sterile parks that never revert to anything but the most sedate, urban usages - we quite like our parks to be practical and useful. Considering horses were used for transport in this country during the majority of its life as a royal park, plenty of horse poos will already have fallen upon it over the years!

 

[bseage]

Its a drenchingly wet day here in Cornwall and I seem to be welded to my computer when I should be outdoors!

We all make our points in different ways and illustrating the absurd inequalities local government produces in its reactions to the views of its residents does tend to indicate that the views of some of the residents of Greenwich are being ignored. I cannot see that there is anything in having the 3DE foisted on them that benefits the people of Greenwich. There will be months of disruption as the course is built and the Park is closed. Afterwards, if the test event is anything to go by, the Park will be left in a damaged state.

But apart from the damage and disruption on the 3 days, the spectators will arrive daily, stay on site, be catered for on site, shop on site and at the end of each day struggle away to their accommodation which is very unlikely to be in Greenwich. I cannot see them putting much money behind the tills of any of the businesses in Greenwich. How could they when they will be kept on site for security reasons and all their needs will be met on site.

The catering on site will be provided by the usual people who already do Badminton, Burghley etc. The trade stands will be Rolex and Armani rather than Greenwich High Street.

I do not question the motives of those who contribute to this debate and as far as I can see, Rachel generally presents arguments supported by facts and the occasional colourful illustration, and why not. I find her arguments supporting the view that Greenwich, for very many reasons, is an unacceptable venue for an Olympic 3DE compelling and will continue to support that view.

What worries me is that the debate is narrowing and all of my eventing chums just accept that Greenwich ( BMX Course, Not the terrain I'd choose, to quote just two of the riders at the test event) is a done deal. That the total lack of legacy, the views of the people of Greenwich, the scope for damage to the park are being ignored by FEI, BE, BEF and H&H is just plain wrong and will in the longer term damage the reputation of Eventing.

So, rock on Rachel. I agree that Greenwich is an unsuitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.

 

[watertray53]

What worries me is that the debate is narrowing and all of my eventing chums just accept that Greenwich ( BMX Course, Not the terrain I'd choose, to quote just two of the riders at the test event) is a done deal. That the total lack of legacy, the views of the people of Greenwich, the scope for damage to the park are being ignored by FEI, BE, BEF and H&H is just plain wrong and will in the longer term damage the reputation of Eventing.

So, rock on Rachel. I agree that Greenwich is an unsuitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.

Bravo bseage! Well said!

 

[Rambo]

What you all seem to be forgetting is that Greenwich is host to ALL the equestrian disciplines....Dressage, Eventing, Showjumping and Modern Pentathlon. All the arguments above seem to concern the 3DE. What you seem to ignore is that the Showjumping (and therefore Modern Pentathlon) and Dressage are completely transportable! The Global Champions Tour moves from major city to major city every couple of weeks. It fits in anywhere. The cross-country phase of the 3DE is a relatively minor

 

[Rambo]

Part of the whole show.

Get over it, the grass will recover, you will get 'your' park back. Someone, somewhere, with greater vision than you has decided that Greenwich is the right venue for the games. Make the most of the opportunity that you have been gifted.

 

[bseage]

Good old RAMBO. 6700 posts, thats around 3 a day since 2005 and I hope they are all as perceptive, understanding and well informed as the last one.

3DE is not a show, its regarded widely as the toughest, comprehensive test of the horse and horsemanship, combining as it does the three disciplines of Dressage, XC and SJ. Sadly, you may be right in that XC is being downgraded by making it shorter and possibly more technical, so that horses that are primarily dressage specialists can do better. But thats a matter for BE.

There is ample evidence ( read back through the many well informed previous posts as I'll not go over lack of legacy, lack of spectator capacity, damage to the Park etc) that Greenwich is totally unsuitable as a venue for Olympic 3DE. Given that there are numerous suitable and tested venues and not that far from London, why accept an unsuitable venue? The answer lies in pressure from FEI, LOCOG and the sponsors who want a spectacular that track and field will never provide.

That anyone should accept a flawed decision with a gallic shrug, no matter how broad the vision of the person making it, is laughable and has to be questioned.

Its also very uncharacteristic of people who own horses to enforce their presence anywhere where they are unwelcome, even if by a small minority, and where their horses are very likely to cause damage.

Greenwich is a very poor and unsuitable venue for the Olympic 3DE. There is time to change the decision.

 

[Mithras]

That anyone should accept a flawed decision with a gallic shrug, no matter how broad the vision of the person making it, is laughable and has to be questioned.

Thats a meaningless comment. You haven't established to any acceptable standard that it is a flawed decision. Certainly you haven't established that legally.

Anyone can claim that anything is unsatisfactory and has problems if they try hard enough.

Greenwich is a very poor and unsuitable venue for the Olympic 3DE. There is time to change the decision.

Again, you simply haven't proved this. Its just your individual viewpoint.

All I've gathered from reading the anti Greenwich comments on here is that it would be even more elitist to hold it somewhere like Badminton and a greater understanding of why Greenwich has been chosen, despite some issues which have been highlighted.

I also don't want to see taxpayer's money being wasted on changing the venue at such a late date and I think it would be inspiring to bring 3 day eventing to the capital city of London. According to you though, my views are worthless and/or misguided, simply because they do not accord with yours.

Good job I'm in the majority then. Note that that would be a relatively silent majority, mainly comprised of people who prefer to spend their lives enjoying and enabling, rather than being negative and thinking up problems.

Rachel Mawhood is proud of using her own name as her username, which makes me wonder if she is using this "cause" partly as a means of making a name for herself. She only posts during working hours, and does so extensively, which makes me wonder whether this forms part of her occupation. Certainly from what I can review of the decisions of the Lands Tribunal, she appears to be one of those people who think they know better than those actually qualified in the particular field and indeed of overstating the severity of alleged problems, but has a history of being overruled when it comes before an independent legally constituted tribunal.

 

[bseage]

Well Mithras what would you call a decision that required expenditure of £64m but produces little in the way of spectator participation, leaves no meaningful legacy, has the capacity to damage the venue, is regarded as less than ideal by some of those who took part in the test event, will do nothing for the economy of Greenwich and will deprive its people of one of their few recreational green spaces, other than FLAWED?

Initially, I felt your input was balanced and informed, but as we go on, you seem to be happy to denigrate the views of others rather than countering with reasoned and balanced argument. Some of us do not feel compelled to accept wrong decisions just because there is pressure to support the Olympic cause. Swallow the FEI, LOCOG, BE & BEF propaganda if you wish, but don't just try to shout down those of us who think the thing through and have valid reasons for claiming that Greenwich is unsuitable as a venue for the Olympic 3DE.

If you can show that the 3DE at Greenwich will have a lasting legacy, will provide massive spectator participation, will be good for businesses in Greenwich and will not damage the Park then do so and convince me.