Olympic test event- reactions to the XC

[bseage]

Glastonbury is a farm and Greenwich is a Royal Park. It is one of very few green open spaces accessible to the public in London. It has huge historic significance. And it is illegal for LOCOG to do what it is doing in closing the park and allowing the riding of horses in the park. At Glastonbury, the farmer will easily roll and reseed any damaged pasture and it will be back to normal in a matter of months. This would not be the case at Greenwich as it is not ordinary farm land.

But all this is immaterial compared to the dangers posed to event horses by the course and even more so if its a wet day as LOCOG would not allow it to be cancelled, would they?

So who speaks for the horses?

 

[Wishful]

Think there were contingency plans for Hong Kong (wet aka monsoon/tropical storms).

But, how exactly will it be "dangerous" if it gets a bit wet... Full on drenchings are not particularly common on London - most of the rain hits the rest of the country first.

Point to points and eventing both seem to me to have more serious accidents in "perfect" conditions than in major mudfests. Riders tend to notice the mud and ride more carefully, but will be more gung ho on perfect going. Horse events tend to cancel due to mud due to the emergency vehicles being unable to get around rather than the going being unsafe for the horses.

I'm also pretty certain of seeing videos of eventers coping with steep hills in the past (steeper than Greenwich).

As for terrorism concerns, a largely car free event will be far safer than one where cars need to be brought on site. It's a lot easier to check people than cars, and cynically you can't carry anywhere near as much explosive on your person as in a car...

 

[teapot]

I'm also pretty certain of seeing videos of eventers coping with steep hills in the past (steeper than Greenwich)..

Jerez, Sydney are two that spring to mind...

 

[bseage]

Its speed that kills and usually in eventing horses are going relatively slowly. Not so when an Olympic medal is at stake.

If the going is bad at any horse event be it a PTP or a 3 Day Event can be cancelled or postponed as was the case at Long Leat a few weeks back. But with the pressure of LOCOG, the desire of Coe to have his spectacular, the drive of the riders to get a medal and the investment by the sponsors at stake would this apply to an Olympic 3 day Event?

I don't think so. Fox Pitt described it as a BMX course in the dry, over just 19 fences and with just 1 ascent and descent of Greenwich hill.

Not fair on the horses when its 5700 metres, 40 fences and 3 times up and down the hill. For the smaller countries with less well prepared horses and less experienced riders it will be more dangerous.

 

[LCH611]

Its speed that kills and usually in eventing horses are going relatively slowly. Not so when an Olympic medal is at stake.

If the going is bad at any horse event be it a PTP or a 3 Day Event can be cancelled or postponed as was the case at Long Leat a few weeks back. But with the pressure of LOCOG, the desire of Coe to have his spectacular, the drive of the riders to get a medal and the investment by the sponsors at stake would this apply to an Olympic 3 day Event?

I don't think so. Fox Pitt described it as a BMX course in the dry, over just 19 fences and with just 1 ascent and descent of Greenwich hill.

Not fair on the horses when its 5700 metres, 40 fences and 3 times up and down the hill. For the smaller countries with less well prepared horses and less experienced riders it will be more dangerous.

Actually it isn't speed that kills, it is rotational falls and speed is not always a determining factor in those - as evidenced at a recent local PC show where a competitor had a ghastly rotational and ended up in critical care jumping a very small plastic show jump.
Horse trials are cancelled when the going is deemed to be unsafe and it is not possible to get paramedic & emergency cover to every fence. It is hard to believe that there won't be contingencies in place to ensure that emergency care can be provided instantly.

I think you would be well advised to go and watch hunting folk coping with all manner of muddy conditions & hills perfectly happily, and there is no reason to suppose that we will have those muddy conditions in London, in July. Yes, horses will need to be fit to do the best possible job, but equally racehorses, hunters & riding school horses also need to be fit to do the job that is required of them, so I simply don't see what all the drama is about!

Is Rachel going to come back on under her original identity & deal with my points about trees and enjoyment of the countryside ?

I am sure that Michael Eavis puts in plenty of effort to reinstate his land, but I can assure you that my paddocks that get trashed in really bad weather, receive minimal care & come back to produce sufficient grass for a hay crop.


I also think that London is comparatively well served by Royal Parks & open green spaces

 

[bseage]

Well, LCH611, I rarely defend my comments but:

I am not in the least concerned about the safety of riders, though I have huge sympathy for those who get injured and the families of those who get injured or killed in any equine sport. After all, the rider has the choice to compete or not and having decided to compete accepts the objective dangers that decision implies. Horses have no voice in the decision and fortunately, though quite a few are injured in eventing, few have been killed. My concern is that horses should compete on a suitable and appropriately testing course. That is not Greenwich.

My horse competed in BE100 at Longleat on Friday 17 June, which was a drizzly sort of day with slowly deteriorating going. It was fun, testing, presented some challenging obstacles and the horse coped well. There was a bit more rain overnight resulting in the novice and intermediate classes on Saturday being cancelled because of the going, but as it dried out the CIC continued on the Sunday. Cancelling the novice and intermediate had nothing to do with the problems of getting medical cover to the fences. 4X4 ambulances and if necessary the air ambulance were available. The organisers were concerned about the safety of the horses when they made that decision. Horse safety is correctly a major concern. Longleat is a much smoother and rounder course and less steep than that planned for Greenwich. In the dry Greenwich will be a BMX course and in the wet it would be lethal.

Far from watching hunting folk, I am one and have hunted since 1963 and with the Brecon, The Border, The Fife, The Western, The Dartmoor, Bolventor Harriers, Spooners & West to name just a few of the 40 odd hunts I've subscribed to or have had bye days with. I have owned 3 pointers, been a PtP rider for a couple of seasons and have had event horses for the past 30 years. I'm not precious about horses, but I do believe that a competition must be fair to the horses taking part in it. For the fit, experienced event horses with experienced riders Greenwich will be a difficult challenge in the dry. But it will be well beyond the competence of horses from the lesser and emerging eventing countries.

Paddocks, yours, mine or those at Glastonbury are not Greenwich Park. Greenwich Park is a historically important international heritage site with a need to be protected. Closing the Park to the public and riding horses there are actually forbidden expressly by an Act of Parliament which is being ignored by LOCOG.

By the way, using your own hay from your paddocks for your own horses is very poor horse management. Would you munch your way through cornflakes produced from cereals from ground fertilised by your droppings? So sell off your hay and buy in hay from a nearby farmer who has mixed grazing on his fields. ( Just thought you may appreciate a bitchy, irritating, patronising but in this instance totally accurate comment!)

I lived at Greenwich for a year in the mid 70's. A fantastic place and I was fortunate that summer to be able to run around Greenwich Park and Blackheath. I was training for the London Marathon. Greenwich hill is a super heart and lungs work out, but I never saw it as a possible 3 day event venue. It was brilliant to see how much it is used evenings and weekends by people longing for a green haven in a busy city.

Greenwich is not a suitable or safe venue and is only being used because Coe wants a London spectacular that track and field, swimming etc will never provide. The decision on Greenwich and to stick with it despite a very inconclusive test event on which the negative comments were not fully reported, is driven by Coe and the sponsors. Would they cancel it on a wet day if the going was deteriorating? I don't think so. That there will be no legacy for Greenwich, London or eventing and that so few people will be able to see it live are also considerations but unimportant when compared with horse safety and providing a fair challenge.

So LCH611 who is speaking for the horses?

 

[LCH611]

I can assure you that getting paramedic cover round the course is one of the prime considerations (and I know that for a fact because I run a BE event) as taking the cavalier attitude of not being "the least concerned about the safety of riders" is not one that is universally shared!

You are quite correct that horse safety is an important priority and those same expert opinions will be applied to Greenwich. You may think that they won't make changes/pull fences if the going becomes dangerous but that is a huge gamble & given that you make the case that it is all to do with profile, it is hard to believe that the powers that be would not do so in the face of a potentially cataclysmic accident that could have been prevented.

I also think it is very arrogant to assume that emerging nations will have horses that are completely underprepared - some of those nations have riders that are already on the circuit here and I am sure that they won't thank you for being so condescending about their ability to get a horse fit. Perhaps you have already seen the cross country course plans? Or are you just making an assumption that the course will run vertically up & down the hill as opposed to across the face of it?

Thank you for your top tip about making hay........ but I am happy to report that my horses & ponies all thrive on the hay I provide them with & in fact eat in in preference to hay that either my farmer or local hay supplier provides. (I wonder by the way how you have managed to conclude that I don't have mixed grazing, or is it just a general tendency to seize upon a comment and extrapolate it to the nth degree so that you can pronounce upon it with great authority?) In your view Greenwich is not a suitable or safe view and I can see that you believe that passionately, but unfortunately just because you believe it does not make it incontrovertible fact.

 

[bseage]

But, the riders decide to take part and so accept the objective dangers of so doing and thus the possibility of being injured. The horses cannot decide and so riders have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger them. Accepting Greenwich, which is 'not the terrain I would choose' to quote a 6 times Australian Olympian who took part in the test event, endangers the horses.

As you will know, there is always pressure to not cancel an event, no matter what the conditions. Will the organisers really face up to LOCOG and the Sponsors if the going gets even marginal? I'm not convinced that they would.

Greenwich Hill has a 20% gradient in the area between the National Maritime Museum and the crest of the ridge at the Observatory. Much of the face of the hill is crossed with drives and paths that run parallel to the meridian. This will make crossing the face of the hill difficult. Look at your own BE Course, and envisage galloping across the face of a 20% gradient on a wet day with all the pressure olympic competition implies.

LCH611, how did you surmise that I had not hunted? Jumping to conclusions is not your sole preserve. My point being that we need reasoned arguments here and not patronising comments.

However, I feel you also are very concerned about the safety of the horses, so do take a trip to Greenwich, walk the ground and consider if a 5700 metre course with 40 obstacles and three trips up and down the hill would be fair to the horses, and what it may be like in wet or marginal conditions. And particularly when there are many suitable venues in England and not that far from London.

Best wishes and happy hunting bseage

 

[LCH611]

But, the riders decide to take part and so accept the objective dangers of so doing and thus the possibility of being injured. The horses cannot decide and so riders have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger them. Accepting Greenwich, which is 'not the terrain I would choose' to quote a 6 times Australian Olympian who took part in the test event, endangers the horses.

As you will know, there is always pressure to not cancel an event, no matter what the conditions. Will the organisers really face up to LOCOG and the Sponsors if the going gets even marginal? I'm not convinced that they would.

Greenwich Hill has a 20% gradient in the area between the National Maritime Museum and the crest of the ridge at the Observatory. Much of the face of the hill is crossed with drives and paths that run parallel to the meridian. This will make crossing the face of the hill difficult. Look at your own BE Course, and envisage galloping across the face of a 20% gradient on a wet day with all the pressure olympic competition implies.

LCH611, how did you surmise that I had not hunted? Jumping to conclusions is not your sole preserve. My point being that we need reasoned arguments here and not patronising comments.

However, I feel you also are very concerned about the safety of the horses, so do take a trip to Greenwich, walk the ground and consider if a 5700 metre course with 40 obstacles and three trips up and down the hill would be fair to the horses, and what it may be like in wet or marginal conditions. And particularly when there are many suitable venues in England and not that far from London.

Best wishes and happy hunting bseage

It will be interesting to see whether that same Olympian decides to withdraw himself from selection, or whether with a vast fund of experience to call upon he decides it isn't "unsafe & unsuitable"............

I do believe that the team responsible will make the right decision if the ground gets dangerous - if only because it is a far worse option to be the team responsible for making a decision that results in a fatality/critical injury that it is to be responsible for the disappointment & controversy that goes with cancelling an event.

I jumped to the conclusion that you did not hunt as you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on steep hills & wet conditions underfoot and the fact that is a "lethal" combination. I would have thought that with your hunting experience you would have seen that people do seem to manage to gallop and jump perfectly happily in those conditions and the vast majority of people doing so have far less impressive horsepower and riding skill than the eventers that will be tackling this course. Riding is a high risk sport and it is a calculated risk. You are absolutely right that horses don't get a chance to decide not to event, PTP or whatever else they are expected to do, but by and large top event horses have a pretty happy life and there are plenty of horses and ponies that are expected to endure far more testing conditions/miserable lives.

A local BE course has an especially steep hill to navigate down, up and back down again and its Spring event can be subject to dreadfully wet conditions, and yet I am not aware that there have every been any "nasties" nor does it put people off as it is always very full.

I have been to Greenwich, I was there for the test event. If I had the choice of anywhere in the UK to stage an event it wouldn't be my first choice, but given the compelling reasons listed by others on this thread in favour of holding the event there, I simply don't see that it is the disaster you are making it out to be.

Happy hunting to you too

 

[Orwell]

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!

I don't think that being upset by Rachel's forthrightness and zeal is a good reason to support holding the events in Greenwich Park. What matters is not personalities, but getting the right venue. In particular, what matters is that we get the reasons for and against holding the events in Greenwich Park clear.

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?

Greenwich Park is a national treasure, the greatest Baroque landscape in Britain (until Locog got hold of it), a landscape that has been enclosed for six hundred years, an archeological time capsule, etc. At this level you do have a stake in the Park and you have a duty to protect it which you seem careless of.

Greenwich Park is also part of a World Heritage Site; along with the Old Royal Naval College (designed by Wren) and the Queen's House (designed by Inigo Jones). The World's prime meridian runs through the Park and millions of visitors from all over the world come visit the site each year. At this level the Park belongs to the World. We all have a duty to ensure that visitors see it at its best. This year they have been badly abused. For example, about 1 million visitors to the National Maritime Museum will have have gone on to the Observatory this summer. In doing so they will have had to make a long and unpleasant detour around the Competition Area (in place for three months), and everywhere their view of the World Heritage Site has has been obstructed by miles of ugly fencing. They came to enjoy a beautiful spectacle and we have treated them to a building site. We should all feel ashamed of this. Worse still, next year Locog plans to close the whole Park for four weeks.

Greenwich Park is also an important local Park (for Greenwich residents and those who regularly visit from all over south east London). Some of them can go elsewhere. Others will find it difficult. This would be apparent to you if you walked in the Park regularly. Think of mothers with babies and small children living in small flats with no access to gardens, think old-age pensioners going for a stroll or sitting on a bench in the sunshine, think of dog walkers, think of joggers, think of school visits, think of sunbathers, etc. At this level you have no stake in the Park, but if you have a social conscience, then you should care about the terrible impact on all of these people of sweeping them into a small part of their park, or closing it for four weeks at the height of summer largely so that XC riders can ride around it once.

 

[Orwell]

I think you would be well advised to go and watch hunting folk coping with all manner of muddy conditions & hills perfectly happily, and there is no reason to suppose that we will have those muddy conditions in London, in July.

It is perfectly possible that there will be prolonged and torrential rain in Greenwich Park next year. There was this year, beginning just a couple of days after the Test Event.

Heavy rain would eliminate the much-vaunted views and would make the course dangerous: the steep slopes are bad enough when dry and they become slippery when wet.

It seems to me that there is an admission of this in the case of the "Canary Wharf" jump (the jump that stood/will stand on the lawn next to the Observatory). The course then continues straight down the hill through an area covered by trees. The course designers have had to lay a special "sandpaper" surface here consisting of compacted gravel and large stone chips in order to give the horses sufficient footing. But a horse falling on this surface would be badly hurt, as would a rider.

 

[teapot]

This year they have been badly abused. For example, about 1 million visitors to the National Maritime Museum will have have gone on to the Observatory this summer. In doing so they will have had to make a long and unpleasant detour around the Competition Area (in place for three months)

Sorry but I was in Greenwich the weekend after the test event, and actually walked up from Maritime Museum to the Observatory and then back down to the old college. Ok, so the walk was a little longer than it would normally have taken but I didn't find it unpleasant. The park was busy (was a beautiful sunny warm saturday) and friend and I sat along the way in many of the places located near to the fenced off areas and we didn't hear ONE word of complaint from passers by who were obviously heading to the blocked off routes. Instead it was 'ohh we'll just go this way instead' or quite a bit of 'ohh so this is where it's going to be, can't believe it's next year' and went on their merry way. You can't tell me that everyone we saw walking in the park were ignorant tourists who didn't know any better, there was many many mums out together with little kids who one assumes were local. One person I spoke to who was a local was more concerned about the logistics behind lorries and getting horses in and out. She had had no idea the test event had been and gone by the Saturday, and whilst surprised how much was fenced off, didn't say or seem inconvenienced in anyway. She was far more interested in the actual event.

Ok yeah, the view from the top of hill overlooking the city was partly inconvenienced by the fencing but I got over that, as the location and view is still fantastic.

I've walked through Windsor Great Park when parts have been blocked off. In fact it happens at least once every year at Smiths Lawn for the BE event as the course runs up to around and onwards from the Obelisk. There's a playground about 3 steps from that monument which they shut during the BE event, and I highly doubt the residents of Windsor, Staines, Egham and Sunningdale moan about the inconvenience. And trust me, there are very few green safe areas in that part of Surrey, away from the park, or in walking distance.

 

[Orwell]

Sorry but I was in Greenwich the weekend after the test event, and actually walked up from Maritime Museum to the Observatory and then back down to the old college. Ok, so the walk was a little longer than it would normally have taken but I didn't find it unpleasant.

As I walk in the park regularly I can report many who have found the detour unpleasant or too long to bother with. Do you know what the Park is like without the Competition Area? Visitors can walk along a tree-lined avenue directly to the foot of the Observatory hill, while enjoying the wonderful views across the laws and the tranquility of the Park.

One person I spoke to who was a local was more concerned about the logistics behind lorries and getting horses in and out. She had had no idea the test event had been and gone by the Saturday, and whilst surprised how much was fenced off, didn't say or seem inconvenienced in anyway. She was far more interested in the actual event.

If she had no idea that the test event had been and gone, I suggest that she was not a regular park user.

Ok yeah, the view from the top of hill overlooking the city was partly inconvenienced by the fencing but I got over that, as the location and view is still fantastic.

Do you remember the fencing all of the way up the hill, making the narrow congested path into a tunnel? Presumably that was there for security reasons. But it destroyed the view for months. Do you know that there are other paths up the hill which visitors often choose but couldn't because either they were closed or they were hidden behind miles of ugly fencing; again for months.

I've walked through Windsor Great Park when parts have been blocked off.

As I have said before when talking about the London Marathon, it is a matter of appropriateness. Closing part of the Part for half a day with two weeks of disturbance is perfectly acceptable. The closure of large parts of the Park for prolonged periods this year and next are not an appropriate use of any public park, let alone a special one like Greenwich Park.

There is no need to use the Park for the equestrian events, and no possible justification for doing so. It might have seemed like a "neat" idea to hold an essentially rural event in the middle of a city. But it should quickly have become apparent that it is a bad idea. To persist with it regardless of reason is a form of madness.

In a letter to a local paper, Janet Sweet of Blackheath says:

The Test Events catered for less than one-tenth of the spectators and fewer competitors than are proposed for next year and it is to be hoped that LOCOG now see how unsuitable Greenwich Park and Blackheath are for a large-scale equestrian event. There is no shame in a change of mind.

GT (Greenwich Time), July 26 2011, p.4.

 

[LCH611]

Think of mothers with babies and small children living in small flats with no access to gardens, think old-age pensioners going for a stroll or sitting on a bench in the sunshine, think of dog walkers, think of joggers, think of school visits, think of sunbathers, etc. At this level you have no stake in the Park, but if you have a social conscience, then you should care about the terrible impact on all of these people of sweeping them into a small part of their park, or closing it for four weeks at the height of summer largely so that XC riders can ride around it once.

Gosh Orwell, you do sound strikingly like Rachel Mawhead when you post!

I think those demographic groups that you are referring to are exactly the sort of people that deserve to have a chance to see the excitement of horse trials - especially as they are unlikely to have witnessed any such thing before. The BEST thing about the test event in my view was the enthusiasm of the local schoolchildren who seemed to LOVE it.

In terms of social conscience I'm afraid that mine is rather more occupied by the famine in Africa and the dreadful plight of mothers having to choose to leave their babies behind to die as they trudge off to try & find food, as opposed to people who may have to take a bit of a detour, but will get to see some interesting sights along the way.

 

[badattitude]

Full on drenchings are not particularly common on London - most of the rain hits the rest of the country first.
...

Until this point I thought your arguments, although somewhat naive, were well argued but sadly you have displayed ignorance here. Full on drenchings are as common in London as in many other parts of the south east and to make the park a bog will only require a week or two of steady rain. Luckily recent summers have not been so wet but that may or may not continue.
If there is a wet summer, the park will be irreversibly damaged because it has been an enclosed more or less protected space for 600 years. A someone said, 'a time capsule'. If the park is really to expect 50'000 people on xc day the damage to plants, grass and wildlife may never be rectified. And please do not quote Beas River or other event/festival sites because non of them has been relatively undisturbed for 600 years. The organisers are most likely quite sincere in their promises to make the park as it was but they do not actually know if they can becaue the circumstances cannot be replicated to test. That should be obvious to anyone if they actually think about it.

 

[Wishful]

Until this point I thought your arguments, although somewhat naive, were well argued but sadly you have displayed ignorance here. Full on drenchings are as common in London as in many other parts of the south east and to make the park a bog will only require a week or two of steady rain. Luckily recent summers have not been so wet but that may or may not continue.

I will admit that I used to think that London got pretty wet, compared with East Anglian mizzle, then I moved to the west country and encountered rain that can take ground from "good" to "bog" in 35 minutes, which I never came across in London. Most of the coats that were perfectly serviceable in London have been retired due to not actually keeping the Devon rain out on at least 1 occasion...

I accept that a few wet weeks will make the ground wet (but this won't be a sudden problem and contingency plans are far easier to make with a bit of warning) but the ridiculous, can't see with wipers on full at 20mph type thing is much rarer the further East you go.

 

[henryhorn]

bseage I have only skimmed through this post but feel I must take you to task re your hay comments, it's pefectly possible to make good hay off fields you also graze, we rest ours from October or November until after the haylage is cut in July, how you can claim that would make the hay ground horsesick is beyond me !
I do feel Greenwich is a totally unsuitable venue for many reasons, most of which others have said previously.
If they can hold the sailing in Weymouth why on earth couldn't they hold the equestrian events out of London?
I am particularly disappointed in Mr Coe (no he doesn't deserve Lord) because unless my memory is playing tricks hasn't he been married to a top event rider and will have inside knowledge of what is required to stage a 4 * competition?
If he displayed so little interest or understanding in the equestrian interests of his former wife during their marriage no wonder it went t***s up...

 

[Orwell]

Gosh Orwell, you do sound strikingly like Rachel Mawhead when you post!

I take that as a compliment, but I can assure you that I am not Rachel Mawhood. If we sound the same at times it's probably because we are talking about the same realities.

I think those demographic groups that you are referring to are exactly the sort of people that deserve to have a chance to see the excitement of horse trials - especially as they are unlikely to have witnessed any such thing before. The BEST thing about the test event in my view was the enthusiasm of the local schoolchildren who seemed to LOVE it.

I agree that the schoolchildren did have a good day out. But they usually do when the come to Greenwich Park. They usually have sports days and picnics on the Main Lawns and play in the valley between the Observatory and One tree Hill. They have been unable to do this this year and will be unable to do so next year also if the events are not moved. Moreover, the children who were admitted to the Test Events could easily have been taken on coaches to Windsor, or somewhere similar, to witness horse trials. This would have avoided months of disruption and the waste of tens of millions of pounds.

The people who I observed watching the Test Events through the fences seemed to show no more than a passing interest. Most watched one or two riders pass and then continued about their business. And, of course, very few of the tickets to the Olympic events will go to local people.

In terms of social conscience I'm afraid that mine is rather more occupied by the famine in Africa and the dreadful plight of mothers having to choose to leave their babies behind to die as they trudge off to try & find food as opposed to people who may have to take a bit of a detour, but will get to see some interesting sights along the way.

Well it is possible to be concerned about both a famine in Africa and the abuse of a public park in this country. On Monday I saw an old man driving one of those disabled carts around the Competition Area. He and his elderly wife did not seem pleased by the "interesting sights" that it offered.

Public parks are an essential part of urban life. Greenwich Park has been open to the public, all year round, since 1820. It should remain so.

 

[cefyl]

I do feel Greenwich is a totally unsuitable venue for many reasons, most of which others have said previously.
If they can hold the sailing in Weymouth why on earth couldn't they hold the equestrian events out of London?
I am particularly disappointed in Mr Coe (no he doesn't deserve Lord) because unless my memory is playing tricks hasn't he been married to a top event rider and will have inside knowledge of what is required to stage a 4 * competition?
If he displayed so little interest or understanding in the equestrian interests of his former wife during their marriage no wonder it went t***s up...

I made the point about Weymouth a few pages ago. And of course the traffic problems are creating already a huge problem there for residents, one road in and one road out through a heavily poulated area, no near motorway network. Of course Coe has made much of it "leaving a legacy" in Weymouth, as he has about other facilities being created in London. What happend to the equestrian legacy which has one of the biggest budgets for a single sport of the whole games, the budget that will run way over the top, and leave NO LEGACY AT ALL.

 

[bseage]

C'mon guys don't give LCH611 such a hard time.

He (She) is a BE Event Official, attended the test event and is pushing the party line that despite it being totally unsuitable, will be a BMX jump off course, allows precious little spectator involvement, will disrupt life in Greenwich for months next year, close the Park and probably damage it, is in contravention of an act of parliament and with a cost of at least £64 million produces no legacy whatsoever for eventing or Greenwich, it will in their view fix Eventing in the Olympic Programme for the future.

So, surely we can all get around and support LCH611 in valiantly supporting BE? Seb Coe is a gold medal winning olympian and must know a bit about eventing. Why else would he agree to Greenwich? And the sponsors are only in it for the good of their souls and because they love horses aren't they?

So lets forget our reservations about Greenwich, swallow the propaganda from LOCOG, BE, BEF and Horse & Hound and support the marvellous event at Greenwich next year!

 

[watertray53]

^^^^
Great tongue in cheek post bseage...... well said!

 

[LCH611]

So lets forget our reservations about Greenwich, swallow the propaganda from LOCOG, BE, BEF and Horse & Hound and support the marvellous event at Greenwich next year!

That's the spirit Bseage, move forward in a positive & open minded manner!

BTW in order to set your mind at rest about the suitability of the venue you might like to look at the interviews on Horse & Country TV as riders finished the cross country. If someone with the knowledge & experience of Mark Todd is happy to endorse it, then I am happy to bow to their superior knowledge. Which means that if you discount your camp's argument about the fact that it would be lethal, then we are back to the fact that the primary objection seems to be that local residents are miffed because of the inconvenience and don't seem to have taken on board that having the Olympics in London will be inconvenient for many people and it is isn't clear how many disciplines will have legacy left in the guise of permanent infrastructure - as that seems to be the only way you think it can be measured?

I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.

 

[millimoo]

LCH611... You took the words right out of my mouth. I've resisted typing anything in the hope that the repetitive posts (which are becoming quite tedious) disappear from the front page of the forum.
Can't think there's much else to say, especially as the venue is chosen and will not move - I can't wait for the Dressage, especially seeing the beautiful test Carl Hester has just done with Uthopia

 

[Orwell]

in order to set your mind at rest about the suitability of the venue you might like to look at the interviews on Horse & Country TV as riders finished the cross country. If someone with the knowledge & experience of Mark Todd is happy to endorse it, then I am happy to bow to their superior knowledge.

Thanks for the reference, the interviews are interesting. The riders keep referring to the steep slopes and tight turns. William Fox-Pitt (Episode 16) says that the slope beneath the "Canary Wharf" jump (Fence 5) was a "bit mean" and that the course was very demanding. Mary King (Episode 11) talks of the course being incredibly steep both down and up, of the course being very tiring for horses, and of the special training that she is doing on steep Devon hills. I wonder what they would have said about the full course, especially if it had been wet and they had been competing in earnest. There is no getting away from the fact that the course would never have been chosen for a championship event if Greenwich had not been close to Stratford. But an obsession with "compactness", or perhaps the desire to produce "spectacular" television pictures of horses jumping against a backdrop of office buildings, is not a good basis for choosing an Olympic XC course.

... we are back to the fact that the primary objection seems to be that local residents are miffed because of the inconvenience and don't seem to have taken on board that having the Olympics in London will be inconvenient for many people

There is no need to hold the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, and so there is no justification for doing so. The Test Events have caused serious disruption to locals and visitors. The Olympic events would cause much worse disruption. See, for example, my post no. 341.

... it ... isn't clear how many disciplines will have legacy left in the guise of permanent infrastructure - as that seems to be the only way you think it can be measured?

In an earlier post I suggested that, if the events were held at a traditional venue, there could be a "human legacy": 50,000-100,000 more spectators could be admitted.

I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.

This is where I came in. In post no. 272 I gave reasons for thinking that:

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.

In post no. 286 I added

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?

So it would be interesting to hear your "strong argument" which suggests that holding the equestrian events in London may be the best possible chance of keeping Eventing in the Olympic programme. How, in particular, is it better than showing that the events can be staged cheaply in the countryside (in an country estate, on a ranch, on a a golf course, ...) and that they can attract a large following (around 200,000 spectators for the XC)?

 

[cefyl]

That's the spirit Bseage, move forward in a positive & open minded manner!

I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.

I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.

Curious why Lee Valley Country Park was not considered as Dane Rawlins in an old H&H article had mentioned it being an infinately more suitable and logical venue than Greenwich. Don't know the area just wondering why.

 

[Orwell]

I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Royal? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed, Olympic standards are being compromised, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy the Princess Royal?

This sort of thing happened in the days of the Roman Empire and in pre-revolutionary France. But surely you are not suggesting that it is happening in 21st Century Britain?

 

[cefyl]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Royal? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed, Olympic standards are being compromised, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy the Princess Royal?

This sort of thing happened in the days of the Roman Empire and in pre-revolutionary France. But surely you are not suggesting that it is happening in 21st Century Britain?

Err - who mentioned the Princess Royal??? Not me or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Sleighfarer]

I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.

Curious why Lee Valley Country Park was not considered as Dane Rawlins in an old H&H article had mentioned it being an infinately more suitable and logical venue than Greenwich. Don't know the area just wondering why.

Lee Valley is not easy to get to on public transport.

 

[cefyl]

Lee Valley is not easy to get to on public transport.

And that was the only reason???

 

[Orwell]

Err - who mentioned the Princess Royal??? Not me or anyone else for that matter.

Forgive me I thought that 'Princess Haya' was an irreverent reference to the Princess Royal. A Google search reveals that Princess Haya is the wife of the Prime Minister of the UAE, Ruler of Dubai, and daughter of the late King of Jordan. She has also been the President of the FEI since 2006. With this major correction, and my apologies to the Princess Royal, I repeat the questions of my last post.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Haya? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed, Olympic standards are being compromised, horses and riders put at risk, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy Princess Haya?