Single Pony Championships 2007 Selection

pooley

New User
Joined
12 June 2007
Messages
6
Visit site
I am a spectator who follows carriage driving. I follow the sport and spectate at as many National Qualifiers as possible.

I attended Farleigh Driving Trials looking forward to the final stage of selection for the Pony World Championships in Denmark and hearing the selection results.

I was shocked to be stood at the edge of the Dressage Arena only to turn around when I heard raised voices. When I turned around I say a competitor who was up for selection making derogatory remarks regarding Sue Denny (Who was also up for selection) Is this the team spirit we are to have within our GB Team.

Later on in the weekend the results for the GB pony team were released to my surprise Sue Denney had not been selected. Looking forom the outside this seems somewhat baffling. Three selections were to be made two team members and an individual.

Putting the ream place aside for the moment. To win an individual medal you surley need the most successful and consistent competitor to be represinting our country. Looking at the results over the past 12 months there is only one competitor who fits the bill that is Sue Denney. Looking at the Selection events The same conclusion is blatantly obvious.
We surely should be sending our strongest individual to maximise our chances of winning.

Next lets look at the team places. My understanding is that this is slightly more complex, but whether you look at it from a points basis of over all performance or at the individual elements you still get the same conclusion Sue Denney should take one of those places. It seems that dressage is the poorer element of there competition but this is still there abouts the same as the other candidates when it is analysed. Looking at cones one of the candidates never had a "Double Clear" How can that be a strong point for the team. If my memory serves me right Sue Denny won as recently as Houpton where she won by having a double clear in the cones to clinch victory.

Is that not a great quality for a represntative of this country? Perfectiion under pressure!

I posted this on the BHDTA Forum to get a nice email saying the matter would be looked into but the poting would be removed. So I thought I would bring what I see as an important discussion into the Public Forum.

I then look back over the last few competition and seasion.

I heard that the judges had been instructed to mark Sue Denney down in her dreassage at the National Championships 2006. If this is true. WHY?

Why was a selection people judging dressage at Farleigh?

Do we want our Country represented by people who will give us the best chance of a medal or who can fling derogatory remarks around about competitors?

The lack of transparency and integrity in this selection process when looked at along side the evidence of the quality of competitor of Sue Denney in recent time begs one question?

Was Selection fair or is there some other explaination?

A Poole
 
This is sickening when you look at what I have posted under the title is carriage driving ethical. What is the Agenda for selection officials to be making these decisions
 
You have lost me with an irrelevent post like that. As a spectator who travels the country watching /supporting a sport I surly have a right to post my observations of a situation that seems extremely bizare and is it wrong for me to want the best represtentative to have been selected.

I put up an independent observation of a situation. I would like to hear other peoples relevent views on that situation. Not one line irrelevent posts. I have looked at the other post mentioned here and can see a point but by no mean associate with it.

Yes if an animal is to suffer then surley it should be looked at.

Finally is that the way you make people feel welcome when they join this forum.
 
Of course you have a right to post your opinions, just as I have a right to post mine! It does seem strange that these two posts regarding the selection for Denmark have appeared on the same day - it does smack a little of a concerted campaign - my apologies if that is not the case.

As for a welcome to the forum - if you post serious allegations like this as your first post, you can't really expect a fluffy 'welcome to the forum' reply! If you have proof of your allegations I should like to hear it!
 
From the BJDTA website:

Singles: Sarah Howe & Julie Camm
Pairs: Rachel Stevens & Julie Hoskyns
Teams: Sarah Jane Cook & Colin Allen
 
All the proof that is needed is on the BHDTA WEB site if you look at the qualifying result at the selection events. I have put a table on here showing the placings. If you want to look more in depth I would suggest the BHDTA Website where there ius a break down of the results.

Catton 2006 Alnwick 2006 Windsor 2006 Brighton 2007 Hopetoun 2007 Farleigh 2007
Sue Denney1 1 4 3 1
Sara Howe 2 4 1 1 2
Julie Camm 3 5 9 0 6
Liz Rowe 5 2 5 4 0

Sorry the table has not come out very well the numbers relate to placings at the relevant competition listed above. Zero (0) meaning didn't compete.

As for two postings it is a coincidence, but not surprising as the results were out on Sunday.

I don't call this sour grapes just that the outcome doesn't support the evidence of ability and consistency. Sue Denny and Sara Howe are both gifted and talented people and looking at there performance are the most suitable people to represent this country.

I have heard many remarks regarding the integrity of the judges but have not included that as I fell it is not necessary to get involved with those politics. Surley everyone must agree that selection processes in all equine disciplines "should " have transparency and integrity. With the end result being the best competiters competing, creatiung the best chance of bringing home medals.
 
I'm not au fait with the selection procedure for carriage driving so I can't really comment on the results posted, although looking at those in isolation it does seem strange that Sue Denney wasn't selected, but I presume there may have been other factors involved.

To be honest, I have no real concerns over your opinion that Sue should have been selected - but what does worry me is the suggestion that both the selectors and the dressage judge were corrupt
shocked.gif
. That is a very serious and defamatory allegation to make on a public forum and one that, in my opinion, should not be posted without some proof to support it.
 
I can't comment on this specific situation as I know nothing about carriage driving. However, I would just say that any selection procedure should be transparent with an unambiguous list of criteria for the candidates to work to. Sue Denney should ask the selectors to set out in writing why she wasn't selected - unless she knows already. That's what I would do if I'd been turned down for a job where I knew I'd met the spec.
 
I never recall stating anyone was corrupt, I stated a series of incidents I have seen at events and one I have heard of. I later asked the question why?

I didn't intend to be deflamatory as I never stated it was corruption. What I did was ask about elements of the selection I saw that makes it me ask that question "why"
 
You alleged that the dressage judges were instructed to mark her down - that is a very serious allegation to make.
 
"I heard that the judges had been instructed to mark Sue Denney down in her dreassage at the National Championships 2006. If this is true. WHY?"

Above is an extract of what I initially wrote. I never made an allegation.

But lets look at the proceedure based on best in each phase which is according to there own rules. Which don't appear to have been followed. If they had then Julie Camm would not have been selected after winning one dressage(See BHDTA Web site to confirm results)

If you look at the results from any angl;e you come to the same conclusion. Sara Howe and Sue Denney should have been the selected people for our Country to produce the best result. This brings us back to the same question.

WHY if you follow there rules do you not see Sara Howe and Sue Denney as the GB Team?

If the proceedure was transparent and there was integrity in the system we would not have to ask all these questions. If we did we would have the answer infront of us, which we dont.

So all I am asking is the same as before...Why?
 
In fact, just repeating a rumour can be classified as defamation. An extract from the BBC's guide to internet defamation:

"It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties."

Leaving that aside, the answers to your questions clearly lie with the selection panel and from your original post it seems you have already raised your concerns with the appropriate body. I suggest you give them a chance to respond to your questions - then you will be in a position where you have:

1) A satisfactory explanation
2) An unsatisfactory explanation
3) No explanation at all!

In instances 2 & 3 you are then justified in taking the matter further, perhaps with a letter to H&H, but you do need to give them a chance to put their case first. However, if you do take it further I would suggest you stick to the known facts (eg published results) rather than repeating speculation, hearsay and rumour!
 
Top