I'm super bored and I can't sleep so I stumbled over to COTH for some mind-boggling reason and was reading up on people's opinions about the levels and what they want to make the transitions smoother. It was interesting in light of what Leslie (and Lesley) Law, Bruce Davidson and Mark Phillips had to say in their article.

Article about the task force

You can find all that shit on COTH yourselves...

Anyway, what all the COTHers seem to be on about is having more and more options on cross-country, even at the BN and N levels.

Am I the only one that thinks that's stupid/crazy?

1) It's would add a huge strain on event organizers, makes courses harder to run efficiently, and takes up time and money.

2) It's a pain in the ass for trainers and it's a liability. People who are riding BN/N should only be concerned in having a safe, fun ride. They shouldn't be weighing their options and overthinking the technical aspects of the course, because there should be next to NO technical aspects to the course. For all of the professional BN/N riders, if you are looking for a challenge, MOVE UP or go fox hunting if you need a thrill. Think of all the poor trainers that are going to have to get into agonizing debates with their 10 year old students on ponies, and the nervous mother about whether or not Suzie should take Sparkle over the 2'6" coop or the 2'6" coop that's angled slightly to the right! Think of all the time they are going to have to spend with the confused old ladies who won't even decide which fence they want to take until they get halfway through their course and miss the turn anyway? It's a clusterfuck waiting to happen people.

3) Why is BN/N so complicated that it needs options? The only reasonable place I see for options on course is with the water: it's nice to have the pass-through at BN be something you don't HAVE to do if you don't water, same with choosing between the pass-through or a bank up. These don't require more fences, just some thoughtful flagging. Anything else should not need to be technical or big enough to require and "easy" or a "hard." It should all just be straight-forward, isn't that the frickin point?

4) Learn how to event the informed way. If you have a good trainer and have a vague clue of what's going on in your area then you will know what courses run like. Hitching Post is the oldest event in the country and I'm fairly convinced the majority of it is EXACTLY the same. There isn't enough money in the sport to build entirely new courses for every year at the lower levels. There are "big" novices and "little" novices. You and your trainer should figure out which ones are which and plan accordingly, that way you won't be overfaced or bored to tears.


So aside from that rant I have one other bone to pick: I sort of agree with Mark Phillips. Oh god. Only on one thing though. I think there should be a 3'5" division. And I think we've already basically got it started, and that's in the Training 3-Day. Jim Wofford wrote an article several months ago for PH saying that he thought the future of eventing lies in amateurs and the T3D, and I agree. I think that developing the Training 3 Day into the 3'5" division as a means of softening the step between T and P is obvious. It also eases the pressure on riders to move up to Prelim in order to feel accomplished in their riding. Having something as intense as a long-format event with fun things like competitors parties, steeplechase and jog ups to work for makes Training level more fun. It's perfect for amateurs who want something to train for and for YRs to test their readiness for Prelim.

So yeah, those are my random thoughts. Feel free to add your own.

yea... the pass through at BN, I remember those days! I went to a rec. HT last fall (after a 7 yr hiatus!) and there were max BN fences both immediately before and after the water. Not that a max BN fence is very large, but still!

With all the accidents going on recently, I feel that a change to make sure riders are safe out there is a good idea.

It's pretty safe to say that everyone feels that way. The debate is not about whether or not to make these changes, it's about which changes will make everyone the safest without compromising the sport.

Anyone else see the Real Sports (on HBO) deal about eventing?

I found it curious that they didn't mention that rotational falls don't really happen at lower levels because the horse needs to hit a barrier of a certain height for it to happen...

I saw about three seconds of it...

But I did read on USEA website that they were a bit concerned about what would be in the special after they heard that the name was "Deadly Ride". I'd be interested to know if anyone else saw it/thought it was fair portrayal of the sport.

Just a bit concerned?? Funny, one would think that titling the show "Deadly Ride" isn't exactly a subtle indicator of the show's bias ...

Speaking of eventing, where's Rummy? I have something to share with you.

It's going to be on again tonight; I tried to find a vid of it but had no luck...I may remedy that.

did you guys see the backlash against that lanie ashker and her mother after her media interview a few weeks ago? also read that they're planning on moving back to california......I think both she and the mother would fit right in on bravo's real housewives of orange county.

http://www.kcra.com/video/16924279/index.html

oh and I noticed that cow amy tryon is on the eventing team...isn't that Poggio horse like 20 now? are they trying to finish him off by letting tryon compete on him again?

Alrighty, I went ahead and put it up on the Media Center.

I'm curious about what you eventers think of it (please respond here, though...).

I watched the video.

It's bullshit that they present the frangible pin issue as being one of purely aesthetics. It's not! You cannot pin a table jump, or a rolltop, or a coop, and it's ridiculous to think that cross-country should be reduced to basically stadium jumps made with big logs. A table and an oxer are perceived differently by horse and rider. Like David said, it would mean making the course entirely the same. It's not about ducks and windmills, as much as the newscasters would like to boil it down to.

I also think it's depressing how much they tried to write off rider responsibility because they just don't fucking understand it. It's like, everyone gets that not everyone can be an Olympic level gymnast, or figure skater, or whatever. If you aren't 15, super duper skinny, tiny and flexible, it's not happening. But for some reason they treat the issue of eventing like everyone should be able to go Advanced if they have the right horse. And that it's all the trainers' fault if the rider is on the wrong horse or not going Advanced. Just like I will never be a super model, not everyone is capable of riding Advanced, or even Prelim or Intermediate. Too many young riders and their parents think that eventing is like hunters and that if you just get a nice enough horse and spend enough money you will make it. It's not a fucking right, it's all pure luck and talent.

I'm sorry that that woman lost her two daughters to riding accidents, but I think she's nuts and she is not using her personal experiences in a positive or constructive way. If she really cared about making eventing safer she would be lobbying and fundraising for better jump judge requirements/trainings, more officials and volunteers at events, etc.

My impression after watching it was that that was exactly the point O'Connor was making to Deford, and that it was also the POV the producers agreed on.

I do wish they had made an effort in at least explaining to the general audience the difference between the three Olympic equestrian sports, so the non-horsey public won't think all horse riders are nuts! .

I felt that they decided to place the blame on people like David O'Connor and other coaches and higher-ups, rather than the actual competitors out on course, but maybe that was just my impression.