The sun shone, the iconic view sparkled and those attending had a lovely time at the test event for the 2012 Olympic Equestrian phases at Greenwich Park.
“A huge success,” proclaimed both the FEI and the London Prepares press offices in joyful union. But was everyone and everything perfect, or have some people been carried away by the wave of mass Olympic euphoria pervading London’s World Heritage site this month?
It must be said that, so far, to all appearances the equestrian organisers have treated the oldest Royal Park with appropriate respect. Trees had not been “severely pruned” as mentioned in the LOCOG planning document and no holes have been dug; quite the contrary, as far as the latter is concerned. Where a ditch was required, the surface was built up so a ditch could be dug into that without touching the original park surface beneath. The stables have been constructed on small “stilts” for want of a better expression, to keep them off the grass and the waste fluids to be channeled away more efficiently.
The arena itself is raised off the ground to combat the natural slope and again no significant holes have been dug. The logistical problem of getting the horses on site was solved by having a “staging post”outside the park gates which all worked smoothly according to organisers, riders and grooms.
But the fact that there was a need to find this “logistical solution” only because of the choice of venue was conveniently forgotten.
The competitors and their connections were impressed. The grooms were accommodated in the nearby hotel and could not have been happier, according to a spokesperson for them. The stables were a good size although possibly not as well ventilated as one might like in warm weather but this issue will be addressed by next year.
“It is, after all, a test,” said Tim Hadaway, Equestian Manager. The riders very much liked being in the city with all the shops and restaurants Greenwich village had to offer.
“It is great being so central with a pub outside the gate and there is so much more room than the I was expecting after all the things I have heard,” said one rider, who had clearly forgotten, as this was “only a test”, that there would be no chance of visiting the local pub (assuming the security services let it open as usual during the Games proper anyway) because the competitors would be ferried in and out from the Olympic Village in Stratford.
And with 50% more competitors and horses, a 30% larger arena and double the infrastructure plus a set of grandstands ten times as big as those currently on view, there is not going to be so much room, either. Particularly as much of the green space would be taken up by the cross-country course which, the press were assured by Tim Hadaway, would be the full 10 minutes long, double that which was tested.
And talking of the course, more than one experienced observer was heard to remark that the visibility was very bad from fence to fence because of the tree cover, making it very difficult for the television cameras (one will be required for every fence) and, more importantly, for the fence judges, who might only have scant seconds to stop a horse when it finally comes in to view. So it seems the tree surgeons will indeed be required for “severe pruning” and a sceptic might say that one of the purposes of the test event was to lull the objectors into a state of false security and demonstrate how little the park would be damaged because most of them know little about horses and horse shows and would not be aware of these considerations.
One also wonders, if the venue was not for an Olympics and in front of the iconic view, whether any event rider would be prepared to ride a championship course at a place which Mark Todd described as “a little cramped” and where the course (even at only five minutes long) was “a little like riding a jump off”. William Fox Pitt thought it resembled “a BMX track”. And these comments were made BEFORE the rest of the infrastructure, etc, is in place as already mentioned. A party of people with much experience of international events, especially in Hong Kong, walked around for a few minutes and then asked me where “the rest of it” was. On being told that this was it, mouths dropped open and there were expressions of “but Sha Tin was bigger than this” and other words to that effect.
If the concerns about the cross country course were muted to an extent, the show jumping riders invited to test the arena surface had no qualms at all about slamming the organisers’ efforts so far. It seems that the surface supplied required the application of water so it could be compressed and made suitable for jumping a 1.60m track but Thames Water had already stated that there would be restrictions on the use of water in the park well before the surface was laid and did not budge from that position.
When William Fox-Pitt completed his dressage test and came out of the arena expressing joy at the lovely “springy surface” anyone with any depth knowledge of show jumping should have heard alarm bells ringing. Nick Skelton, Laura Kraut and William Funnell used words like “dead” and “holding” and that “jumping 1.45 felt like 1.65” in the conditions.
Event riders hardly ever get a prepared surface to jump on, as often as not they make do with a boggy grass field but generally they are only jumping about 1.25 and not against the clock, either. At any other major championship with mixed disciplines, the surface is usually put down to suit the show jumpers because if it works for them, everyone else should be fine.
But the London Olympic Games Organising Committee created another problem for themselves because they failed to appoint anyone amongst the Equestrian management team who, from what I can see, appeared to have the kind of experience needed to run top-class show jumping and dressage – especially that being run at an inner city outdoor show. Run almost entirely by eventing people with little or no experience of either world class show jumping or inner city shows, eventing was the main focus. This is the area in which Great Britain is most likely to win Gold as far as equestrianism is concerned. But, this discipline is selected by the IOC as the one for testing because the facilities for all three Olympic disciplines can be assessed at once – not because Great Britain is the best at it and could run a big British Equestrian Federation PR exercise.
For most other countries show jumping and dressage are far more popular disciplines, which is why tickets for the Kür in dressage and the individual show jumping final are much much more expensive than their eventing equivalents.
To excuse the basic lack of sporting expertise other than eventing, once again the refrain “this is a test event so we can test” was heard. Probably it is fair to say that certain things do not need to be tested: the surface in the arena is hardly a new idea and there are outdoor shows in places such as Rio, Rome, Monte Carlo, Cannes and Valencia to name a few, all of which are inner city shows and jump on a prepared surface whose organisers could have been asked for advice. Rome has many significant parallels as it is run at the Piazza di Siena, right in the centre of the city on the small park attached to the Villa Borghese.
But as far as we know no advice was asked of any of these shows.
Discussions about the showjumpers’ reactions did provoke what could only be called the most staggeringly ignorant comment from a professional rider heard all week. One event rider proclaimed in an airy fashion that “the show jumpers were much too fussy, they should just shut up and get on with it”.
Indeed. Just as the eventers should if their BMX, jump-off type cross country track happens to come up wet …
The BEF had handed out many tickets to various riders, officials and organisers of all three Olympic disciplines, but primarily British Eventing. The members of that august body descended upon Greenwich in their droves and professed themselves delighted with everything as they sat on the grass (mostly in spaces that will not be available next year) in the sunshine. When asked about the absence of the locals (local adults had just a tenth of the ticket allocation), the opinion seemed to be that “the locals would not want to come anyway” or “they all objected, why should they be invited” and “they will only have to put up with it for a couple of weeks”.
The sheer arrogance of some of these comments was astonishing. The invited school children aside (and most of those got their tickets only through default and enterprising teachers, because there was no official borough-wide notification that tickets were available to schools who registered, according to one teacher), the demographic of the audience should have indicated the lack of anyone other than the BEF’s finest. And for all those congratulating themselves on the success of the visiting children, it should be noted that on cross country day there about 2000 of them, which is not even a tenth of Greenwich’s 35,000 under 16s registered with the borough.
The residents who did appear were mostly supportive but rather dismayed at the lack of information provided to them. “We won our tickets through the 500 offered by the local paper,” said one couple, “we know nothing about horse sport and we had no idea there was even a test event until the notices went up in the park a few weeks ago. Until then we thought, as did most of our neighbours, that the work going on was for next year.”
Another comment comment from the horsey faithful was that “it was a working day in London so local people would not have come anyway,” but perhaps with more notice and a larger ticket allocation, more of the population could have rearranged their schedules as the BEF’s invited audience had. Unless of course none of them have jobs they would usually have been at.
It is also somewhat surprising that despite initiatives like the so far toothless London Horse Network and HOOF, virtually none of London’s horse people appeared to have been invited to attend, either.
Many of them have specific expertise regarding keeping horses in urban environments (because that is what they do all the time!) and had they been consulted possibly could have made some of the problems faced at Greenwich easier to overcome. Out of five London riding schools asked, only one had had a single ticket. Lord Coe has said the legacy of the London Games will be to bring sport to a new and wider audience. It is a pity that the people who will be responsible for the education of any potential new equestrians were not given a taste of the Olympic experience.
“Frankly,” said one proprietor, “we wish them luck but the Games has done nothing for us, we keep thinking that if there is going to be a new riding public some of the money spent on Greenwich would have been better used in improving the riding facilities in other London parks and commons.”
Riding in Greenwich is against the law by anyone except the police or military so it will never be a public riding venue without an Act of Parliament, even if the plans for a new riding centre in Shooters Hill ever get off the ground.
Local support should be encouraged, though. There is much disinformation floating about currently which will only end up confusing the non-horsey residents or, even worse, alienating them.
Even Lord Coe, in a BBC London debate this week, referred to the “two weeks” of the Games. Perhaps he has forgotten the Para Olympics, which will mean Greenwich will not be able to get back to usual for about six weeks. Mark Evers, who is the Director of Transport for London (TFL) Delivery Unit said during the same broadcast:
One supposes that the havoc which will be caused by closing the Blackwell Tunnel, even partially, for a month, is acceptable then, despite the volume of traffic that it carried probably exceeds Tower Bridge by 10 to one. Mathew Beard of the London Evening Standard made the excellent point that if the ORN was open only to athletes and actual officials instead of the entire “Olympic Family” which includes media, guests and sponsors, that would be 22,000 less persons needing preferential treatment and therefore not so many closures.
Mark Evers also mentioned the closure of several railway stations, particularly around the Greenwich area (eg, Maze Hill) because visitors might get confused as to which one to use for the actual venues; never mind all the local commuters. “This was an opportunity for them to explore alternative ways of getting to work,” he said in what can only be called a patronising fashion. The Maze Hill station is just outside Greenwich Park’s eastern gate, and the closure of this station will be a major inconvenience to those who live and work on Trafalgar Road, for example.
A few other non horse considerations (my comments are in bold):
One Greenwich resident mentioned at the BBC debate that the bill for the equestrian phase is heading for £60 million. Interestingly, Lord Coe did not contradict him. A member of Team GB senior support staff who did not wish to be named said that he had never seen such a waste of money in his life; it was being “thrown about like water”. There are riding tracks and exercise rings in many London parks including Richmond, Wimbledon, Tooting, Mitcham and Streatham commons, Trent Park and Lee Bridge. No money has been earmarked for any improvement in any of these facilities.
As well as the fencing off part of Blackheath (also against the law and ignoring a charter several hundred years old) which would not need to be done if the venue was big enough, Blackheath was never part of the original plan submitted to the IOC. LOCOG have also applied the same high-handed approach to Wanstead Flats. The area of marsh and heathland is home to many species rarely seen in London, and another much-used and loved by the locals but it has been partially fenced off for the use of the Metropolitan Police during the Games.
Lord Coe: “We are providing London with the venues it should have had 40 years ago. Bringing the Games to the capital will involve more people in sport, that is the real legacy. We wanted to regenerate east London.” However the residents in the area are not getting preference for the available jobs and according to Mathew Beard there has been no regeneration east of Stratford unless you count disreputable brothels being turned in reputable bed and breakfast establishments.
A study has recently been done to see the long-term impact of having an Olympics in any city going back many years. It seems you need five or ten years to assess the impact properly, a statement which was echoed by Lord Coe in a different context when he said “that we would need to wait to find out the real legacy of the London Games”. So far only Barcelona (1992, which by the way, had all the equestrian except the cross country inside the city at an excellent facility still much used) has come out ahead. The most recent city in the study was Athens. The impact on the Greek economy has had an impact on ours as Great Britain, along with many other countries, is currently bailing them out of bankruptcy. Barcelona is also the only venue so far where unemployment was reduced by the arrival of the Olympics. Rushana Ali, MP for Bethnal Green (close to the main Olympic Park) commented that in 2005 Lord Coe said winning the Games would create new jobs, but that in the London Borough of Newham, employment figures had barely changed since, and only 20% of any jobs created had gone to locals.
Kevin Fewster, who is the director of the National Maritime Museum and was in charge of a similar institution in Sydney during the 2000 Olympic Games, said: “There are two Olympic Games, really. There is the one that you present to the IOC which has lots of things in it that probably are not workable in reality but you are trying to win, and then when you have won, you have to make things work and so there is a second Games where things inevitably change and have to be twisted and turned about to make that happen. When London won, instead of Paris, things in the original bid had to be altered.” This is an interesting comment if taken in reference to Greenwich, where Mr Fewster works, because it implies that LOCOG could have changed many things including venues, after winning the bid (and in fact have done so) but on this occasion decided spending untold millions on Greenwich was a better alternative.
Mathew Beard, London Evening Standard: “Two thirds of those who applied did not get tickets. So what about the hundreds of thousands who were told ‘this was a Games for everyone’ and have heard no discussion that it is otherwise.
“I am not really sure how LOCOG could have been surprised by the demand for tickets, they ramped it up as ‘the greatest show on earth’. You cannot even find out what tickets are available for which purposes. Like these 125,000 set aside for children (according to Lord Mayor Boris Johnson). What sort of tickets are they and when and where? It’s all so vague.”
Sarah, Beckenham resident: “I was mad keen when we got the Games, but we didn’t get tickets, my offer to volunteer seems to have got nowhere despite hundreds of emails and I feel, as in integral part of London, that I have been ignored. I am very disillusioned that there is such a lack of opportunity to get involved.”
Tony, Tooting resident: “There was no preferential treatment for London residents and I cannot get in either as a paying customer, a volunteer or a member of the media.”
Andrew Gilligan (Daily Telegraph London Editor): “The principle sponsor of the games is us, the public. The ticket figures are not adding up. Lord Coe just said there were two million tickets available in the UK out of 22 million in total. But eight percent of those went to corporate sponsors. I understand they have paid for those tickets in some way but Londoners are also paying through a £250 rise in council tax. Would it have been too much of a stretch to give London residents an extra shot in the ballot or something, after all we are the ones paying for a great deal of it.”
Munira Mizra, Cultural advisor to the Mayor of London: “Boris Johnson has said he wants at least one out if every eight children to be able to attend and schools which want to take advantage of any ticket offer must register with the LOCOG Get Set programme by December.”
The Last Word …
… probably ought to go to the teenage student from Stratford who cannot get one of the jobs promised at the new shopping centre, which will in effect kill off the current one and add to the problems already facing Stratford High Street, which is in danger of becoming a ghost road.
“At the Olympics,” she said sadly, “the only time the rich and poor will meet up is at the traffic lights.”
“A huge success,” proclaimed both the FEI and the London Prepares press offices in joyful union. But was everyone and everything perfect, or have some people been carried away by the wave of mass Olympic euphoria pervading London’s World Heritage site this month?
The FEI and London Prepares both declared the Greenwich eventing test event a success.
The arena itself is raised off the ground to combat the natural slope and again no significant holes have been dug. The logistical problem of getting the horses on site was solved by having a “staging post”outside the park gates which all worked smoothly according to organisers, riders and grooms.
But the fact that there was a need to find this “logistical solution” only because of the choice of venue was conveniently forgotten.
The competitors and their connections were impressed. The grooms were accommodated in the nearby hotel and could not have been happier, according to a spokesperson for them. The stables were a good size although possibly not as well ventilated as one might like in warm weather but this issue will be addressed by next year.
“It is, after all, a test,” said Tim Hadaway, Equestian Manager. The riders very much liked being in the city with all the shops and restaurants Greenwich village had to offer.
“It is great being so central with a pub outside the gate and there is so much more room than the I was expecting after all the things I have heard,” said one rider, who had clearly forgotten, as this was “only a test”, that there would be no chance of visiting the local pub (assuming the security services let it open as usual during the Games proper anyway) because the competitors would be ferried in and out from the Olympic Village in Stratford.
And with 50% more competitors and horses, a 30% larger arena and double the infrastructure plus a set of grandstands ten times as big as those currently on view, there is not going to be so much room, either. Particularly as much of the green space would be taken up by the cross-country course which, the press were assured by Tim Hadaway, would be the full 10 minutes long, double that which was tested.
And talking of the course, more than one experienced observer was heard to remark that the visibility was very bad from fence to fence because of the tree cover, making it very difficult for the television cameras (one will be required for every fence) and, more importantly, for the fence judges, who might only have scant seconds to stop a horse when it finally comes in to view. So it seems the tree surgeons will indeed be required for “severe pruning” and a sceptic might say that one of the purposes of the test event was to lull the objectors into a state of false security and demonstrate how little the park would be damaged because most of them know little about horses and horse shows and would not be aware of these considerations.
One also wonders, if the venue was not for an Olympics and in front of the iconic view, whether any event rider would be prepared to ride a championship course at a place which Mark Todd described as “a little cramped” and where the course (even at only five minutes long) was “a little like riding a jump off”. William Fox Pitt thought it resembled “a BMX track”. And these comments were made BEFORE the rest of the infrastructure, etc, is in place as already mentioned. A party of people with much experience of international events, especially in Hong Kong, walked around for a few minutes and then asked me where “the rest of it” was. On being told that this was it, mouths dropped open and there were expressions of “but Sha Tin was bigger than this” and other words to that effect.
The arena is raised off the ground to combat the natural slope.
When William Fox-Pitt completed his dressage test and came out of the arena expressing joy at the lovely “springy surface” anyone with any depth knowledge of show jumping should have heard alarm bells ringing. Nick Skelton, Laura Kraut and William Funnell used words like “dead” and “holding” and that “jumping 1.45 felt like 1.65” in the conditions.
Event riders hardly ever get a prepared surface to jump on, as often as not they make do with a boggy grass field but generally they are only jumping about 1.25 and not against the clock, either. At any other major championship with mixed disciplines, the surface is usually put down to suit the show jumpers because if it works for them, everyone else should be fine.
But the London Olympic Games Organising Committee created another problem for themselves because they failed to appoint anyone amongst the Equestrian management team who, from what I can see, appeared to have the kind of experience needed to run top-class show jumping and dressage – especially that being run at an inner city outdoor show. Run almost entirely by eventing people with little or no experience of either world class show jumping or inner city shows, eventing was the main focus. This is the area in which Great Britain is most likely to win Gold as far as equestrianism is concerned. But, this discipline is selected by the IOC as the one for testing because the facilities for all three Olympic disciplines can be assessed at once – not because Great Britain is the best at it and could run a big British Equestrian Federation PR exercise.
For most other countries show jumping and dressage are far more popular disciplines, which is why tickets for the Kür in dressage and the individual show jumping final are much much more expensive than their eventing equivalents.
To excuse the basic lack of sporting expertise other than eventing, once again the refrain “this is a test event so we can test” was heard. Probably it is fair to say that certain things do not need to be tested: the surface in the arena is hardly a new idea and there are outdoor shows in places such as Rio, Rome, Monte Carlo, Cannes and Valencia to name a few, all of which are inner city shows and jump on a prepared surface whose organisers could have been asked for advice. Rome has many significant parallels as it is run at the Piazza di Siena, right in the centre of the city on the small park attached to the Villa Borghese.
But as far as we know no advice was asked of any of these shows.
Discussions about the showjumpers’ reactions did provoke what could only be called the most staggeringly ignorant comment from a professional rider heard all week. One event rider proclaimed in an airy fashion that “the show jumpers were much too fussy, they should just shut up and get on with it”.
Indeed. Just as the eventers should if their BMX, jump-off type cross country track happens to come up wet …
The BEF had handed out many tickets to various riders, officials and organisers of all three Olympic disciplines, but primarily British Eventing. The members of that august body descended upon Greenwich in their droves and professed themselves delighted with everything as they sat on the grass (mostly in spaces that will not be available next year) in the sunshine. When asked about the absence of the locals (local adults had just a tenth of the ticket allocation), the opinion seemed to be that “the locals would not want to come anyway” or “they all objected, why should they be invited” and “they will only have to put up with it for a couple of weeks”.
The raised dressage and jumping arena used for the test event.
The residents who did appear were mostly supportive but rather dismayed at the lack of information provided to them. “We won our tickets through the 500 offered by the local paper,” said one couple, “we know nothing about horse sport and we had no idea there was even a test event until the notices went up in the park a few weeks ago. Until then we thought, as did most of our neighbours, that the work going on was for next year.”
Another comment comment from the horsey faithful was that “it was a working day in London so local people would not have come anyway,” but perhaps with more notice and a larger ticket allocation, more of the population could have rearranged their schedules as the BEF’s invited audience had. Unless of course none of them have jobs they would usually have been at.
It is also somewhat surprising that despite initiatives like the so far toothless London Horse Network and HOOF, virtually none of London’s horse people appeared to have been invited to attend, either.
Many of them have specific expertise regarding keeping horses in urban environments (because that is what they do all the time!) and had they been consulted possibly could have made some of the problems faced at Greenwich easier to overcome. Out of five London riding schools asked, only one had had a single ticket. Lord Coe has said the legacy of the London Games will be to bring sport to a new and wider audience. It is a pity that the people who will be responsible for the education of any potential new equestrians were not given a taste of the Olympic experience.
“Frankly,” said one proprietor, “we wish them luck but the Games has done nothing for us, we keep thinking that if there is going to be a new riding public some of the money spent on Greenwich would have been better used in improving the riding facilities in other London parks and commons.”
Hundreds of schoolchildren saw eventing and horses up close for the first time.
Local support should be encouraged, though. There is much disinformation floating about currently which will only end up confusing the non-horsey residents or, even worse, alienating them.
Even Lord Coe, in a BBC London debate this week, referred to the “two weeks” of the Games. Perhaps he has forgotten the Para Olympics, which will mean Greenwich will not be able to get back to usual for about six weeks. Mark Evers, who is the Director of Transport for London (TFL) Delivery Unit said during the same broadcast:
“Yes, there will be some places on the Olympic Road Network (ORN) that are open to different interventions but we do not want to be in the same position as Atlanta where athletes did not reach their event on time.”He fell short of actually confirming which roads would be closed but it was interesting to note that Lord Coe later discussed the reason that the Marathon course was moved away from the East End. Had it stayed there, it would mean the closure of Tower Bridge for two days, which would cause havoc in the area for both athletes travelling to other venues and the public.
One supposes that the havoc which will be caused by closing the Blackwell Tunnel, even partially, for a month, is acceptable then, despite the volume of traffic that it carried probably exceeds Tower Bridge by 10 to one. Mathew Beard of the London Evening Standard made the excellent point that if the ORN was open only to athletes and actual officials instead of the entire “Olympic Family” which includes media, guests and sponsors, that would be 22,000 less persons needing preferential treatment and therefore not so many closures.
Mark Evers also mentioned the closure of several railway stations, particularly around the Greenwich area (eg, Maze Hill) because visitors might get confused as to which one to use for the actual venues; never mind all the local commuters. “This was an opportunity for them to explore alternative ways of getting to work,” he said in what can only be called a patronising fashion. The Maze Hill station is just outside Greenwich Park’s eastern gate, and the closure of this station will be a major inconvenience to those who live and work on Trafalgar Road, for example.
A few other non horse considerations (my comments are in bold):
One Greenwich resident mentioned at the BBC debate that the bill for the equestrian phase is heading for £60 million. Interestingly, Lord Coe did not contradict him. A member of Team GB senior support staff who did not wish to be named said that he had never seen such a waste of money in his life; it was being “thrown about like water”. There are riding tracks and exercise rings in many London parks including Richmond, Wimbledon, Tooting, Mitcham and Streatham commons, Trent Park and Lee Bridge. No money has been earmarked for any improvement in any of these facilities.
As well as the fencing off part of Blackheath (also against the law and ignoring a charter several hundred years old) which would not need to be done if the venue was big enough, Blackheath was never part of the original plan submitted to the IOC. LOCOG have also applied the same high-handed approach to Wanstead Flats. The area of marsh and heathland is home to many species rarely seen in London, and another much-used and loved by the locals but it has been partially fenced off for the use of the Metropolitan Police during the Games.
Lord Coe: “We are providing London with the venues it should have had 40 years ago. Bringing the Games to the capital will involve more people in sport, that is the real legacy. We wanted to regenerate east London.” However the residents in the area are not getting preference for the available jobs and according to Mathew Beard there has been no regeneration east of Stratford unless you count disreputable brothels being turned in reputable bed and breakfast establishments.
A study has recently been done to see the long-term impact of having an Olympics in any city going back many years. It seems you need five or ten years to assess the impact properly, a statement which was echoed by Lord Coe in a different context when he said “that we would need to wait to find out the real legacy of the London Games”. So far only Barcelona (1992, which by the way, had all the equestrian except the cross country inside the city at an excellent facility still much used) has come out ahead. The most recent city in the study was Athens. The impact on the Greek economy has had an impact on ours as Great Britain, along with many other countries, is currently bailing them out of bankruptcy. Barcelona is also the only venue so far where unemployment was reduced by the arrival of the Olympics. Rushana Ali, MP for Bethnal Green (close to the main Olympic Park) commented that in 2005 Lord Coe said winning the Games would create new jobs, but that in the London Borough of Newham, employment figures had barely changed since, and only 20% of any jobs created had gone to locals.
Kevin Fewster, who is the director of the National Maritime Museum and was in charge of a similar institution in Sydney during the 2000 Olympic Games, said: “There are two Olympic Games, really. There is the one that you present to the IOC which has lots of things in it that probably are not workable in reality but you are trying to win, and then when you have won, you have to make things work and so there is a second Games where things inevitably change and have to be twisted and turned about to make that happen. When London won, instead of Paris, things in the original bid had to be altered.” This is an interesting comment if taken in reference to Greenwich, where Mr Fewster works, because it implies that LOCOG could have changed many things including venues, after winning the bid (and in fact have done so) but on this occasion decided spending untold millions on Greenwich was a better alternative.
Much of Greenwich's green space is expected to be taken up by the cross-country course, which is to be 10 minutes long.
“I am not really sure how LOCOG could have been surprised by the demand for tickets, they ramped it up as ‘the greatest show on earth’. You cannot even find out what tickets are available for which purposes. Like these 125,000 set aside for children (according to Lord Mayor Boris Johnson). What sort of tickets are they and when and where? It’s all so vague.”
Sarah, Beckenham resident: “I was mad keen when we got the Games, but we didn’t get tickets, my offer to volunteer seems to have got nowhere despite hundreds of emails and I feel, as in integral part of London, that I have been ignored. I am very disillusioned that there is such a lack of opportunity to get involved.”
Tony, Tooting resident: “There was no preferential treatment for London residents and I cannot get in either as a paying customer, a volunteer or a member of the media.”
Andrew Gilligan (Daily Telegraph London Editor): “The principle sponsor of the games is us, the public. The ticket figures are not adding up. Lord Coe just said there were two million tickets available in the UK out of 22 million in total. But eight percent of those went to corporate sponsors. I understand they have paid for those tickets in some way but Londoners are also paying through a £250 rise in council tax. Would it have been too much of a stretch to give London residents an extra shot in the ballot or something, after all we are the ones paying for a great deal of it.”
Munira Mizra, Cultural advisor to the Mayor of London: “Boris Johnson has said he wants at least one out if every eight children to be able to attend and schools which want to take advantage of any ticket offer must register with the LOCOG Get Set programme by December.”
The Last Word …
… probably ought to go to the teenage student from Stratford who cannot get one of the jobs promised at the new shopping centre, which will in effect kill off the current one and add to the problems already facing Stratford High Street, which is in danger of becoming a ghost road.
“At the Olympics,” she said sadly, “the only time the rich and poor will meet up is at the traffic lights.”
The CIC *** at Barbury Castle in England is a great example of British Eventing at its best. A gorgeous venue provided by Nigel Bunter, who is a great supporter of eventing and racing, a dedicated team of organisers and loyal sponsors who have ensured the prize money is attractive.
All the classes were heavily subscribed and this year as well as four days of eventing, the show also hosted the Wiltshire Country Fair. Although final figures were not yet in at the time of going to press, the organisers were confident that this was the best attended Sunday since the event has been running. The glorious Wiltshire show piece will next year be the final warm up for the British team prior to the Olympic Games.
Pippa Funnell and Billy Landretti won the £4000 first prize to make up for the pair’s unfortunate fall at CCI*** Bramham when challenging for the lead.
It was a big day for the females of the eventing species as second place was taken by Piggy French on her Badminton second Jakata and Laura Collett was third on Rayef.
But the event was somewhat marred by a debacle at the second of three water jumps on the course. The runners go in reverse order of merit on the cross-country phase and so therefore perhaps it might be said that the less able competitors were the first to jump the course.
But that was not entirely the case – there were also some experienced combinations and all of them, it must be remembered, had qualified to be be there.
The course was almost identical to 2011 when there were two fallers in this particular water, except that for some strange reason, part D, a carved animal jumped on the way out, was not in its place and not flagged, although it was listed in the programme and was to be seen waiting against the stringing.
Within the first 10 rounds there were three horse falls at the obstacle for no obvious reason. One of the horses had to be transported off course by ambulance for veterinary assistance.
By this point the cross-country was running about 40 minutes late and the riders in the collecting ring began asking if and when the fence was to be removed. Amongst them were Lisa Maynard, Tom Crisp and Sarah Stretton, all very experienced riders with several four-star appearances between them.
Also waiting was Paul Tapner, winner of Badminton in 2010. They were told by the technical director, Jonathon Clisshold that the ground jury believed the fence to be safe and that the fallers had been “less experienced combinations and running the cross country in reverse order meant the obstacles were likely to cause more problems as the class started because in general the best combinations were nearer the top of the leader board”.
This statement was borne out somewhat by the result so far, as international riders Mark Todd and Frederic Varin had both jumped without incident.
Francis Whittington, chairman of the Event Riders Association, was also summoned to the collecting ring and said that everybody had walked the course without apparent particular concern and that it was each rider’s own responsibility to decide whether to run or not in current circumstances.
The riders were then asked who was prepared to go and Sarah Stretton set off galloping clear on her top horse Lazy Acres Skip On. Then Hannah Kirkhill, much less experienced, also finished with just her time penalties.
But the next to go, Tom Crisp, was not so lucky. After an immaculate round, completely without penalty (including jumping the first water which later disposed of Mary King and Rodney Powell) until that point, he came to grief on Cooly’s Luxury jumping the drop into the water. The pair initially got straight up but the horse was slightly dazed and had some cuts and bruising to his chest and another lengthy hold ensued.
Lisa Maynard, by this time held at fence seven on Welton Crescendo, was furious. Having been in the saddle at this point for nearly two hours she decided to retire.
“I was unsure after the earlier fallers but I did feel slightly under pressure to go and it is a lot of time and money to get to something like this but this is ridiculous. If they do not take the jump out, when is deciding to, when I am part way round a course, a good idea?”
The technical director did then appear at the fence in question and in consultation with the ground jury took the fence out but by this time the event was running over an hour late.
“The time it has taken to make this decision that has irritated me,” commented one rider who was later clear, “surely three horse falls are enough? The fourth one could just have been one too many and they you would be writing a completely different article including an obituary.”
But Paul Tapner was less critical. “It is true the problems were with less experienced combinations but that should not be a factor. I think consulting the riders was the right thing to do and Francis (Whittington) said exactly the right thing. It is our choice to ride in the end after all.
“On the other hand if this class had not been run in reverse order and there had been three horse falls at a fence, it might have been looked at differently, I don’t know. Certainly three was too many and when the fourth horse fell, there was no option. I would definitely have jumped the jump, I said so in the collecting ring, I was all set to go!”
An experienced observer, herself part of many ground jury teams in the past, was able to see both sides of the problem. “Personally, I dislike this reverse order thing because you do not always get a true picture of how the course is running because, as was said earlier, the least experienced combinations are often near the bottom. Look at the show jumping faults for the ones who went early. Only three of them were in single figures. But on the other hand I was surprised how late it was before the TD arrived on the scene, I was at the fence myself watching.
“I thought I would probably have inspected it myself after two fallers but there is no hard and fast rule. And perhaps it did jump better last year because a D element gave both horse and rider something to focus on but I have not heard why it was not there, either.”
The fence judges at that obstacle were Chris and Sue Trim, who are both extremely experienced. Chris is well known for bringing his rake and Wellington boots so he can keep a check on the surface under the water, so theories that there was a hole in the landing are probably moot. He had no explanation for the removal of part D, either. “No one came to set it up, anyway,” he said.
Sadly the class ran so late that I was unable to stay to the end and catch up with an official to ask about this. Which of course may have nothing to do with the problem but does appear to be the only significant difference between last year and this. Luckily four falls in 20 riders did not result in a fatality on this occasion but a few questions ought to be asked, particularly as Great Britain hosts the Olympic Games next year and a great many of the officials attending Barbury are likely to be involved at Greenwich.
First, why was a fence posted as part of a course and then removed without notification. Tom Crisp was expecting the jump to be there. “I walked it assuming it would be added in the morning, and certainly did not get notified that it wouldn’t be, although one less jump is hardly an issue usually, but it could have made a difference to the way some riders presented at the fence.”
Second, surely the technical delegate should be the first person to inspect a jump that has caused a problem, not the last to arrive on scene?
Third, after Ian Olding’s death at Belton Park in Lincolnshire in 2009 there was much debate about safety, the use of the rider representative system and the role of the TD, Ground Jury and other officials.
Some effective changes have been made but two of New Zealand’s finest said at the time when asked independently, that there was supposed to be a system in place to make sure these sort of things were not decided by riders on site ready to ride at the time.
Yes, there needs to be rider consultation but on the day, especially in the collecting ring – someone will always be prepared to ride.
Their blood is up and there are many other influences that potentially can affect an unbiased opinion. On this occasion, the fence should have been removed after the third horse fall, regardless of who it was, because that percentage to the amount of starters so far was just too high. On this occasion, Tom rips and Cooly’s Luxury both lived to tell the tale, although somewhat bruised and battered but if the worst had happened, who would then have carried the blame? The riders who want to compete, that is after all their reason for being there, or the officials whose job it is to ensure it is safe for them to do so?
This is not a problem posed by any of the organisers at Barbury who cannot be more accomodating in their efforts to make their event horse, rider and spectator friendly, but one for those running the sport to ponder on.
Organisers have the basic running of the show to get on with, the officials provided by the sport have a duty to make sure the sport lives up to the effort and care put into hosting it by the organising team.
All the classes were heavily subscribed and this year as well as four days of eventing, the show also hosted the Wiltshire Country Fair. Although final figures were not yet in at the time of going to press, the organisers were confident that this was the best attended Sunday since the event has been running. The glorious Wiltshire show piece will next year be the final warm up for the British team prior to the Olympic Games.
Debate at Barbury's second water jump
It was a big day for the females of the eventing species as second place was taken by Piggy French on her Badminton second Jakata and Laura Collett was third on Rayef.
But the event was somewhat marred by a debacle at the second of three water jumps on the course. The runners go in reverse order of merit on the cross-country phase and so therefore perhaps it might be said that the less able competitors were the first to jump the course.
But that was not entirely the case – there were also some experienced combinations and all of them, it must be remembered, had qualified to be be there.
The course was almost identical to 2011 when there were two fallers in this particular water, except that for some strange reason, part D, a carved animal jumped on the way out, was not in its place and not flagged, although it was listed in the programme and was to be seen waiting against the stringing.
Within the first 10 rounds there were three horse falls at the obstacle for no obvious reason. One of the horses had to be transported off course by ambulance for veterinary assistance.
By this point the cross-country was running about 40 minutes late and the riders in the collecting ring began asking if and when the fence was to be removed. Amongst them were Lisa Maynard, Tom Crisp and Sarah Stretton, all very experienced riders with several four-star appearances between them.
Also waiting was Paul Tapner, winner of Badminton in 2010. They were told by the technical director, Jonathon Clisshold that the ground jury believed the fence to be safe and that the fallers had been “less experienced combinations and running the cross country in reverse order meant the obstacles were likely to cause more problems as the class started because in general the best combinations were nearer the top of the leader board”.
This statement was borne out somewhat by the result so far, as international riders Mark Todd and Frederic Varin had both jumped without incident.
Francis Whittington, chairman of the Event Riders Association, was also summoned to the collecting ring and said that everybody had walked the course without apparent particular concern and that it was each rider’s own responsibility to decide whether to run or not in current circumstances.
The riders were then asked who was prepared to go and Sarah Stretton set off galloping clear on her top horse Lazy Acres Skip On. Then Hannah Kirkhill, much less experienced, also finished with just her time penalties.
But the next to go, Tom Crisp, was not so lucky. After an immaculate round, completely without penalty (including jumping the first water which later disposed of Mary King and Rodney Powell) until that point, he came to grief on Cooly’s Luxury jumping the drop into the water. The pair initially got straight up but the horse was slightly dazed and had some cuts and bruising to his chest and another lengthy hold ensued.
Lisa Maynard, by this time held at fence seven on Welton Crescendo, was furious. Having been in the saddle at this point for nearly two hours she decided to retire.
“I was unsure after the earlier fallers but I did feel slightly under pressure to go and it is a lot of time and money to get to something like this but this is ridiculous. If they do not take the jump out, when is deciding to, when I am part way round a course, a good idea?”
The technical director did then appear at the fence in question and in consultation with the ground jury took the fence out but by this time the event was running over an hour late.
“The time it has taken to make this decision that has irritated me,” commented one rider who was later clear, “surely three horse falls are enough? The fourth one could just have been one too many and they you would be writing a completely different article including an obituary.”
But Paul Tapner was less critical. “It is true the problems were with less experienced combinations but that should not be a factor. I think consulting the riders was the right thing to do and Francis (Whittington) said exactly the right thing. It is our choice to ride in the end after all.
“On the other hand if this class had not been run in reverse order and there had been three horse falls at a fence, it might have been looked at differently, I don’t know. Certainly three was too many and when the fourth horse fell, there was no option. I would definitely have jumped the jump, I said so in the collecting ring, I was all set to go!”
An experienced observer, herself part of many ground jury teams in the past, was able to see both sides of the problem. “Personally, I dislike this reverse order thing because you do not always get a true picture of how the course is running because, as was said earlier, the least experienced combinations are often near the bottom. Look at the show jumping faults for the ones who went early. Only three of them were in single figures. But on the other hand I was surprised how late it was before the TD arrived on the scene, I was at the fence myself watching.
“I thought I would probably have inspected it myself after two fallers but there is no hard and fast rule. And perhaps it did jump better last year because a D element gave both horse and rider something to focus on but I have not heard why it was not there, either.”
The fence judges at that obstacle were Chris and Sue Trim, who are both extremely experienced. Chris is well known for bringing his rake and Wellington boots so he can keep a check on the surface under the water, so theories that there was a hole in the landing are probably moot. He had no explanation for the removal of part D, either. “No one came to set it up, anyway,” he said.
Sadly the class ran so late that I was unable to stay to the end and catch up with an official to ask about this. Which of course may have nothing to do with the problem but does appear to be the only significant difference between last year and this. Luckily four falls in 20 riders did not result in a fatality on this occasion but a few questions ought to be asked, particularly as Great Britain hosts the Olympic Games next year and a great many of the officials attending Barbury are likely to be involved at Greenwich.
First, why was a fence posted as part of a course and then removed without notification. Tom Crisp was expecting the jump to be there. “I walked it assuming it would be added in the morning, and certainly did not get notified that it wouldn’t be, although one less jump is hardly an issue usually, but it could have made a difference to the way some riders presented at the fence.”
Second, surely the technical delegate should be the first person to inspect a jump that has caused a problem, not the last to arrive on scene?
Third, after Ian Olding’s death at Belton Park in Lincolnshire in 2009 there was much debate about safety, the use of the rider representative system and the role of the TD, Ground Jury and other officials.
Some effective changes have been made but two of New Zealand’s finest said at the time when asked independently, that there was supposed to be a system in place to make sure these sort of things were not decided by riders on site ready to ride at the time.
Yes, there needs to be rider consultation but on the day, especially in the collecting ring – someone will always be prepared to ride.
Their blood is up and there are many other influences that potentially can affect an unbiased opinion. On this occasion, the fence should have been removed after the third horse fall, regardless of who it was, because that percentage to the amount of starters so far was just too high. On this occasion, Tom rips and Cooly’s Luxury both lived to tell the tale, although somewhat bruised and battered but if the worst had happened, who would then have carried the blame? The riders who want to compete, that is after all their reason for being there, or the officials whose job it is to ensure it is safe for them to do so?
Controversy at Barbury.
Organisers have the basic running of the show to get on with, the officials provided by the sport have a duty to make sure the sport lives up to the effort and care put into hosting it by the organising team.
That is the colour of the coming equestrian season – retailers – be ready!As has often be said, it doesn’t matter how bad you perform, as long as you look good doing it, and I predict we will be seeing a lot of green-stained puce out there in coming weeks.
But I digress.
During my weekend travels I visited one of the country’s national equestrian centres, in Canterbury, and watched the action and inaction at the South Island Dressage Championships.
In horse sport, safety for the rider and welfare of the horse is supposedly paramount, but my beady little eyes had a somewhat different view. For one thing, it was a rather hot day and so many sweaty horses did not have sippy cups. And another thing, why don’t some riders have to wear crash helmets? Do they want to end up competing in the para divisions instead? Or experiencing the joys of the afterworld?
I did hear that a couple of northern riders donned skid lids for their grand prix tests, where top hats are de rigueur. Bravo for them. Our American friends have also recently introduced a raft of utterly confusing rules for dressage – get this:
Why not just say: “Everyone must wear head protection”.
Would that not send a better message to, frankly everyone, that horse people have a bit of sense with regard to safety?
Speaking of paras, I am not sure if these are the bravest people in the world or the craziest. Many were turned into paras by horses yet there they were, strapped into their saddles and out there doing it still. How can it be safe to be velcro-ed into your saddle and have your leathers tied to your legs? All it would take is a couple of loose dogs to have a barney under even the quietest horse’s torso, and it would be all over Rover, so to speak.
At least there are no issues over protective head gear.
Also on my weekend travels I had the pleasure to visit the South Island Arabian Championships to watch some delightful horses doing their thing in hand and under saddle.
Given the safety issue, you might be interested to know that there were were six entries in the best presented purebred arab class. Three riders were wearing top hats, the other three safety helmets (of the show variety, of course). The three wearing the top hats filled the top three placings.
Do you think there is a message here?
Toodles darlings, until next time.
During my weekend travels I visited one of the country’s national equestrian centres, in Canterbury, and watched the action and inaction at the South Island Dressage Championships.
In horse sport, safety for the rider and welfare of the horse is supposedly paramount, but my beady little eyes had a somewhat different view. For one thing, it was a rather hot day and so many sweaty horses did not have sippy cups. And another thing, why don’t some riders have to wear crash helmets? Do they want to end up competing in the para divisions instead? Or experiencing the joys of the afterworld?
Dressage rider Shiwon Green and Gosh compete at GP level at the NI Dressage Champs at the weekend.
“Effective March 1, 2011: For Dressage, anyone mounted on a horse must wear protective headgear except those riders age 18 and over while on horses that are competing only in FEI levels and tests at the Prix St. Georges level and above (including FEI Young Rider Tests, the USEF Developing Prix St. Georges Test and the USEF Brentina Cup Test).”
Read this and be amazed.Why not just say: “Everyone must wear head protection”.
Would that not send a better message to, frankly everyone, that horse people have a bit of sense with regard to safety?
Speaking of paras, I am not sure if these are the bravest people in the world or the craziest. Many were turned into paras by horses yet there they were, strapped into their saddles and out there doing it still. How can it be safe to be velcro-ed into your saddle and have your leathers tied to your legs? All it would take is a couple of loose dogs to have a barney under even the quietest horse’s torso, and it would be all over Rover, so to speak.
At least there are no issues over protective head gear.
Also on my weekend travels I had the pleasure to visit the South Island Arabian Championships to watch some delightful horses doing their thing in hand and under saddle.
Given the safety issue, you might be interested to know that there were were six entries in the best presented purebred arab class. Three riders were wearing top hats, the other three safety helmets (of the show variety, of course). The three wearing the top hats filled the top three placings.
Do you think there is a message here?
Toodles darlings, until next time.
FEI representation straight from Geldoff's mouth!
Princess Haya has laid out her vision if she’s re-elected to the presidency of the FEI and one of her very best ideas is to allow official athlete representation at FEI board level.
I am willing to throw my hat in the ring by nominating myself!
Was that Totilas seconding my nomination? (The carrot’s in the mail, buddy).
I do believe I saw Princess Haya raise her arm. Maybe she was scratching her nose, but, anyway, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a vote!
I’m in!
Geldoff is your very first official FEI ATHLETE representative!!!
You RIDER types can sod off and negotiate your own FEI representation with Princess Haya.
Now, down to business.
I’m pleased the princess has talked about diversifying income streams because we horses will be after a bigger slice of the action. Appearance money and half of any prize money, for a start.
Rest assured, Geldoff will be at the cutting edge of efforts to wind back bureaucracy. The rules across all disciplines will be much simpler. So simple, in fact, that even riders will be able to understand them.
I promise to listen to all points of view (if it suits me), and will always do the right thing (which may not necessarily be what anyone else wants).
Hey, that’s democracy at its finest. Or at least my form of it.
Happy grazing!
After much discussion both on my blog and here, and if my trusty readers can be relied upon, it seems Hickstead’s contraption is not as severe as it might look.
That’s good news. But it would appear that pretty much anything goes as far as bits, bridles and showjumpers are concerned. I know dressage has more bitting rules, but when it comes to a certain type of noseband, the interpretation is apparently more open. I am referring, of course, to the hideous crank noseband. Which, according to FEI rules, does not even exist.
As it so happens, one of my dearest pals and trusted sources is an extremely high ranking official in horse sport.
My friend told me that, while officiating at a super-high-level national event (I shan’t say where or when), she was asked by a dressage rider to do up her noseband just before she entered the arena. “I used every ounce of strength I had and couldn’t for the life of me get that noseband done up to the desired hole. In fact I was two holes short!”, my source told me.
“God god, if your teeth are already clamped together, how much tighter can you get?”
That is a good question. But even more shocking is the fact that in Europe, some riders are using a ratchet type device to tighten their nosebands. “Imagine your own jaw and teeth clamped together so hard that your whole head ached!”, my source declared.
Felicity agrees. Isn’t dressage supposed to be all about lightness and grace?
Sigh. In my day a cavesson noseband was a decoration, not a torture device.
I will hazard a guess and say the crank noseband (otherwise known as a Swedish noseband) was invented by some dressage genius (presumably Swedish?) who felt they needed a mouth-closing device when using a double bridle, and, not allowed under ‘the rules’ to use a flash or dropped noseband, came up with this wonderful new tool.
That’s good news. But it would appear that pretty much anything goes as far as bits, bridles and showjumpers are concerned. I know dressage has more bitting rules, but when it comes to a certain type of noseband, the interpretation is apparently more open. I am referring, of course, to the hideous crank noseband. Which, according to FEI rules, does not even exist.
As it so happens, one of my dearest pals and trusted sources is an extremely high ranking official in horse sport.
My friend told me that, while officiating at a super-high-level national event (I shan’t say where or when), she was asked by a dressage rider to do up her noseband just before she entered the arena. “I used every ounce of strength I had and couldn’t for the life of me get that noseband done up to the desired hole. In fact I was two holes short!”, my source told me.
“God god, if your teeth are already clamped together, how much tighter can you get?”
That is a good question. But even more shocking is the fact that in Europe, some riders are using a ratchet type device to tighten their nosebands. “Imagine your own jaw and teeth clamped together so hard that your whole head ached!”, my source declared.
Felicity agrees. Isn’t dressage supposed to be all about lightness and grace?
Sigh. In my day a cavesson noseband was a decoration, not a torture device.
I will hazard a guess and say the crank noseband (otherwise known as a Swedish noseband) was invented by some dressage genius (presumably Swedish?) who felt they needed a mouth-closing device when using a double bridle, and, not allowed under ‘the rules’ to use a flash or dropped noseband, came up with this wonderful new tool.
What on Earth is that contraption Hickstead is wearing? It looks like a normal snaffle with a (mechanical) hackamore over top. The reins are joined with one of those thingies that the two rings of a pelham are often joined with. I can’t imagine this is what the gauchos intended, but we live an evolving world.
My copy of the Elwyn Hartley Edwards standard volume ‘Saddlery‘ is not at my side so I can’t look it up. I don’t remember reading about it either.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not picking – at least not until I have all the information. Felicity can never be accused of being rash!
Hickstead looks happy. This may well be the greatest new invention for the horse since haymaking started. And if Hickers is wearing it then there must be plenty of other horses wanting to follow the latest trends.
In fact, I found another piccie of a horse wearing a similar setup – here’s a larger copy so you can see it properly.
My copy of the Elwyn Hartley Edwards standard volume ‘Saddlery‘ is not at my side so I can’t look it up. I don’t remember reading about it either.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not picking – at least not until I have all the information. Felicity can never be accused of being rash!
Hickstead looks happy. This may well be the greatest new invention for the horse since haymaking started. And if Hickers is wearing it then there must be plenty of other horses wanting to follow the latest trends.
In fact, I found another piccie of a horse wearing a similar setup – here’s a larger copy so you can see it properly.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét