Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> > joe wrote:
> > ... I haven't kept up with our FEI procedures, so I could be
> completely off base on this, ...

pretty much, your comments were completely off base on most of the
points:)  Read the procedures at:

 

http://www.usef.org/documents/highPerformance/endurance/2006WEGSelectionProcedures.pdf

and the background documents at:

 

http://www.usef.org/content/equestrianSports/disciplines/highperformance/endurance.php

it doesn't take long to go through the above and speaking from the right
framework will keep the discussion on track (AIUI:).

I  think the inflammatory post of kseits was also speaking from a
POV which lacked specific information. Sound's like he was of the opinion
that other (specific?) horse/rider teams should have been selected to go
to Aachen. 

He projected his opinion ("xyz" horse should gone) abstractly,
while at the same time identifying specific individuals who should not
have gone. His agenda, -- maybe that the USEF selection process is in
need of review? If so, I agree with him on that point - too bad he didn't
just say that. But if his agenda was just to whine that xyz should have
been selected over some of the ones that went -- he's focused on the
wrong issue (IMO) (plus he's whining:).

>Diane wrote: 
>Why are we shipping a horse that MIGHT be ok when there
are hundreds here that ARE ok?

As to Diane's comment that there are 100s of horse/rider teams
that would have performed better at Aachen ... Start naming them!! I
don't think there ARE 100s of teams that were ready to go. I think that
over the 18 month period of selection for this ride that there were @80
or so that nominated (these were the only one's whose riders/owners
specifically WANTED them to go) and that after the process the USEF puts
them ALL through, (first down to @40, then down to @18?, then down to 12,
then down to 5) -- after ALL that, we were lucky to have 2 that would
finish. We have the wrong process (IMO). We have no transparency in the
selection process. We have elitism being encouraged. We have a small
group of individuals shaping the process in what appears to be secret
little huddles and meetings. 

Rather than rail against the riders/horses that were selected through the
current process:

1 - identify those that defined and implemented the current process.
2 - work with them in an open and transparent manner to correct the
deficiencies of the current process
3 - get involved and be part of the solution to this problem (which has
been overly simplified by the current thread IMO).

But - all, the information as to the process used to select the team for
Aachen is open for you review. start from there with your questions and
suggestions (while minimizing the whine factor if possible:)

jt