Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

WEG Selection (Long but worth reading)



Sorry Guys, I do not post much but when I do it tends to get long.
 
Heidi's comments to my prior post shows our very different points of views:
 
Heidi states that:
<<I would have to strongly disagree with Carlos' interpretation of the selection
process used for continental and world championships.  The goal of selection
is not to see who can win Tevis or Old Dominion or Cosequin or any other race,
it is to send horses who are PEAKED to do their best at the championship! >>
 
From the competitors point of view,  when you are going to a World Championship,
and I have been at three of them and two Olympics in other sports, the purpose is to
WIN . In the case of endurance, we may not be trying to Win the Tevis 
but I sure do expect that we are trying to WIN the WEG.  My experience has
always been that "Doing your Best" is an excuse for losers.  At that level of
competition you either are ready, willing and able to put it all on the line or you do
 not belong.    At the world level of competition the winner is
decided by miniscule difference. This difference is only achieved by having a total
and absolute commitment to win. Few occasions in life deserve this level
of commitment.
 
 <<Thereason that emphasis is placed on prior record is to show that the horse is a
CONSISTENT finisher and can CONSISTENTLY be competitive.  It does very little
good to send a squad of horses that may win a prestigious ride here and there,
only to be pulled at half of the competitions he enters.>>
 
Babe Ruth batted more Home Runs than anybody else. He also stroke out more
than anybody else. This is what happens at high levels of competition. The mark of
a real champion is being able to put all pieces together and draw from within,
even when the chips are down, to WIN.  For a World Championship I would much prefer
to count on "Old Babe"  regardless of how many times he stroke out in the previous
year.
 
<<  A history demonstrates that the rider KNOWS how to peak the horse for specific
competitions, and the riders are constantly interviewed by the selectors to
see how "on target" they are with their plans for the horse during the
selection year.......>>

This is much too subjective. There are many selectors , all with different opinions
and not all the selectors get to see and interview all the riders therefore, there is no
consistency in the evaluation process. You will probably see 100  more things than
the next selector, consequently whoever draws you is either at a disadvantage or has
gain an advantage  over the other poor guy in Tupelo, Mississippi.
 
 Even at little back-yard rides, it does not take long before the experienced riders or crews
sized-up the vets and know who you can trust and who to stay away from if anything
is marginal. I'll tell you what, if it was me, and anything with my horse was less
that 100% and I saw you or Nancy Loving coming,  I would run for cover. You girls are
just too good and the next vet probably will never notice.
 
As to the interviews, Come on, everybody says what they expect that  the selector wants
to hear. Do you really think anybody will tell  you if  their horse was lame the week
before?

 
<<... I have been a selector for a gold-medal continental
championship team, and I can remember how upset some of the other selectors
were with me when I argued against sending a horse that had had a great year
and had just won a 100-miler that I had vetted, and that had been one of our
"top drawer" horses all year.  I didn't like the fact that the horse looked
tired and wrung out, and didn't turn in the sorts of vet scores he should have
at the BC judging.  He had had a hard season and was already on his way down.
Sure enough, he entered another 100-miler three weeks later, was pulled for
metabolic problems, and had to be extensively treated.  This is where human
judgment comes into play in the selection process.  >>
 
Personally I believe that the current selection process encourages exactly 
the kind of behavior you described.  Athletes are achievers, great athletes
are great achievers. As such, they want to know what are the goals to guarantee
their place in the team. When the selection process is so ambiguous and the statement
is made that the " IDEAL FOR THE HORSE IN THE WORLD TEAM IS A
MYTHICAL HORSE THAT WINS ALL HIS RACES AND WINS BEST CONDITION
AT EVERY RACE " you have just forced your best athletes to push the envelope
to the extreme. Many believe and I concur, the current selection process is a
horse killer. It is far easier on everybody to plan your competition and Peak for
one or two great performances in the year than to try to be up for every demonstration
ride over a period of 4-6 months. You will also be better able to assess the team's ability
and for those who care, heavy weights will be better able to participate since heavyweight
can not expect to compete at a National Level every 4 to 6 weeks as a light weight
can.
 
<<The process will never be perfect, but other FEI disciplines have had
selection processes much as you describe, where performances at specific
events are used and scored, and they have had never-ending problems with
sending horses that are past their peak for the "big event."  We had the same
problem in The Hague, when too many of our great horses had been ridden with
the idea that they had to somehow beat each other up during the selection
process.  Pretty dumb, when you think about it.  There is enough bad luck in
this sport without sending horses that are tired, stressed nearly to the point
of injury, etc.  Other factors enter in, too, such as whether a horse excels
on the type of course that the particular event will have, and (especially in
the case of overseas events) how well he hauls long distances.  Nope, I hope
the selection process keeps human judgment front and center, and that we keep
refining our ideas and learning more about the selection process with every
event we enter.>>
 
I agree, no process will ever be perfect. Given this fact though, would it not make
sense to make the selection process  as fair and objective as possible?
Select three races, one in the East, one in the West and one in the Mid West.
Every nominee has to ride at least 2 of the 3 races. Award points for place finish
and Best Condition Scores and the top 6 riders with the highest total score are IT. 
To make sure that the horse is not "used up" I would require a Vet evaluation 2 weeks
before departure. If the horse does not pass the Veterinarian  evaluation you go to the
first alternate.  WHO COULD ARGUE WITH A PROCESS LIKE THIS?

<<The hardest part about the selection process this year was that we really DID
have a lot of depth in the long list--many horses were still looking terrific,
and we could get a ways down our alternate list and still send a pretty
impressive squad, IMO.  I will strongly second your good wishes for their
success in Dubai. >>
 
In my opinion, it is precisely because there are so many great riders in this
country that we owe them the right to WIN their place in the Team and not
be selected .  I would venture to say that our top 50 riders will probably
rank among the top 40 in the world. On any given day any one of them
can beat the other. As I see it, the real competition for the WEG is making
the US team not riding in Dubai. There will be some great riders there, for sure,
but you would face a lot more depth of competition at an ROC than you
will in Dubai.
 
I want to reiterate that this dissertation is not  meant, in any way,  to belittle the
selected members of the team. Every one of them is a top rider and would
 have had just as good a chance of making the team in a run-off race .
In the latter case, though, there would be no room for arguments or difference
of opinion . You can not argue with a winner and as one of my old coaches used
to say,  only the winner gets the medal.
 
Regards,
Carlos Crespo
Florida


    Check it Out!    

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff

Back to TOC