|
Post by Michelle on Jun 25, 2012 21:51:16 GMT -4
A very good question, Bono and certainly one that would lead me to offer my opinions for a very long and loud time!!
Fundamently, the answer is .... they are expected to contribute NOTHING. It would be jolly nice if they won a gold medal but even if they stuff that up ... we will probably give them another chance next time anyway.
We get a lot of extra funding when we win medals, so it is important to do so. However, it also costs a lot of money to try to win medals... so it is a bit of a treadmill - and one that is a bit bewildering when you are on the outside watching and funding it all!!
|
|
|
Post by pennyrose on Jun 25, 2012 22:33:05 GMT -4
As "family" we have obviously been watching and reading all the comments here and on "An Eventful Life".
The criteria for Athlete Selection are clearly laid out by EA. Go to their website, click on the Green&Gold banner and on the far right hand side "Athlete Information". Under this there are the Olympic Selection Criteria.
It might be interesting to read these and then look at the riders' performances and previous experience in the light of the criteria which is what the selectors were asked to do. I don't know if this really changes anything but there are obviously a number of factors about which we Nobodies know anything. Ours not to reason why....
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 26, 2012 1:33:21 GMT -4
Ok ... I have tried to make sense of this document but maybe someone can help me interpret it? Right at the beginning we have (2) In order to be chosen by Equestrian Australia as a member of the Shadow Team each Athlete must be a member of the 2012 National Elite or A Squad as selected by Equestrian Australia and attached as Attachment 3.There is no Attachment 3 but the squads are listed on the EA website www.equestrian.org.au/?ID=28191Followed by the Nomination of Athletes .... (3) Only nominate Athletes who are, or are recognised by the AOC as, members of the Shadow Team;This seems fairly straight forward however I must be missing something as I cannot see Flying Finish listed on either the Elite Squad or the National A Squad I assume someone has made a hasty correction with a HB pencil to fix this little boo-boo??
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 26, 2012 2:56:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sylviag on Jun 26, 2012 4:35:33 GMT -4
Tried to summarize some 4 star placings/results. Have only looked at 2011/2012. Flying Finish - 2nd 2012 (Luhmuhlen) Pharanelli - 3rd 2011 (Adelaide) Taurus - 5th 2011 (Adelaide) Bendigo lll - 6th 2011 (Pau) Rutherglen - 6th 2012 (Luhmuhlen) Leilani - 8th 2011 (Pau) Rutherglen - 17th 2012 (Lexington)
Elite squad member Pharanelli second best placing but not even picked as a reserve and also won (eventing) Horse of the Year at Adelaide. Please, if I haven't summarized these results correctly, have no problem with somebody checking. My eyes are getting blurry from looking at so many results/numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bono on Jun 26, 2012 5:31:22 GMT -4
My comments were not referring to Australian based riders. I would be happy if the whole team was from Australian based. We seem to be heading the same way as New Zealand who had to head to England to be selected. We have riders in Australia who have dedicated their lives to Australian eventing with no selection results. Is this what we want. My husband's country of birth is Wales. Going by Australian standards I should be able to get the Wesh Govt to sponsor me and select me to represent Wales. Does this sound fair. I think not. Does anyone feel as I do?
|
|
|
Post by sylviag on Jun 26, 2012 5:41:00 GMT -4
Biggirl - thankyou for your reply. I am not real good at analyzing final scores and their exact meanings but I see what you are saying. Just re-reading a few things and picking up on the comment that Flying Finish was not named on a squad. If this is correct, how could FF be picked??? Ahh, Michelle, maybe that discretionary rule. So does that mean even though squads were named and those named riders worked damned hard to get the results, they can still be upstaged at the last minute by discretionary powers??
|
|
|
Post by bono on Jun 26, 2012 5:47:12 GMT -4
In reply to silviag that is what happened in the dressage with Hayley Beresford's appeal which she lost. Lyndal Oatley's second horse was not on the squad but was selected. From whst I read on the cyberhorse forum the rules were rewritten after the selection.
|
|
|
Post by bono on Jun 26, 2012 5:57:38 GMT -4
My misake it is Hayley and not Lynsal Oatley's second horse Ronan11 that was selected.
|
|
|
Post by sylviag on Jun 26, 2012 7:39:32 GMT -4
I stand corrected, L Fredericks was named on the squad so no problems there afterall, my mistake. Just seems like, in general, the team selected has been selected for dressage. With jumping, let's cross our fingers and hope we have a few good performances on the day.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 26, 2012 8:19:40 GMT -4
No Sylvia, your eyes ARE getting blurry ... Lucinda was on the A squad with Prada NOT Flying Finish ... it is the combination that needs to be on the squad!!
|
|
|
Post by sylviag on Jun 27, 2012 20:30:46 GMT -4
Hi Michelle - I have been reading the high performance stuff but need to go over it again as at a quick glance I can't see where they mentioned the combination i.e. that it must stay as nominated. But you are very cluey so assume you are correct.
But what I can see is that the general criteria for selection to the Olympics is so broad that a rider/athlete can be overlooked for many reasons. General criteria (i) The eventing selection panel may, in its discretion, place greater emphasis on one or more of the General Criteria in considering the horse and Athlete combinations for nomination to the AOC.
A horse and athlete have competition criteria to be met and then there is general criteria to be met as well.
For example, General criteria (e) Competition based factors at the CCI*** and CCI**** events will be taken into consideration, including, but not restricted to: (iv.) the general conditions under which the performance is achieved, such as the weather and footing;
What does that mean exactly?? So if selectors decide that an Australian combination can not cope with a heavy (wet) and windy track then you won't be selected.
(ii.) the technical features of the competition, in particular the cross country fences and terrain.
So if selectors don't think you have jumped enough technical fences you are overlooked??
Selectors can also make decisions related to their perceived ability of a horse and athlete to cope under pressure. I guess if they feel you can't cope, you won't be selected. So we'll take the easy option and select people who have been before even if they don't have the best results.
General criteria (g) (i.) the ability or potential ability of horse and Athlete combinations to perform under the stress and pressure of an Olympic game.
Competition criteria (c) in exceptional circumstances the eventing selection panel, if unanimous and having the written conformation of the EA High Performance Manager, may waive the requirement to achieve the stated score in a CCI***/**** event (total penalty score of 62 or less). (i.) horses with outstanding ability in cross country, jumping or dressage but which have not achieved the stated above score (62) in this period.
My interpretation of that (which could be wrong) is that you could finish on a total penalty score of 99 but if the dressage test was exceptional, you're in.
The general criteria seems to give selectors the ability to make decisions on so many levels and intangible situations that it would seem an impossible task to cover 'all bases' in your bid to achieve selection. So what exactly do we tell younger riders what it is they need to do??
Competition criteria (c) (ii.) in a situation where a reliable and consistent combination is nominated to meet the Team objective and provide an effective balance within the team.
So what exactly does a rider/Athlete need to do to meet this condition?? What does a combination need to do to show that they can provide an effective balance within the team?? Is this assesed all the way thru or you can be overlooked at the last minute because selectors deem that you are not able to provide an effective balance within the team. So potentially, this could be a reason for non-selection???
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jun 27, 2012 20:44:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by bella on Jun 28, 2012 2:35:22 GMT -4
Eh, I think it's a perfect team. We're sure to see some brilliance, can't wait to watch! As for riding and competing overseas.. Let's be honest, who comes to compete in Australia? In Europe at most events an Australian would compete against at least 5 other nations. Eventing in Australia is amazing, but our geography is less than desirable!
|
|
|
Post by sylviag on Jun 28, 2012 4:13:34 GMT -4
Yes, agree somewhat with what you are saying. Maybe others should compete here to make a level playing field, we have to go all the way over there. Just feels a bit like two of our combinations are Australian but not 'Australian' eventers. One combination hasn't ridden here for around 20 years I believe and another combination, as far as I am aware, has never ridden here. (If I have that wrong I am happy to be corrected). Just hope this is not going to become a trend................
Part of Austin Login's article, his take on matters and the five individual slots: But Australia sees itself as a working man’s/woman’s country. And the essence of this selection controversy is that the folks who did the work to win the Individual slots think it unseemly that others who didn’t might get to use them. Anyway, if you are still with me after this circuitous journey, hopefully you understand that the spurned Aussies who did the work to earn the slots are perhaps a bit legitimately ticked off, and not a bunch of gratuitous whiners.
|
|