02
April 2004 An Open Letter to the FEI.
Mr.
Ian Williams, Head of Endurance Department
FEDERATION
EQUESTRE INTERNATIONALE
Avenue
Mon-Repos 24, CP 157
1000
Lausanne 5
SWITZERLAND
RE: Restated/Additional Objections to FEI
Endurance Proposals:
In Re: Certificates of Capability
Qualification of Nations
Dear
Ian:
It is
with a deep sadness and regret that this letter is drafted. However, too often issues within the
Endurance Discipline are dealt with out of simple expediency or, worse, in the
self-interest of those involved. This
has been especially true Internationally, and occurs too much at home as
well. Unfortunately, when it happens
Internationally, it is displayed on a much broader and more visible stage. This must stop. We need debate, not to determine a “majority” position, but to
determine what is “right” in keeping the Horse first.
Representatives
of the United States Equestrian Federation attending the FEI General Assembly
in Paris in April will be prepared to publicly debate these issues, and
others. However, this open letter to
you will also be distributed to other Endurance Nations to encourage debate and
consensus regarding these issues. This
is another unfortunate moment for this discipline, especially following the
Paris Endurance Forum of only 13 months ago and the preceding disasters at
Jerez.
Our
previous letter of 04 February 2004 to you is enclosed again as a courtesy
reference for you and other nations, together with your response of 24 February
2004, as the same courtesy. I want you
to know your letter was reviewed in detail at the AERC National Convention
by: the USEF Active Riders’ Committee,
the USEF Endurance Technical Committee, the USEF Endurance Int’l. High
Performance Committee, and the AERC-International Committee. As well, points raised in your letter, and
since, have been discussed within the USEF Int’l. High Performance Working
Group (which involves all FEI disciplines).
The
point is the USA position is not some simple “knee-jerk” reaction. Neither is it a result of seeking
competitive advantage. It is a quest to
ensure complete commitment to the safety of our silent partners, the Horse.
Qualifying Nations:
We
discussed this issue on the last page of our letter from 04 February, and the
issue has subsequently been raised in the Endurance Intercontinental
E-Zine/Newsletter. Interestingly,
Suzanne Dollinger’s article outlined the effect of application of the same
Olympic criteria we had previously suggested should be the starting
point of such discussions. We would
respectfully request the USA proposal outlined be reconsidered, as it provides
for a little bit broader participation and encourages further National and
Regional organization of the discipline.
Application
of the proposal outlined in our previous letter would currently result in only
13 nations (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Holland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UAE, and USA) being qualified for the
2004(5) WEC in Dubai, plus some number of individuals whose Nation(s) are not
qualified, but who qualified themselves under the WWR. It is expected our proposal might be
broadened slightly, and if something like it were implemented to be applicable
in 2008, more regions could organize to get qualified. (Please Note: We believe that opportunities for Nations
without teams seeking to qualify individual[s] to compete should be based on
season-long results of specific rider/horse combinations, not on rider results
that disregard how many horses they used.)
Additionally,
the proposal encourages broader regional games development of Team Competition
for Endurance. If, in the future, there
are South American, British Commonwealth Games, Goodwill Games, Scandinavian,
South East Asian, Pacific Rim, African, or other creatively drawn 4-Star
one-day 160 mile Endurance Championships which potentially qualify/ies more
teams, so be it. And
congratulations. If any nation or
region or nation group can demonstrate the ability to put together an FEI
Endurance Championship event, manage team competition AND successfully/safely
compete/complete their Horses, let them in.
They will have earned and proved their right to compete.
The
World Wide Rankings do not indicate or confirm any particular Nation’s ability
to field and safely manage a team in international competition. Application of a standard along the lines of
the Olympic disciplines rewards countries which achieve consistent Team efforts
and performance in such competitions.
Additionally,
the WWR’s do not require an athlete-rider to demonstrate the ability to perform
successfully at a specific place and time.
They only have to keep attending FEI-sanctioned events and gathering
points, and they can do so on different horses. As well, there is no penalty for failure, or consistent
failure. It is simply a points’ race
and the Horse finishes second as a potentially disposable good. That proposal does not follow the FEI Code
of Conduct. (There have also been
problems in how the WWR’s have been applied, as also occurred in the Master’s
Series, as your office is aware.)
Certificates
of Capability:
Receipt of your letter of 05 March 2004 to the USEF
is acknowledged. However, the USA
Endurance Community does not favor or agree with the FEI’s interpretation of
the rule on earning a Certificate of Capability.
It is clear parties who recognized the draft rule
left the issue subject to distortion or misinterpretation, but clearly
recognized what was intended. They
raised these questions as “questions”.
All that needed to be done was to have the FEI Endurance Committee
insert the simple language necessary to correct the problem. Your letter leaves it unclear whether they
were consulted. Having attended the
2003 Paris Endurance Forum (and prior Toulouse Group meeting beforehand with
the USA contingent) and having moderated the 2002 Jerez Endurance Forum at Mr.
Stone’s request, the USA is strongly opposed to this twisted
interpretation. It is only more
frustrating having also reviewed your prior December 2003 letter to the
Australians advising the true intent of the rule would be enforced, requiring
CoCs be earned in one-day 160km events.
Ian, horses died in Jerez because, in part, of this
particular gap in the rules. The FEI
must stand up for the Horse. There is
no explanation which will absolve you, or any of us, from that responsibility.
Do the right thing.
A smaller WEC is not a failure.
A WEC with a majority of compromised horses, a dead horse, and/or riders
or horses who have never succeeded at that distance and time and cause
themselves and their silent partners pain or worse IS.
Thank you for the FEI’s continuing consideration.
Respectfully,
Arthur W. Priesz, Jr., Esq.
USEF Vice President of Endurance
USEF Chair of Endurance International High
Performance Committee
USEF Chair of Endurance Technical Committee
USEF Endurance National Team Chef d’Equipe
AERC-International Committee, member