Following the Olympic format debate at the last FEI Sport Forum, on behalf of the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) find below, the Olympic Format Jumping proposal has received full support from International riders and owners and was signed by a large number of Equestrian Sports stakeholders. In the view of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) and the FEI, we would like to take this opportunity to express the position of IJRC and NARG (representing the majority of world show jumping riders capable of competing at international and/or Olympic level) regarding the proposed Olympic jumping Team Format changes, discussed in the last Sport Forum in Lausanne. In principle, we support the FEI’s aim of increasing the number of nations competing at the Olympics but believe there are better ways of achieving this. It should be noted that of the 134 federations, 60 do not organise equestrian events, around 17 do not have riders and 26 do not have horses. Fewer than 44 nations have riders who compete at an international level in show jumping events. Mathematically speaking, it can therefore be affirmed that the majority of show jumping nations with eligible riders and horses is around 40 nations which have a realistic chance of being represented at the Olympic Games. The Athletes strongly suggest that 12 (or 13 or 14) teams of 4 riders should be permitted to participate at the Olympic Games. More space could therefore be given to individuals – 27 (or 23 or 19) riders – allowing a larger number of nations to compete than presently. Deserving athletes could then be rewarded, even when not backed by a strong federation or a nation with a strong tradition of show jumping. 1) Horse Welfare If there are only teams of three riders and no drop score, if one horse is deemed unfit to compete at 100% of its ability, the rider will be put under strong pressure to compete, in order to avoid elimination of the team. This goes against our fundamental principle of placing the welfare of the horse before everything. In addition, if one rider has to pull out to protect the welfare of his/her horse, the remaining riders have little option but to withdraw – thus seriously affecting both the competitive and entertainment value of the event. The horse and rider’s replacement in the second round, puts riders but above all the horses under great strain. The horse enters the competition not with a gradual increase in difficulty, but immediately has to jump a notably more difficult course, which could prove dangerous (expert course designers agree and they can confirm this point). It is a big disadvantage for the horse that has to come in an arena when he doesn’t test the surface, doesn’t know the jump material, the water jump and lines. In fact, it is well known that the first day and the first round of the Olympics and championships do not reflect the level of difficulty on the following days. This is to avoid accidents among less experienced riders, and to allow horses to progress gradually to an increase in difficulty. In the Rio Olympics, if there were teams of three riders, the USA Team and the Netherlands which both lost one horse on the second day, would have had to enlist their reserve horse. This reserve combination, should have competed in the third round in the second day with no experience of the arena and of the competition, which would have penalized their team’s performance and place the team ar risk. 2) Importance to keep the drop score Without the drop score, the competition would be less exciting, and we don’t want everything decided after one round. The drop score is not difficult to understand by the audience and keeps the competition more exciting till the end, otherwise everything can be decided after one round. Rio has proved that the format with the 4 riders and the drop score works. It was dramatic and suspenseful until the very end. Because in the equestrian sport two living beings are involved, one being an animal, the chance of elimination by accident or bad luck is more than doubled. This is why it is paramount to keep the drop score. The Games in Rio delivered a noteworthy example for this: the home team, Brazil, would have been completely disqualified if there had been no drop score. One of their riders was disqualified after competing. This would have eliminated the entire team if there was no drop score. The disappointment of the spectators would have been unimaginable. 3) Risk of withdrawal or elimination of the team With a team of three riders and no drop score, the following scenario could occur: If the first rider has a poor result (elimination; 12 or 16 penalties), there is little point in the other two team members continuing the competition, especially if the team event takes place after medals have been awarded for the Individual event. Do we want our sport take a step back, repeating the experience of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, when the team jumping format was changed from 4 to 3 riders, and the Canadians won with 3 riders with more than 100 penalties ? Or do we want to eliminate teams which have 16 penalties? 4) Participation of smaller nations at Olympic events It’s illusory to assume that by reducing the number of competitors per team more smaller nations would be able to compete – and win medals. We kindly ask you to analyse the following:
- Rio 2016: With drop score 15 Teams of 4 riders = 60 Individual: 15 Total : 75 riders and 28 flags (16 nations excluded out of 44)
- FEI proposal: No drop score 20 teams of 3 riders = 60 riders (20 active reserves) Individual: 15 Total: 75 riders and 33 flags (11 nations excluded out of 44) This proposal would place small nations who do not have a fourth rider, in difficulty, in the event of necessary substitution before or during the competition There is therefore little point in increasing the number of Olympic teams for only a further five flags.
- Athletes Proposal: With drop score (important to keep it) 14 teams of 4 riders = 56 riders Individual: 19 Total: 75 riders and 33 flags – same as FEI proposal (11 nations excluded out of 44)
Following the Olympic format debate at the last FEI Sport Forum, on behalf of the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) find below, the Olympic Format Jumping proposal has received full support from International riders and owners and was signed by a large number of Equestrian Sports stakeholders. In the view of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the International Jumping Riders Club (IJRC) and the FEI, we would like to take this opportunity to express the position of IJRC and NARG (representing the majority of world show jumping riders capable of competing at international and/or Olympic level) regarding the proposed Olympic jumping Team Format changes, discussed in the last Sport Forum in Lausanne. In principle, we support the FEI’s aim of increasing the number of nations competing at the Olympics but believe there are better ways of achieving this. It should be noted that of the 134 federations, 60 do not organise equestrian events, around 17 do not have riders and 26 do not have horses. Fewer than 44 nations have riders who compete at an international level in show jumping events. Mathematically speaking, it can therefore be affirmed that the majority of show jumping nations with eligible riders and horses is around 40 nations which have a realistic chance of being represented at the Olympic Games. The Athletes strongly suggest that 12 (or 13 or 14) teams of 4 riders should be permitted to participate at the Olympic Games. More space could therefore be given to individuals – 27 (or 23 or 19) riders – allowing a larger number of nations to compete than presently. Deserving athletes could then be rewarded, even when not backed by a strong federation or a nation with a strong tradition of show jumping. 1) Horse Welfare If there are only teams of three riders and no drop score, if one horse is deemed unfit to compete at 100% of its ability, the rider will be put under strong pressure to compete, in order to avoid elimination of the team. This goes against our fundamental principle of placing the welfare of the horse before everything. In addition, if one rider has to pull out to protect the welfare of his/her horse, the remaining riders have little option but to withdraw – thus seriously affecting both the competitive and entertainment value of the event. The horse and rider’s replacement in the second round, puts riders but above all the horses under great strain. The horse enters the competition not with a gradual increase in difficulty, but immediately has to jump a notably more difficult course, which could prove dangerous (expert course designers agree and they can confirm this point). It is a big disadvantage for the horse that has to come in an arena when he doesn’t test the surface, doesn’t know the jump material, the water jump and lines. In fact, it is well known that the first day and the first round of the Olympics and championships do not reflect the level of difficulty on the following days. This is to avoid accidents among less experienced riders, and to allow horses to progress gradually to an increase in difficulty. In the Rio Olympics, if there were teams of three riders, the USA Team and the Netherlands which both lost one horse on the second day, would have had to enlist their reserve horse. This reserve combination, should have competed in the third round in the second day with no experience of the arena and of the competition, which would have penalized their team’s performance and place the team ar risk. 2) Importance to keep the drop score Without the drop score, the competition would be less exciting, and we don’t want everything decided after one round. The drop score is not difficult to understand by the audience and keeps the competition more exciting till the end, otherwise everything can be decided after one round. Rio has proved that the format with the 4 riders and the drop score works. It was dramatic and suspenseful until the very end. Because in the equestrian sport two living beings are involved, one being an animal, the chance of elimination by accident or bad luck is more than doubled. This is why it is paramount to keep the drop score. The Games in Rio delivered a noteworthy example for this: the home team, Brazil, would have been completely disqualified if there had been no drop score. One of their riders was disqualified after competing. This would have eliminated the entire team if there was no drop score. The disappointment of the spectators would have been unimaginable. 3) Risk of withdrawal or elimination of the team With a team of three riders and no drop score, the following scenario could occur: If the first rider has a poor result (elimination; 12 or 16 penalties), there is little point in the other two team members continuing the competition, especially if the team event takes place after medals have been awarded for the Individual event. Do we want our sport take a step back, repeating the experience of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, when the team jumping format was changed from 4 to 3 riders, and the Canadians won with 3 riders with more than 100 penalties ? Or do we want to eliminate teams which have 16 penalties? 4) Participation of smaller nations at Olympic events It’s illusory to assume that by reducing the number of competitors per team more smaller nations would be able to compete – and win medals. We kindly ask you to analyse the following:
- Rio 2016: With drop score 15 Teams of 4 riders = 60 Individual: 15 Total : 75 riders and 28 flags (16 nations excluded out of 44)
- FEI proposal: No drop score 20 teams of 3 riders = 60 riders (20 active reserves) Individual: 15 Total: 75 riders and 33 flags (11 nations excluded out of 44) This proposal would place small nations who do not have a fourth rider, in difficulty, in the event of necessary substitution before or during the competition There is therefore little point in increasing the number of Olympic teams for only a further five flags.
- Athletes Proposal: With drop score (important to keep it) 14 teams of 4 riders = 56 riders Individual: 19 Total: 75 riders and 33 flags – same as FEI proposal (11 nations excluded out of 44)