URGENT Proposal from the FEI Dressage Task Force
As you know, I’ve been a member of the FEI Dressage Task Force since it was formed due to the resignation of the last Dressage Committee. We have been meeting weekly to resolve pressing issues and will continue to meet on a regular basis to achieve our goals until the next DC is elected. Here is the document sent out today to all the National Federations as well as the Stakeholder Groups for their opinions and consultation.
RD
Click below to read the document:
Proposal I: This proposal concerns the Olympic Format for Dressage.
As discussed with the IOC it is possible to change the format already for the Olympic Games London 2012, possible changes have to be forwarded to the IOC by the end of April 2009 at the latest. Although not completely in it’s original brief the Dressage Task Force (DTF) would like to make the following proposals:
The number of athletes:
The DTF would like to propose that the number of dressage athletes increases from 50 to 60. The numbers of athletes for those NFs directly qualifying a Team should be increased from 3 to 4 riders (3 team riders plus 1 individual rider). Before the start of the first competition the NF has to decide which athletes are team-members and who is an individual. This will enable the universality of the Dressage element of the equestrian Olympics to be maintained whilst ensuring that the best riders in the world are represented – there is also the chance that the additional rider can outperform one of the Team members and go on to compete in the Individual final. Increasing the number of Dressage athletes would mean a better geographical spread and maintain the ability of developing countries to compete, and would also create greater equity between the disciplines in terms of overall numbers.
The number of competitions and competition days:
It is proposed to maintain the same number of competition days however to have the team ranking including the first and second competition. Increase the number of riders to 60 for the first competition, 40 for the second and 20 for the final individual competition which would enable 30 more riders to compete in competitions 2 and 3 than is currently the case.
The schedule would be as follows:
Day 1 & 2: Competition 1: first team-competition, open for all 60 athletes (teams of 3, plus individuals)
Day 3 Competition 2: final team competition, open for 40 athletes:
(the 8 best teams and the 16 best individuals after competition 1)
Day 4 Competition 3: final individual ranking, open for the best 20 athletes from competitions 1 & 2 (max 3 per NF).
Format of competitions:
Day 1 & 2: Competition 1: Grand Prix
Day 3: Competition 2: Grand Prix Special short (5.5 min)(new test)
Day 4: Competition 3: GPFS
Draw for Competition 2: 16 individual riders drawn first in groups of 4, in reverse order from the result of Comp 1. Then the teams ranked 5th-8th after Comp 1 are drawn, and last the teams ranked 1st-4th.
Team result: Comp 1 + 2 total
Individual result: Comp 2 + 3 total
OR
Comp 1 + 3 total.
Please can you state a preference for the 2 options
Proposal II: This concerns the makeup of the Dressage Committee.
The proposal is 5 representatives – one from each stakeholder group
Organisers
Trainers
Riders
Judges
Owners
The final aim is that the representatives would be nominated by their Stakeholder groups - who are Associate Members of the FEI – the International Dressage Trainers Club (IDTC) etc. It is the goal that all stakeholders (riders, trainers, organisers, owners, judges) will with their registration at the FEI, automatically become members of the stakeholder group.
The representatives would need to be endorsed by their NFs as is the current practice.
The period of office is 4 years as is currently the case in the statutes
For the first few years there would be a draw to see who had to stand down after 2 years so that not the whole committee stood down at same time.
The Chair would eventually be from the Committee when a member stands down. The chair would NOT have a vote. In the interim the Chair would come from within the Task Force but would have to be endorsed by his/her NF
There can not be more than one rep from each NF. If possible, geographical spread (continental diversity) is encouraged.
The representatives are accountable to and responsible for communicating with their stakeholder group. It is for this reason that the DTF felt that the representatives must be put forward by the Stakeholder Group to ensure clear lines of communication and to ensure that that representative on the Dressage Technical Committee is truly speaking on behalf of and representing the views of the Stakeholder Group.
As part of this strategy and to ensure NF Stakeholder buy in and involvement in the decisions of the Technical Committees, National stakeholder groups must be developed to feed into the International stakeholder groups.
Interim solution for Nominations to the new Dressage Committee
As an interim measure and until such time as the Stakeholder associations have their Constitutions in line with FEI Guidelines it is proposed that for 2009 there should firstly be the possibility of the Stakeholder Associations – namely the International Riders Club, Judges Club, Trainers Club and Organisers Club proposing representatives (note the International Dressage Owners Club is not yet created), putting forwards proposals and secondly also of the NFs proposing people to fill these Stakeholder representative positions.
All of the proposals made by Stakeholder associations, once supported by their NFs, would as per the relevant rules go to the Nominations Committee for vetting.
Developing nations issues.
The DTF acknowledges that there needs to be close dialogue with developing nations and therefore proposes that where there are issues which may affect these nations that there can be a presentation at one of the meetings from such nations.
Enhancing NF involvement. It was discussed to assist the improvement of NF involvement that the Committee be doubled in size with 2 representatives from each stakeholder group however it is recognised that with the current financial situation and given the current statutes this would not be feasible.
Alison — March 6, 2009 @ 12:16 am
I have a few comments and questions on the proposal.
First, more is better. Increasing from 50-60 will definately be better. However, it will increase the number of strong competitors rather than a wider geographic scope since this change will not provide more opportunities for more countries, just more riders/country. However, will make a better competition.
Now questions…
are you saying that the idea is to combine GP and GPS scores for the team medal? what happens if one of the team riders cannot do the GPS - eg. Sunrise in HK, is that team outa luck? do the other 2 continue on as individuals? or teams?? because if the 3rd team member isnt able to do the GPS that would mean they are not in the top 8 and therefore not eligible to move onto the GPS and then the freestyle unless they are individuals?
Does the 4th member (individ) get a medal too if the team wins? or just the 3? I know stupid question…. but who wouldnt be disappointed not to take something home the team won, when even though you are an individual you are a part of the team in travel training etc….
For the GPS, are you saying that all individuals will ride first before ALL the team riders regardless of GP score? why then, would it matter how riders did in the GP when if the team is in the top 8 because they will still ride after all the individuals. It is possible that a team rider scores well below the field but the other 2 team riders hold up the average. eg USA in HK
Question for above for teams that dont make top 8 due to loss of 3rd rider - riders can or cannot move on to the GPS and freestyle? do they continue as individuals and thus be placed in the first 16 for the GPS?
For the GPFS, the top 20 with max 3/NF - including or excluding the individual?
does the draw for GPFS stay the same as before?
And, personally I would like to see the Individual medal be a combo of all 3 scores. Or failing that, the GPS and GPFS
I apologize if the answer to some of those questions is obvious to those ‘in the know’.
Alison Martin
lita dove — March 13, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Robert– has there been any more discussion on adding more judges/ dropping low and high a la figure skating?
I honestly don’t think this will change anything much, but it probably looks good from a PR standpoint and heaven knows, that is not a small achievement.
LOL
RDover2 — March 13, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Wow, Alison, a lot of questions. Read the proposal again and I think most if not all will be answered therein.
Once the team is definite, the 4th rider may only go as an individaul, therefore, would not be elegible for a team medal.
The individuals will go in groups that are reversed from their placements in the GP.
I think all the rest is stated clearly in the proposal.
As for trying to change the number of judges and the way in which the scores are to count, we will be taking up the matter further in April and I’m sure you will be able to read and make your opinions known to the DTF before a final decision is maden just as we are now doing with the OG format and the DC structure.
Cheers!
RD
Alison — March 18, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Thanks Robert for the reply, and I am enjoying your site and personal views of things.
I must be a bit daft - since I cant seem to read betw the lines and answer my first question above.
If the 3rd rider cannot go onto the GPS - do the rest of the riders become individuals? this must be the case then, but the wording implies to me that just the top 8 team riders plus the top 16 individ (by the wording sounds like the 4th rider) leaving the others who were on a team - in limbo.
Congrats and Good luck on trying to change something as big as this.
Alison