No matter how successful the competition is, the road to a major games is never entirely smooth. Canada’s dressage team faced some particular challenges this year on their journey to Paris due to a controversy over the selection process.
Selection issues aren’t unusual. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) handles hundreds of tribunal cases across all sports each year and in the last fiscal year, 31% were related to team selections. Team nominations for the sports of dressage and para-dressage have been the subject of appeals and SDRCC arbitration at least seven times in the past 10 years. While most of those cases are resolved quietly behind closed doors, occasionally one lands in the public eye, often becoming the subject of rumours and misinformation.
Grounds for appeal
Whispers within the dressage community began to circulate in late June when the planned date for the Olympic dressage team announcement came and went with no word from Equestrian Canada (EC) or the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC). As days passed with no news or updates, concern mounted: perhaps EC had exercised its option not to nominate a team at all, given that no declared athlete had achieved a 70% final ranking average in the qualifying competitions which had been part of EC’s Olympic qualifying criteria.
Rumours of a selection dispute were confirmed when a website published an article on June 29th listing the names of the nominated team and outlining a successful appeal launched by rider Ariana Chia. Her complaint claimed conflicts of interest within the High Performance Advisory Group (HPAG) which selects the team, due to the inclusion on the committee of a declared athlete (Denielle Gallagher-Legriffon) and the wife of a declared athlete who is also listed as the owner of a declared horse (Lisa Von Martels.)
With EC and team riders not permitted to comment before the COC officially announced the team, the information void was filled by speculation and outrage from supporters who believed Chia had been robbed of her rightful spot on the team.
One source of confusion was the fact that Chia was at the time the highest Canadian on the FEI’s world dressage rankings, an achievement that some felt should automatically earn her a position on the Olympic team. However, FEI rankings are unrelated to qualifying for Canada’s Olympic team, which instead considers average scores earned in Grand Prix and Grand Prix Special tests during the qualifying period at a CDI3* or above (see below for more on EC’s Qualifying Criteria).
The HPAG rankings are based on average scores earned in CDI3* or above Grand Prix and Grand Prix Special tests during the qualifying period.
On July 5, the COC and EC announced Canada’s 2024 Olympic dressage team and confirmed the names previously leaked: Naïma Moreira Laliberté and Statesman, Jill Irving and Delacroix 12, and Camille Carier Bergeron and Finnländerin, along with travelling reserve Chris Von Martels and Eclips. Chia and Guateque IV were also nominated as the second reserve pair.
EC did not publicly address Chia’s appeal nor publish the final qualifying rankings at the time of the announcement. They did provide the standings upon request, confirming that the team selection followed the final scores, as well as each component of the nomination criteria. However, without that information available publicly, online speculation about wrongdoing by the HPAG persisted. Equally under the SDRCC system, the process is supposed to remain confidential until the ruling is published by the adjudicator and the SDRCC; for this reason EC remained silent throughout the process in accordance with the SDRCC agreement.
That same day, Chia shared a lengthy post on her personal Facebook page that included the following statements:
“I truly am thrilled for the riders selected to go to Paris. I think everyone loves the idea of a feud, and nothing fuels that fire more than gossip, but a feud between us riders is never what my issue was about, or something that I wanted to start.
The crux of my concern was the inclusion of competing athletes and their spouses in the nomination and selection process—a situation most would find questionable.
Let me clarify; I respect these individuals and have no personal grievances against them or any team members. My grievance was with EC and their failure to comply with the terms of the selection process and criteria as determined by the arbitrator.”
Conflict resolution
Common sense suggests that all members with a conflict of interest should recuse themselves from any selection discussion as soon as the conflict is known. The reality is not so simple.
“The sport community is small in Canada, even smaller in equestrian and from the grassroots to international level, the occurrence of conflict of interest in sport is unavoidable,” says Melanie McLearon, Equestrian Canada’s Director, Marketing & Communications. “Due to the interconnectedness and limited number of individuals with sufficient knowledge and experience in high-performance equestrian sport, it is a consistent challenge with many nomination and selection processes, even internationally.”
EC’s Olympic qualifying criteria document defines how these inevitable conflicts of interest must be handled:
“No voting or non-voting member of the HPAG shall participate in any discussions or decisions regarding the nomination of any athlete with whom they have a perceived or real conflict of interest. Any member of the HPAG who considers that they are in a real or perceived conflict of interest must declare such a conflict before any discussions are held or decisions are made,and must remove themselves from any meetings until the matter giving rise to the perceived or real conflict of interest has been resolved by the HPAG.”
The two athlete representatives that are part of HPAG are voted on by the dressage riders and are an integral part of the committee. HPAG chair Victoria Winter confirms both members in question declared their conflicts and explains how the committee opted to handle the issue.
“At the time of the Olympic selection meeting, it was clear that Lisa would not be able to participate in the selection discussions or vote due to her familial connection and was asked to recuse herself. Prior to departing the meeting, Lisa asked if she could share comments she had received from the athlete community. We agreed that she could do so. Lisa provided information that was recorded in the meeting minutes and then left the meeting.
“With Lisa’s recusal, Denielle was the sole athlete representative. We discussed her potential conflict as a competing athlete and agreed that she could participate as she was not high enough in the score rankings to be considered for the Team. In our view, it was imperative that one of the elected athlete representatives be part of the discussion and that the athlete voice was a key input.”
While EC and the selection committee members believed they handled the conflicts correctly, the SDRCC arbitrator disagreed. In his decision, Professor Richard MacLaren noted two key errors by the HPAG:
1. Allowing Von Martels to provide the committee with “athlete feedback” before recusing herself;
2. Pre-determining that Gallagher-Legriffon would not be in contention for a team spot and waiving her conflict of interest.
Per the arbitrator’s instructions, Von Martels and Gallagher were removed from the selection meetings. Wendy Christoff served as a replacement to meet the required quorum and the revised committee voted again. The results of the second vote mirrored the first, with team members being nominated according to the final qualifying rankings.
What happened next
The story could have (and perhaps should have) ended there, with the dispute resolved and team members and alternates preparing excitedly for Paris. But it didn’t.
First there was confusion about whether travel for the second reserve horse was being paid for by EC. Ordinarily, a second travelling reserve position is not funded for any discipline, but Lisa Von Martels and Denielle Gallagher-Legriffon hosted a wildly successful event in Florida this past winter that raised more money than expected. As a result, the initial thought was that there would be enough money to fund a travelling second-reserve, which was communicated to Chia. When expenses came in higher than anticipated, however, that decision was reversed, which was also communicated to Chia at the time of the team announcement on June 12th.
The day after the team was announced, the HPAG group met to determine firm costs based on the actual locations of the various team members. At that point they realized that, in fact, there was enough funding available for a second travelling reserve to the amount of $25,000 CAD which was communicated to Chia on June 13th, which happened to be the same day that she appealed her team placement as second reserve.
On June 14th, Chia learned that she would not be travelling to the Belgium staging camp with the rest of the team and would instead be located in France. When HorseSport.com asked why Chia could not attend the Belgium camp before travelling to France, EC responded, “After all the delays in the naming and complex horse travel logistics, not to mention additional costs, keeping the travel minimized was a factor. It’s EC’s responsibility to make the best decisions for the team in the Games period to ensure preparedness and fitness to compete while weighing a variety of competing factors.”
The camp location in Belgium was seven hours from the venue, while the location in France was just 20 minutes away. If the team ever did need her to fill a vacancy – which can happen as little as two hours before competition – it made sense for her to be close by so she could fulfill the intended role and without incurring further travelling and organization costs. Further, the dressage team does not have a Technical Advisor and instead all athletes train with their own coaches. As such, Chia wasn’t losing out on any training sessions offered to other team members.
Chia filed another complaint, this one about not being included in the Belgium staging camp. The complaint was reviewed by the SDRCC, which evaluated EC’s actions and on July 18th they found that the decision was made properly and fairly and was the right decision based on the evidence.
However, Chia’s sense that she was facing retaliation for her appeal grew when she learned that a team athlete filed a complaint against her with Abuse Free Sport. The complainant alleged that Chia’s July 5th Facebook post constituted abuse, and stated they did not feel safe attending training camp. The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner has not yet rendered a public decision on the complaint.
On July 17, Miguel Coves of Coves Darden P.R.E., one of Guateque IV’s owners, shared a letter to the Canadian Olympic Committee declining to have their horse participate in the 2024 Olympics:
“After great efforts to organize the Coves Darden Team trip to Europe and due to the successive last-minute changes by the organization, without prior notice and a short period of time to reorganize, it is impossible for us to hire a flight and land transportation that would place us on a sufficient date and time to be in France on the requested dates.”
As heartbreaking as the experience was for Chia, the effect on the rest of the team should not be minimized. In the midst of preparing for the biggest competition of their careers, the riders were dealing with negative media attention and online commentary suggesting they had not earned their place on Canada’s Olympic team.
Moreover, Lisa Von Martels and Denielle Gallagher-Legriffon worked tirelessly in support of the sport and faced implications they had behaved unethically in the course of fulfilling their role as athlete representatives. These same volunteers were the masterminds behind the hugely successful Red and White fundraiser in Florida this past winter that totally covered EC’s $146,000 dressage budget shortfall. These funds were instrumental in helping Canada field a dressage team despite none of the athletes meeting EC’s eligibility requirements.
“As elected athlete representatives, we take a lot of pride in fairly and responsibly bringing forward the feedback and comments from athletes to the HPAG, as well as representing their interests to EC and other groups,” says Von Martels. “During the Olympic team selection process, the guidelines for handling conflict of interest were followed in a way that we understood to be compliant. It is our understanding that the final combinations nominated for the 2024 Olympic Games were based on careful consideration of all factors applied to athlete-horse combinations as defined in the 2024 Olympic Criteria requirements for dressage. We believe that the fact that the nominations remained unchanged supports that the original decisions were not impacted by any conflict of interest and reiterates the confidence we can all have in the selection process and in the HPAG.”
Moving forward
In the coming months and years, attention will shift to Los Angeles 2028 and how Canada’s dressage program can build on its success in Paris and become more competitive on the world stage. Chia believes her appeal will spark positive change for the next group of athletes vying for the opportunity to represent Canada.
“My hope is that by bringing light to this, riders in the future won’t have to worry about if the selection panel is fair or non-conflicted, or question the integrity of decisions made,” she says. (Unfortunately for Chia, since the Games the ride on Guateque IV has been given to Spanish rider Paula Matute by the owners.)
McLearon confirms that changes are in the works. “EC will be implementing further protocols and suggested changes to mitigate and manage future conflicts across disciplines,” she says. “One such change that is being considered is to have alternate representatives available to step in should a conflict arise and ensure that athletes’ rights are protected, needs are considered, and voices are heard during selections.”
The selection process
The qualifying criteria, which are posted on the EC website, detail the Olympic Games declaration process, qualifying competition period, the minimum scores required, the ranking system for declared athletes, and criteria to be evaluated in addition to scores/ranking. The document also outlines how potential conflicts of interest with selectors are to be handled.
- All interested athletes are required to submit a declaration by November 23, 2023.
- Declared rider / horse combinations must meet the minimum eligibility requirement (MER) during the qualifying period of January 1 – June 24, 2024: a score of 67% or above in a Grand Prix test from at least two different events at the CDI3* level and above.
- A minimum of three qualifying scores in the Grand Prix and Grand Prix Special during the qualifying period are required, with at least one of each to occur after April 1, 2024.
- All qualifying scores earned at GP and GPS during the qualifying period are used to calculate each combination’s final ranking average. The final qualifying scores are the average of all scores earned at GP and GPS during the qualifying period at a CDI3* or above. One drop score is allowed from either the GP or GPS. GP is weighted 80% and GPS is weighted 20%. One score from either the GP or GPS can be dropped before the average is calculated.
- The final ranking average at the end of the qualifying period, along with criteria such as the number of qualifying scores, consistency of scores, fitness and ability of the horse, and previous international experience, are all factored into the selection decision.
Team nominations are made by Equestrian Canada’s High Performance Advisory Group for dressage (HPAG), a committee comprised of officials, athletes, and Equestrian Canada staff members. The 2024 committee members are:
- Victoria Winter (Chair)
- Denielle Gallagher-Legriffon (Athlete Representative)
- Lisa Von Martels (Athlete Representative)
- Joan MaCartney
- Dr. Alan Manning
- Christine Peters (ex-officio)
- James Hood (ex-officio)
~ with files from Alison King
