Last year I had quite a few conversations with the sports desk of a national newspaper which went something like this:
“Hello, can I interest you in a piece about Scott Brash winning his fourth consecutive Grand Prix?”
“We’re a bit short of space today because of the soccer/cricket/rugby. Remind me who he is?”
“He’s the world number one show jumper.”
“Right.” Pause. “Why is it news that the world champion has won four times in a row? Surely its only news when a world champion is beaten?”
“I guess it is in most sports. Though Scott isn’t the world champion, he’s the world number one.”
“Oh, ok. Who is the world champion, then – William Fox-Pitt?”
“No, different sport. The world show jumping champion is Jeroen Dubbeldam of the Netherlands. He’s the European champion too.”
“Ok.” Another pause. “I don’t think I know him.”
“Well, he tends to come more to the fore at championships.”
“Right. But didn’t Brash win a gold at London?”
“Yes, though that was in the team contest. He hasn’t won an individual gold.”
“So who won the individual at London?”
“Steve Guerdat of Switzerland.”
“Ok. So he’s the world number 2 or 3?”
“No, he’s about 16th.”
“And where is this Dutch fellow ranked, then?”
“Er, 58th.”
Another pause.
“Hello, are you still there…..?”
Yes, I know Scott has dropped to world number three this spring, and I might have slightly exaggerated the above to make a point: but before we even decide how we will go about spreading our “narrative” to the unknowing, we need a much clearer idea of who are the equestrian champions that we wish to promote.
We have all read mountains of stuff about the pros and mostly (if you live in a leading equestrian nation) cons of the proposed changes to Olympic formats, and the massive publicity/social media drive that the marketing gurus say is essential for our top sport’s survival.
But it’s in no one’s best interests for a one-event wonder to be the Tokyo Olympic gold/silver/bronze medallist. That’s an aspect of Agenda 2020 that hasn’t been given as much attention as it should.
Unlike other sports, equestrian always has to allow for a little luck on the day because of the horse factor. For sure it’s fun when someone unexpected has a rub of the green and beats a big name. But do we really want that at the Games? Which horses and riders do we really regard as the high achievers, the ones history will remember and who are worthy of earning an Olympic or world title?
Are they the master horsemen who show consistency jumping 1.65m over a championship format lasting several days, or are rarely out of the top 10 at Badminton, Burghley or the Rolex? Or are they those with a very large string who rocket up the world rankings by placing in a lot of jump-off classes at 3* and 4* and/or lots of CICs?
With the exception of dressage, where form is more of a constant as the horses are essentially doing the same athletic test every time, equestrian is the only sport with relatively little correlation between the top-world ranked and the reigning Olympic/world champions. If the Olympic format changes go ahead, the inevitable change of qualifying criteria should also be an opportunity to look at how the overall world rankings are calculated. They must surely give even greater recognition to those who perform consistently well at the upper levels, and not artificially inflate the status of those who don’t even attempt them.
We have some small correlation in eventing thanks to the once in a lifetime genius that is Michael Jung. But I could have had a similar exchange with the sports desk to the one at the top of this blog regarding the stylish world eventing champion and double Olympic medallist Sandra Auffarth, who is ranked just world 26.
Yet the world eventing number nine is Aleksander Markov of Russia, who (before Rolex 2016 ) had just 20 ranking points fewer than Philip Dutton and has somehow maintained this status as of Sunday, May 1st, despite having not yet run in 2016. No, I hadn’t heard of him either, so I looked up Markov’s FEI record which shows he has competed in 100 FEI competitions almost exclusively in eastern Europe where the number of starters rarely makes double figures, and has yet to have a four-star start.
At the FEI Forum last month, the Turkish delegate queried if there were 55 countries – the FEI’s target for 2020 – capable of fielding an athlete of Olympic standard. No doubt this was rather close to home. Turkey has won an individual slot in the Rio jumping but the rider seemingly likely to get the call-up, Omer Karaevli, is typical of the many whose comfort zone is around 1.40-1.50m. The vast majority of his FEI starts are in Table As. In his last 100 classes he has started over 1.60m just 12 times, jumping clear three times. Yet Omer is ranked world 62, just four places and 38 points below Dubbeldam.
Meanwhile, in eventing it’s no surprise that so many feel equally queasy about the 2020 proposals, and the probability that riders from even more of the emerging nations will really struggle. This will produce the sort of “bad pictures” and low completion rates that, as Australia’s Judy Fasher put it during the Forum, will give the IOC a “cast iron excuse” to chuck eventing out of the Games anyway.
Despite all the FEI’s efforts with the eventing World and Nations Cups, neither of which have a commercial sponsor (still), eventing globally is shrinking. Britain easily won last year’s eventing Nations Cup series despite failing to complete half the competitions and not always fielding our biggest names, which shows just how weak the other contenders were.
Next year the European eventing championships are in Poland, which on current form will struggle to muster a team of four, never mind the eight additional individuals it is entitled to start as host. The Europeans are at three-star level. The way things are heading, the Olympic three-day event (or whatever number of days it ends up being) will have to be two-and-a-half-star in all but name.
I gather that major nations have not yet given up on retaining four to a team and that there will be a big meeting during Badminton to consider the next round of lobbying to the FEI.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the FEI apportions the extra Olympic slots to achieve 55 national flags if three to a team goes ahead. Surely a few of the extra places will have to go to Europe just to obtain the requisite numbers!
Traditional media is becoming increasingly marginalised by the internet but it is still the tool to which most people turn to gain a deeper understanding, once their interest has been piqued on social platforms. But that’s not going to be easy when said traditional media has a hard enough job fathoming Who’s Who in the horse world.
I can envisage the confusing plethora of equestrian “champions” increasing further still under Agenda 2020. Three to a team means there will a drastically increased chance of “freak” medal-winners when there is no discard score and inevitably easier jumping and cross-country tracks. All the more so in jumping, where the FEI favours individual and team contests each being decided by just two rounds, rather than carrying scores from individual and team rounds throughout the week.
At the Forum Ingmar de Vos, FEI president, told me he is confident that the best of the best will still end up on the podium. He cited the first three Furusiyya Nations Cup finals in producing the “right” result (France 2013, Netherlands 2014, Belgium 2015) despite spanning a mere two rounds. This does rather overlook the significant mitigating effect of the Furusiyya still involving four riders to a team and a discard score…
Some think that less certainty about who wins the Olympics will create stories and more media interest. But why? What is so wrong with favourites winning Olympic gold? No other sport seems to expect or wants anything but excellence to prevail, the purpose of the Olympics since the dawn of time. I would imagine that the sponsors jostling to sign up gold medallists in athletics, swimming or cycling don’t expect them to sink without trace within months.
Will owners feel inclined to back the best riders or invest in genuine prodigies if medal success becomes even more of a lottery on the day?
At London 2012, I had the great fortune to be in the main stadium on “Super Saturday,” the night three Brits won gold in track and field. Whereas Greg Rutherford’s long jump victory was not a dead cert, no one doubted that Mo Farah would win the 10,000 metres and Jessica Ennis the heptathlon. But that certainty did not dilute the entertainment. We all knew they would win; it was how they went about winning and saw off the opposition that provided my adrenalin rush. (By the way, Rutherford and Farah are the current world number ones, and Ennis is number two despite time out to have a baby).
At the press conference for the team jumping medallists at London, I asked the Saudis to comment on their bronze medal achievement within the context of their four riders having, at the time, an average world ranking each of 138. Many of the UK’s national media sent their major sports commentators to cover equestrian and several approached me afterwards to ask if I was being been ironic or if this was some sort of “in” joke in equestrian that they did not understand. They could not believe that in equestrian you can go from nowhere to podium, and thus wandered off pondering the very notion the specialist media spent most of Greenwich trying to quash: that anyone can do horse sport if they have money.
Since then, the Saudis as a team have not been able to build on their success, have not contested a single Nations Cup final or qualified for Rio. Even Abdullah Al Sharbatly, winner of last weekend’s Global Champions tour five-star Grand Prix in Shanghai, isn’t through as an individual.
There is no point in fast-tracking countries onto the Olympic podium if they are to disappear from the scene just as fast. But I fear that is another unintended consequence of the FEI’s response to Agenda 2020.
