Last week I interviewed Canadian Show Jumping Team chef Mark Laskin (look for the interview in the May issue of Horse Sport). He’s the one who filled the very large shoes Torchy Millar left behind after London. Mark talked about the very gently-sloped, two-year-long hand-over of the reins from Torchy to him. He commended Jump Canada for how well planned the transition had been. Mark not only learned a great deal before he was on his own, but he still considers Torchy someone from whom he can get support and advice from time to time. The word ‘continuity’ comes to mind.
I also interviewed Jean Christophe Gandubert last week for another article which will appear in the May issue, a do’s and don’ts list of advice for the next CEO of EC, an as-yet unknown individual whom I’ve been assured by EC Prez Al Patterson will be hired by some time in May. Akaash Maharaj was also kind enough to weigh in with some comments, so make sure you do catch that article when it comes out. It’s as close to being a fly on the EC office wall as any of us is ever going to get.
Besides being 100% Can-con, the two interviews had something else in common: one of the 21st century’s favourite corporate catch phrases: succession planning. It was thanks to Jump Canada’s good succession planning that Mark took over as chef only after every possible tool and tip had been given to him by Torchy and the organization. And in stark contrast, it was thanks to EC’s complete lack of succession planning that not even I, the evil muckraker, had a clue who would succeed Mike Gallagher as Prez. The very fact that the new Prez is really a recycled Prez (and this is nothing personal against Al), is evidence that there was little, if any, effort put into thinking about who would replace Mike in the last year, never mind actually helping that future Prez to be as prepared as possible for the role. (Unless of course something went sideways and the person who was being ‘groomed’ to become Prez didn’t end up being elected to the role by the Board .)
There can be no continuity when there is no planning for the handing over of a leadership role. This lack of long-term vision has become a specialty at EC. We need look no further than the abrupt departures of the last two CEOs for perfect examples. Jumping and Eventing have gone ahead and taken care of business on their own, but there is one discipline that still has not found the firm footing to the future. Yes, you know it. I’m talking about Dressage Canada.
In his interview with me, JCG identified the need for a High Performance Director in EC as something the incoming CEO should treat as a priority. It would be a paid position – occupied by someone with the right credentials in high performance sport – that would address some of the failings of EC to adequately support its elite athletes and teams. Jump and Eventing took matters into their own hands. Their Olympic and WEG medals speak to those disciplines’ success in creating an environment in which athletes have every opportunity to excel. Dressage, on the other hand, has been like a miniature version of EC itself, with revolving doors, squandered resources, and team results that would be generously described as undistinguished.
Why is DQ Canada still not succeeding? You might accuse me of being impatient – of not giving Desi Dillingham and the team she’s created, along with a few pretty amazing owners, the chance to turn the ship around. I agree that they need time to build the foundation on which measurable results could be delivered. But stuff is still falling through the cracks, stuff that Clayton Fredericks or Graeme Thom in Eventing and Mark Laskin in Jumping would not let get in the way of an athlete or team having a chance to succeed.
The CDIO Nations’ Cup dressage competition in Welly World last month was a rare opportunity for Canada to test-drive the format that will be used at the Pan Ams in Toronto next year. At those Pan Ams there will be only ONE team slot given out for Rio. Since the US is clearly not in medal territory at this year’s WEG, we can expect them to pull out all the stops at the Pan Ams. The Pan Am formula does allow for a team to win medals – gold included – with an entirely small tour team, but in order to get their hands on the Holy Olympic Grail, they have to have one or two GP horses on a combined small and big tour team.
When I say ‘rare opportunity’ I should really have said ‘only opportunity’. Because the CDIO in Welly is the ONLY place that the format has been tested. The FEI, in a rare fit of giving straight answers, confirmed that there were no changes to the format from the pilot event in 2013 to 2014, and there will be no changes going into the Pan Ams next year. So what did Canada do to take advantage of the right to send two teams to the Nations’ Cup? It sent one team with three small tour and one GP horse (they won silver) and one entirely small tour team (which finished fifth). When I saw the team composition, I wondered what in the h&%# happened to all those GP combinations we have in FL this year. At the CDI-W that took place three weeks earlier, there were 11 Canadians in the GP. No, some of them didn’t go home to the frozen tundra before the CDIO week. They were still down there. They just didn’t go in the Nations’ Cup. In fact, only four GP combinations declared for the team, three of which were named to one or the other team. Two were named to one team, and one to the other. Two withdrew, and the one that hadn’t been put on a team was already on one with a small tour horse so couldn’t fill the GP spot.
Lack of team spirit? I don’t know exactly why some combos didn’t declare, but there is something else that is a much likelier culprit for the lack of declared GP combos: the criteria set out by the DC HP committee. I can’t share the criteria with you because the link DC put on their Facebook page (and there is no sign of the criteria on the DC HP page) just sends you to a list of 1250 documents and I don’t feel like sifting through them. Instead I’ll tell you what is wrong with them, and why they are at least partly to blame for the lack of declarations from GP combos:
1. the score-achievement date window was from June 1, 2013 to February 2, 2014. In the entire region of North America west of the Rockies there is not a single CDI on the calendar between June and December. A rider from out west would have no scores to submit from that period.
2. the criteria demanded a GP score and a GPS score. Given the first point above, and given the fact that some combinations declared for World Cup (declaration made to DC/EC, deadline two weeks earlier than NC declaration deadline), those who had no GPS score from June to December would have to add a show where they did a GPS to qualify. If you are gunning for WC you really want to do every CDI-W to get the biggest score possible, and even if it’s not a CDI-W you would want to show your freestyle because you want to be really good at it if you should make it to the Final.
3. the criteria had no minimum score threshold. The criteria stipulate that team members will be selected based on ‘qualifying averages’ but there is not a single ‘%’ sign to be found in the criteria. What’s the point of criteria that have no minimum threshold?
None of these issues is the result of deliberate efforts to throw nails in the path – of that I’m certain. But the result is that it wasn’t the most encouraging pathway to the Nations’ Cup, an event that it is in every Olympic hopeful’s best interests to help test out. If there were a director of HP in EC, such a person would – maybe not the first week on the job but eventually – notice that there was a potential roadblock caused by the criteria and get them changed before it was too late to change them. I don’t know why DC still isn’t able to address these issues, but here is a fact: there are a number of GP combos in FL this year who could easily have been on the team that had no GP team member. Whether it’s the fault of the criteria themselves, of communication , of volunteers who have too much commitment to be able to follow through adequately (I spoke to someone on the criteria sub-committee who knew less about these criteria than I did), or a failure on the part of the athletes to appreciate what testing out the NC format means to their Olympic dreams, Canada did not take full advantage of that NC event. Period.
