# Olympic test event- reactions to the XC



## SusannaF (5 July 2011)

My mum just emailed to say she's only just found a message from last Tuesday on her mobile phone. A message offering me tickets to the event. Gah!


----------



## Magnetic Sparrow (5 July 2011)

Susanna, that's tragic! I bet you would have preferred your Mum to keep quiet...


----------



## teapot (5 July 2011)

and there's footage here: http://www.eventingnation.com/home/


----------



## SusannaF (5 July 2011)

Magnetic Sparrow said:



			Susanna, that's tragic! I bet you would have preferred your Mum to keep quiet...
		
Click to expand...

She's on the naughty step, let's put it that way


----------



## pootler (5 July 2011)

I didn't have a ticket to get in but managed to peer through the railings longingly.  

I did notice quite a few horses slipping at some of the twisty combinations despite studs.

Pippa Funnell was interviewed over the tannoy and said that when walking the course with William F-P the evening before, he had commented that it will be like being in a tumble dryer with all the ups, downs and twists and turns for the full Olympic course.

A very surreal experience seeing a number of the world's top riders in Greenwich Park!


----------



## Wondermare (5 July 2011)

I attended with 29 local schoolchildren, most of whom had never seen a horse. They were very, very excited and controlling them was a bit like nailing jelly to a wall. We had several complaints from fence judges and fellow spectators, and whilst I can understand their ire, I also feel that our local green space has been taken away from us and we have been given no local legacy. 
Anyway, it was a hot day and we were walking towards the water fountain. We were ushered across a crossing point, only to be screamed at to run back. If we'd been five seconds later, half of 3/4L would've been trampled by Pippa Funnell. The lack of communication was, needless to say, shocking. When we reached the fountain, it had been closed, so there was no way for the children to fill up their water bottles without paying £1.50 to a burger vendor. Our children are from one of the poorest boroughs in London, they just don't have that kind of money.
My feeling is, if you're trying to appease local residents by involving them, make it a pleasurable experience for them - if you don't want noise and excitement, don't invite schoolchildren.
As for the course itself - no gallops, all twists and turns, the route going through the dressage arena  - it's a ridiculous compromise when we have venues like Badminton. Why are we doing this? I wish some posh horsey folk would stick their necks out and admit that it's a massive mistake.


----------



## Fools Motto (5 July 2011)

Just watched the short video. The screaming kids annoyed me, but at the same time I don't blame them either. Excited kids seeing horses galloping and jumping must have been a 'big' thing, let alone getting a day off school for it!! At the real thing next year, I imagin most will be 'horsey' and therefore know not to scream hysterics everytime a horse goes by. Saying that, some team spirit will be needed! 
I think it is a shame that courses have lost the long galloping bits, interupted by too many twists and turns. Bring back some big beefy scarey fences... but haven't we been saying that for a while now?
All in all well done, especially to Piggy.


----------



## SusannaF (5 July 2011)

Loved the kids in the video  they sounded like they were having a whale of a time, and isn't that the point of having the event right in the city, and not in Windsor? I spent a bit of time with Ebony Horse Club and at a riding stable in Lewisham last year; there are plenty of horse-mad kids in South London (especially Brixton). I hope they also get invited along to the real thing.

I'm sorry the organisation was so problematic, Wondermare. I suppose that's why it's a test event  so you can tell them this and they can sort it out. Then again, how many bog standard ODE don't keep the course clear? Seems a pretty basic thing to mess up.

I have friends who live right on the park and have for fifty years, and theirs were the tickets I missed out on. One of them walked me round the park in February, and some "dummy" fences were already in place. It seemed like a tiny space, and the tumble dryer simile is apt. So many skinnies.


----------



## teapot (5 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I also feel that our local green space has been taken away from us
		
Click to expand...

Umm am I missing something? But as far as I'm aware most of Greenwich park is still open to the general public is it not? And the royal parks are for everyone, not just the locals. This attitude of 'our' park comes across as really really NIMBY. 





			As for the course itself - no gallops, all twists and turns, the route going through the dressage arena  - it's a ridiculous compromise when we have venues like Badminton. Why are we doing this? I wish some posh horsey folk would stick their necks out and admit that it's a massive mistake.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's a cross between Burghley and Gatcombe in terms of twists, turns and hills. Sounds ideal! And riding at speed on twists and turns is far more of a test than a constant gallop down a flat stretch as time penalties will play a part. So at least we know it won't be a dressage competition. 

In terms of other venues - can you imagine the chaos on those tiny back country lanes for Badminton and Burghley? Plus given the size of the estates, you've got massive issues over making sure security is top notch given the strict regimes that run during Olympic events. At least Greenwich is smaller to control and secure. Also, Badminton and Burghley are PRIVATE estates which would bring its own issues (most likely having to pay for the use amongst others). At least Greenwich and Windsor are slightly different as they're royal parks. Also, most big equestrian bases have crap transport links because of location, Greenwich doesn't. Windsor's a nightmare to get to both by train and by car. 

That said, I fully agree we could have done with a long standing permanent equestrian venue, that in itself would cause issues as people would argue over location.  It's the London Olympics and they wanted the equestrian sports to be part of it (unlike Athens and Beijing) which is fair enough. And if the best of the best are happy with what's there for next year, then I think a round of applause is needed for the officials who have got everything ready so far and actually proved that Greenwich can be a suitable event.


----------



## Sleighfarer (5 July 2011)

Teapot - A very large chunk of the park is closed off and there is a real feeling of being shut out. It has been incredibly well organised - I was amazed that they got all the horses in on Saturday with hardly any fuss at all - but the park use is limited. I can understand the used of tarpaulin to stop people gawping into the stables but the path leading up to the Observatory has had its view blocked off too and I just can't think of a good reason for that - it's nowhere near the horses or the course. 

I take your point about the 'our park' brigade; you'd think they paid for it out of their own pockets. I sat next to a very aggressive woman this morning who informed me that the Queen was against the event being held there. I can only assume this lady was a member of MI5


----------



## teapot (5 July 2011)

LOL at the woman! Perhaps there are reasons unbeknown to us mere mortals with regards to views and covering them up? 

I'm actually in that part of London tomorrow so am going to go for a nosey


----------



## Rollin (5 July 2011)

Is there any film. TV or You Tube footage?


----------



## Doris68 (5 July 2011)

I enjoyed my visit to Greenwich and thought it was a superb venue.  Whether it will be ideal for the Olympics...mmmm, the jury is out??  How they will manage to get 50,000 people through next August, I wonder?  Security was tight going in and then once you'd got on to the XC course and you wanted to come back into the "arena" areas, you were security checked once again..??!!  

There were only 2 food stalls in the arena area and a couple of others around the course - all had run out of bottled water!!  I heard that they ran out of water yesterday also.  It took us just over an hour (no problems with trains/tube etc) to get from Liverpool Street to Greenwich so I guess a very early start would be in order next August.


----------



## oldvic (5 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I attended with 29 local schoolchildren, most of whom had never seen a horse. They were very, very excited and controlling them was a bit like nailing jelly to a wall. We had several complaints from fence judges and fellow spectators, and whilst I can understand their ire, I also feel that our local green space has been taken away from us and we have been given no local legacy. 
Anyway, it was a hot day and we were walking towards the water fountain. We were ushered across a crossing point, only to be screamed at to run back. If we'd been five seconds later, half of 3/4L would've been trampled by Pippa Funnell. The lack of communication was, needless to say, shocking. When we reached the fountain, it had been closed, so there was no way for the children to fill up their water bottles without paying £1.50 to a burger vendor. Our children are from one of the poorest boroughs in London, they just don't have that kind of money.
My feeling is, if you're trying to appease local residents by involving them, make it a pleasurable experience for them - if you don't want noise and excitement, don't invite schoolchildren.
As for the course itself - no gallops, all twists and turns, the route going through the dressage arena  - it's a ridiculous compromise when we have venues like Badminton. Why are we doing this? I wish some posh horsey folk would stick their necks out and admit that it's a massive mistake.
		
Click to expand...

How brilliant to take 29 young children who had no idea about the sport and keeping them under reasonable control. I really hope they enjoyed their day out. I am sorry that there were killjoys who complained. What is wrong with a bit of excitement and noise? It's not church!!! The riders commented on the noise but thought it added to the atmosphere and enjoyed it - many years ago there was lots of cheering particularly at major championships and it really lifted horses and riders especially if they were getting a little tired. Admittedly it was more once the horse had jumped a fence but did it cause any accidents - no, and several of the horses were young and unaccustomed to crowds so they learned something today.
Many courses now go through the arena nowadays including Badminton and Burghley. The thing about an olympic 3 day event is that it is different and to be included in the whole experience is a major thing. While we would all love a legacy, to find somewhere within easy reach of the centre of the games that is suitable for the purpose is not that simple. To hear hardened pros who were not fans of the idea sound so animated when interviewed tells it's own story and it would be good for the residents of Greenwich to be proud of what they have and want to be a major part of the games and share it with us for a short time.
I am sorry they turned off the fountain (may have been a good reason for it) and that the crossing point steward was not sufficiently aware but it is a test event - to test that sort of thing among others. Points perhaps putting to the organising committee so they don't happen next year.


----------



## Tulsi (5 July 2011)

I went to the cross country event today, and here's my two pence worth.

1. The course was very twisty with some dramatic ups and downs (reminded me a bit of the course at the now sadly defunct Windsor 3DE). However, everyone I saw riding seemed to cope pretty well, a few slips but nothing to cause any real problems. Wasn't always that easy for spectators to find their way around though (maps were available but hidden away in a very poorly marked "spectator information" tent). Agree that the double security checks in and out of the arena seemed a trifle excessive.

2. There were a lot of very excited schoolchildren and they were often very noisy, but all the kids I saw were reasonably well behaved, obeyed instructions to stay the right side of the ropes,etc.  Interesting that there are reports of fence judges complaining here; at least one of the judges I saw was actively encouraging the kids to cheer and clap after the horses had jumped. Personally I thought it was a great idea to invite local schools and provided the noise didn't upset the competitors, thought they helped give it atmosphere .

3. It will look brilliant on TV - the combination of historic Greenwich and modern Docklands will make a spectacular backdrop.

BUT  (and it's a big BUT)

IMHO it is too small a venue for the event proper. I don't know how many people were there today (5000 was quoted ) but it gave the impression of being a well attended, if not overcrowded event. Two or even three times that many people could be accommodated - however I find it hard to see how 50,000 will be able to squeeze in the space available. The twisty course layout doesn't help, with people being sandwiched in narrow spaces between loops of track, and I think it would be very hard for spectators to move around the course. My friend, who has always been a die hard supporter of the games being held at Greenwich, came to the same conclusion. 

Of course others may disagree, and I genuinely hope things do work out on the day - but on this evidence, I remain unconvinced.


----------



## Merlotmonster (5 July 2011)

I was there today and also am of the view that the venue is just not big enough. There were lots of bottle necks with the contant bag checking (mine was checked 5 times today including when I was trying to leave!) and thats with just 5000 people there! I cant imagine what it would be like with 10 times that many people.

All of the school children I saw were very well behaved. Yes, they cheered and clapped as horses approached the fences, however, it certainly added to the atmostphere and wasnt a problem.

There was no water for sale after about 12 o clock and it was very hot today. I filled up some water bottles from a bowser!! (hopefully it was drinkable!!!)

Travelling there was easy so good on that front. I just think the area is far too small to hold the numbers expected next year so Im actually quite glad I didnt get the tickets I wanted and will be able to watch it all on the tv.


----------



## watertray53 (5 July 2011)

I too was there today and whole hearted agree with what has been said in the previous posts. How on earth this venue is going to cope with 10x the amount of people that were there today is beyond me. The viewing of many of the fences was cramped and at the fences on the sides of the hills the ground was very slippery. There were not many places where you could see several fences together which was disappointing and the course was so full of twists and turns the horses could not do any serious galloping.It was a shame that as soon as the last horse had finished the xc, fences were being dismantled. A hot day with no water available after midday is not good and why no icecream vans?

The best fence has to be the boomerang at number 6 with the view of Canary Wharf and the O2 behind it. Thankfully I did not get tickets for any of the horse events, watching it on the tv in the comfort of my living room has to be a better option.


----------



## chris_j (6 July 2011)

I think it's great that there were loads of school kids there, what an opportunity to give them exposure to horses & hopefully get them hooked!  Also great experience for the young horses to compete in that atmosphere without the pressure of a championship event.  I've got tickets to the dressage next year & can't wait!


----------



## Swirlymurphy (6 July 2011)

I was a fence judge there yesterday and we had a FAB day!  To be honest, the children made it a great day for me.  They were sooooo interested in what was happening, asking hundreds of questions, trying to work out what to shout in the right language for the next rider to offer support, telling me about their hobbies and pets and so on.  Yes there were some problems for example pushing against the string and so on, but the teachers did their best, and there is nothing that won't be ironed out before next year.

There were some problems with the commentary but presumably the volume had been turned down to appease the locals who were protesting.  

The riders I spoke to all really enjoyed the experience and learnt a lot from it, and the horses coped well.  The infrastructure for the competitors is second to none.

Don't forget this is an Olympic event - very different from a normal 3DE - so security is completely different, as is some of the terminology and so on.  But that is what makes it so exciting and the fact that we will be able to watch on TV/attend in person/volunteer for our own country's Olympic games is just thrilling.  My mum can still remember attending the London games in 1948 and the atmosphere.  It's a chance in a lifetime.


----------



## lar (6 July 2011)

I was there yesterday.  I had a wonderful time and am even more firmly convinced that Greenwich is the right venue.

For those who say the venue is small - don't forget that this was a very much shortened course and next year there will be much more parkland available.

I did wonder about getting 50K people on given the amount of security to get in (although I only had my bag checked twice - think it depends which way you went round the XC course, and one of the security blokes said he was going to say to the organisers that it was unnecessary).

I don't agree at all that the venue felt crowded.  In fact my friend and I both commented that it was much LESS crowded than say Badminton where you can't get to see the fences without waiting for half an hour!

Yes you can't see many fences together - but isn't that the same for many events?

The schoolkids were the highlight of the day for us - and again is an advantage of having the horse events in the city because it brings them to a whole new audience.  And THAT is what is important in terms of legacy in my view.


----------



## whatawizard (6 July 2011)

I was there yesterday and having initially been a real sceptic about it being held there I was blown away with the venue, the views of all London's icons is magnificent, and you really feel part of the City. It was comical seeing others on DLR carry shooting sticks etc and getting very strange looks from commuters! The school children we met all loved the occassion and the opportunity to make plenty of noise, the atmosphere was great some of the horses looked a bit bemused at the begiining of the course but grew in stature as they went round, what a great education for them. It was great going to an event were there were enough loos not to have to queue! The going was incredible, you could really feel the difference when you walked onto the course as opposed to the rest of the course ( we did see one resident taking close up pics of horses footprints where they had cut into the turf a little on a steep bit of the hill, suggest he gets a real life!!!!) I gather some of the locals are now whingeing that the grass is a different shade of green where its been improved! OK it was a glorious sunny day yesterday and only 5000 people but I for one would dearly love to have been sucessful in the ticket ballot for the games.


----------



## Custard Cream (6 July 2011)

Swirly, I'm very jealous you were fence judging. My OH was there yesterday and even though we have both applied (and been interviewed) for fence judging next year, he was picked to be a Screen team Member (yep, one of those folks that runs on with screens to put around horses before they are put down 

Did you apply for fence judging?


----------



## SusannaF (6 July 2011)

Re. the legacy.


There *is* an equestrian Olympics legacy fund, and it is dishing out cash in London. Ebony Horse Club will be able to build their own stables in Brixton because of it: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8613921.stm

And here are some details of other projects they're funding or contributing to:

http://www.hoof-in-town.com/london/news/index.php


----------



## Swirlymurphy (6 July 2011)

I applied to do anything actually!  I am experienced at fence judging but I just wanted to be involved in some way so would have poo picked the arenas frankly!!  It was fabulous though - just lovely to be involved   Don't worry though, they will need more for next year so fingers crossed .....

And your husband - his first name doesn't begin with M does it?  We had a very nice screen man in our sector.


----------



## Custard Cream (6 July 2011)

Ah no, he's C and was with a Mike and a Mark...he was on the edge of the arena, his fences were 6, 7 and 8.


----------



## Sleighfarer (6 July 2011)

whatawizard said:



			I was there yesterday and having initially been a real sceptic about it being held there I was blown away with the venue, the views of all London's icons is magnificent, and you really feel part of the City. It was comical seeing others on DLR carry shooting sticks etc and getting very strange looks from commuters! The school children we met all loved the occassion and the opportunity to make plenty of noise, the atmosphere was great some of the horses looked a bit bemused at the begiining of the course but grew in stature as they went round, what a great education for them. It was great going to an event were there were enough loos not to have to queue! The going was incredible, you could really feel the difference when you walked onto the course as opposed to the rest of the course ( we did see one resident taking close up pics of horses footprints where they had cut into the turf a little on a steep bit of the hill, suggest he gets a real life!!!!) I gather some of the locals are now whingeing that the grass is a different shade of green where its been improved! OK it was a glorious sunny day yesterday and only 5000 people but I for one would dearly love to have been sucessful in the ticket ballot for the games.
		
Click to expand...

I wondered how long it would be before they cottoned on to the grass. The woman who told me the Queen disapproved was also going on about how she hadn't seen any squirrels for days  I walked through the flower garden later and there were loads of them. 

There are kids in Greenwich who live in council flats and don't have anywhere else to run around, but the people complaining tend to be rather privileged. Someone I know lives in one of the big houses overlooking the park and was going on about how their daughter was being deprived of her 'front garden'. Quite frankly, I think it will do their daughter good to be deprived of something in her extremely comfortable life. It's not as if they don't have a back garden


----------



## hayley123horses (6 July 2011)

Good luck for the showjumping piggy, bit nerve racking with the holding box incident but very pleased for you that he was then delared fit


----------



## welshness (6 July 2011)

I went yesterday and had a great day out, but I did think the venue looked small even if they are going to add in extra land for the Olympics.  I was expecting there to be areas where you could get a view of several fences, but that wasn't the case because of all the trees.  It seemed to be well organised (apart from the bag check to leave!) and the organisers were well informed and happy to answer questions about next year.  Loved the kids and I thought they added to the atmosphere. I still think it should have been held at Windsor, but I think it will be an interesting venue and I think the riders are looking forward to being in the heart of the Olympics.  I didn't get a ticket for next year so I'm glad I got the opportunity to see the place for myself this year.


----------



## zefragile (6 July 2011)

watertray53 said:



			It was a shame that as soon as the last horse had finished the xc, fences were being dismantled.
		
Click to expand...

Is this not a good thing? People are complaining that their green space has been "taken away from them", so surely making an effort to get the park back to its original state as quickly as possible is going someway to appease them?


----------



## whatawizard (6 July 2011)

We saw two squirrels scurry across the course near fence 4 between horses, later on I nearly tripped over one that was standing on the path in front of me! So I don't think they have any worries re the squirrel population in the park!


----------



## doveys (6 July 2011)

I was a Fence Judge at yesterdays XC Test Event and found the whole experience to be excellent. Without doubt 'the schoolkids' made a great impression on both the riders and spectators, and apart from a couple of young horses who had eyes on stalks, all the others really seemed to come alive with the enthusiastic cheering. In terms of the childrens safety, the only comment I needed to make to the chaperoning teachers, was to make sure the children, when sitting on the grass, kept their feet behind the ropes as some of the riders took a very tight line on some of the course turns. I think that one of the things that I observed the most, was that of 'locals' being inappropriately dressed. The number of ladies in 'business' dress and heels defied belief.

The course itself rode very well. My concern that the uphill stretch could cause some distress to the horses, especially if hot and it was, was entirely unfounded. I was based at the end of the course and only a couple of horses came through looking tired.

Most of riders I spoke to, both competing and spectating, thought the venue and organisation to be excellent. It will be interesting to hear their thoughts once 'the dust has settled'. I for one think it's great (even if I can't use my car as a base!).

At the end of the day I got the chance to talk with a number of local residents, who to a man (and woman) were quite vociferous about 'the idiots' (their words) who are complaining at the use of Greenwich Park. Their thoughts were that having the event in their locale would be so good for the community, bringing in lots of trade and visitors. They agreed that they may have to put up with some inconvenience for a short time during the games, but on the whole the vast majority of residents welcomed the attention.


----------



## Sleighfarer (6 July 2011)

I bumped into another angry lady today. She calmed down *slightly* when I told her the course and arena were going to be dismantled; she had thought the whole thing was permanent until after next year ... Had trouble persuading her, though. She looked at me suspiciously and said: 'How do you know that?'

I told her I was in MI5


----------



## teapot (6 July 2011)

PMSL seafarer  Didn't head that way in the end, am going for a mooch on sat instead. 

Have to say there is a buzz of something in London now, and seeing Olympic posters everywhere helps too. Even heard a couple of people talking about '2012' on the tube.


----------



## Wondermare (6 July 2011)

I didn't mean to sound like a NIMBY. I guess I just felt a bit defensive of my kids, especially when they are local but were made to feel so unwelcome. As I said earlier, lots of them have never seen a horse, and bless them, they asked at the end if they could ride one (!). As for getting them hooked - many of their parents or carers don't have the money for a school uniform for them, let alone riding lessons. Of course, this is a whole other debate. I just wish they'd felt more welcome.


----------



## teapot (6 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I didn't mean to sound like a NIMBY. I guess I just felt a bit defensive of my kids, especially when they are local but were made to feel so unwelcome. As I said earlier, lots of them have never seen a horse, and bless them, they asked at the end if they could ride one (!). As for getting them hooked - many of their parents or carers don't have the money for a school uniform for them, let alone riding lessons. Of course, this is a whole other debate. I just wish they'd felt more welcome.
		
Click to expand...

Might be worth getting your school involved with this: http://www.hoof-in-town.com/london/schools_programme.php


----------



## SusannaF (6 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I didn't mean to sound like a NIMBY. I guess I just felt a bit defensive of my kids, especially when they are local but were made to feel so unwelcome. As I said earlier, lots of them have never seen a horse, and bless them, they asked at the end if they could ride one (!). As for getting them hooked - many of their parents or carers don't have the money for a school uniform for them, let alone riding lessons. Of course, this is a whole other debate. I just wish they'd felt more welcome.
		
Click to expand...


Try these guys too: http://www.emilefauriefoundation.org.uk/

I put a bit about Ebony Horse Club earlier  they're a great organisation started by one woman who just started taking kids to riding lessons.


----------



## oldvic (6 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I didn't mean to sound like a NIMBY. I guess I just felt a bit defensive of my kids, especially when they are local but were made to feel so unwelcome. As I said earlier, lots of them have never seen a horse, and bless them, they asked at the end if they could ride one (!). As for getting them hooked - many of their parents or carers don't have the money for a school uniform for them, let alone riding lessons. Of course, this is a whole other debate. I just wish they'd felt more welcome.
		
Click to expand...

Of course you feel defensive about your children and you don't sound like a nimby. I am sorry you were made to feel unwelcome - a polite e-mail to Tim Hadaway might be a good idea. Anyone suggesting underprivileged children will take up eventing is dreaming but there is nothing to stop them following it and maybe becoming involved in other ways if it really appeals to them. It is good for them to be encouraged to follow all sports, but especially one that Britain is good and successful at. Just imagine if we win a gold medal in their back yard (even if I support another nation more!!!!)


----------



## Wondermare (7 July 2011)

Thanks, I'll definitely put that info in front of our Head. Cheers all.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Hi forum - unusually, I have registered in my real name because there is an awful lot of disinformation about Greenwich Park as a proposed 2012 equestrian venue, and I hope to put some of that right.



teapot said:



			Umm am I missing something? But as far as I'm aware most of Greenwich park is still open to the general public is it not? And the royal parks are for everyone, not just the locals. This attitude of 'our' park comes across as really really NIMBY.
		
Click to expand...

Some facts about Greenwich Park, one of the Royal Parks.

1.  It is still illegal to ride horses in Greenwich Park (Royal Parks Regulations 1997, regulations 3(7) and 25).

2.  Actually, about 3/4 of the Park was closed to the public and, two days before the Test Event started, part of the remaining 1/4 was annexed for a "warm up track".

3.  Greenwich Park is the "back yard" for thousands of Londoners from east and south-east London and further away: there is a lot of social deprivation and children living in poverty on this side of London, on cramped crime-ridden estates and run-down Victorian terraces.



teapot said:



			Also, most big equestrian bases have crap transport links because of location, Greenwich doesn't.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, when TfL finally got around to commissioning crowd-simulation reports from the firm that did these for Sydney, one of the things they discovered was that it could take 8 hours for all spectators to get from Greenwich Park to the nearest station in Greenwich.



teapot said:



			That said, I fully agree we could have done with a long standing permanent equestrian venue, that in itself would cause issues as people would argue over location.  ... then I think a round of applause is needed for the officials who have got everything ready so far and actually proved that Greenwich can be a suitable event.
		
Click to expand...

The British Equestrian Federation are not doing the UK equestrian community any favours by sticking to Greenwich as 2012 venue come hell or high water.  Think about it: £42 million and nothing to show for it at the end.  In fact, LOCOG have been asked - and not denied - that the cost of staging the 2012 events in Greenwich is nearer £60 million now.  You could have built a state-of-the-art equestrian centre for that, all paid for by the taxpayer.  But instead there will be nothing, no upgraded facilities, just memories - while the UK's competitors in this sport (Germany, France, the USA) are upgrading their national facilities.  See what Mark Phillips wrote in his column in the H&H 23 June 2011.  Insisting on pouring this £42m (or is it £60m) gift horse into the ground in Greenwich WILL - not may - WILL impact badly on the UK's competitiveness in the years to come, eg at the next Olympics.

At the Test Event, LOCOG did not have permission to draw water from the water mains or discharge to the main sewers.  There is a reason for that, and the reason will not go away between now and 2012.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			I attended with 29 local schoolchildren, most of whom had never seen a horse. They were very, very excited and controlling them was a bit like nailing jelly to a wall. We had several complaints from fence judges and fellow spectators, and whilst I can understand their ire, I also feel that our local green space has been taken away from us and we have been given no local legacy. ... Why are we doing this? I wish some posh horsey folk would stick their necks out and admit that it's a massive mistake.
		
Click to expand...

Hi Wondermare - just wanted to endorse everything you said.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

oldvic said:



			How brilliant to take 29 young children who had no idea about the sport and keeping them under reasonable control. I really hope they enjoyed their day out. I am sorry that there were killjoys who complained. What is wrong with a bit of excitement and noise?
		
Click to expand...

I gather that it affected the concentration of both horses and riders.



oldvic said:



			I am sorry they turned off the fountain (may have been a good reason for it)
		
Click to expand...

Yes, LOCOG does not have Thames Water's permission to draw water from the mains for anything Olympics-related.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

lar said:



			For those who say the venue is small - don't forget that this was a very much shortened course and next year there will be much more parkland available.
		
Click to expand...

The course is just as twisty on the rest of the Park.  Have you actually looked at the course on a map?



lar said:



			I did wonder about getting 50K people on given the amount of security to get in
		
Click to expand...

Security for the Test Event was almost nothing except when the Duchess of Cornwall was attending.  In 2012, as an Olympic venue, Greenwich Park will be - as are all crowded places - a prime terrorist target.  The security will be like Heathrow to the power of 10.



lar said:



			I don't agree at all that the venue felt crowded.  In fact my friend and I both commented that it was much LESS crowded than say Badminton where you can't get to see the fences without waiting for half an hour!
		
Click to expand...

No surprise there.  Badminton typically attracts 200,000-250,000.  At the Test Event, there were probably less than 5,000 people there on any day.



lar said:



			is an advantage of having the horse events in the city because it brings them to a whole new audience.  And THAT is what is important in terms of legacy in my view.
		
Click to expand...

There is no equestrian legacy for children in this Olympic borough and none for children in the Olympic borough in which the Olympic stadium has been built.  (Ebony is in Brixton, which is not an Olympic borough, and a lot of the children who go there are from families on State benefits.  When the benefits dry up, Ebony's clientele will disappear.)  The children will not be at the main event next year unless they have bought a ticket, and given the socio-economic profile of this borough I doubt that any of them has.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

whatawizard said:



			The going was incredible, you could really feel the difference when you walked onto the course as opposed to the rest of the course
		
Click to expand...

Hahaha - did you walk over the course on the west side?  The going would make any horse lame in minutes.



whatawizard said:



			I gather some of the locals are now whingeing that the grass is a different shade of green where its been improved!
		
Click to expand...

This is a misconception that LOCOG and the BEF assiduously foster, viz that Greenwich Park is just an urban park with just "amenity grass".  LOCOG would hate it if you found out that Greenwich Park is an important area of biodiversity and home to protected species (bats and stag beetles).  In the context of the Park, the cross-country track is not "improved" - non-native grasses have been brought in, rare habitat has been destroyed by fertilising.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Re. the legacy.
		
Click to expand...

On the ground, the truth is that nothing has been heard for a long time about a new riding club on Shooters Hill, and Greenwich Council won't issue up-to-date information.  There was talk of £200,000 - but that would be match-funding, and with all the cuts being made in Greenwich, I do not know where the rest of the money would come from - and two hundred thousand quid goes nowhere.

Mudchute Farm, which is in an Olympic borough, is receiving nothing, although many of its clientele come from south of the River Thames.

Everyone is puzzled about Ebony getting Olympic "legacy" because Brixton isn't an Olympic borough.


----------



## SusannaF (10 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			a lot of the children who go there are from families on State benefits.  When the benefits dry up, Ebony's clientele will disappear.) .
		
Click to expand...

Not true. Not how their funding works. They've hardly had any money from the council in all their years of operation.

Re. Ebony being chosen, they're not the only ones, and it's interesting to have the info about Shooters Hill and Mudchute, but you have to bear in mind that Ebony had no stables of their own, and they were spending longer in the bus than on a horse. It really limited what they could do.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Seafarer said:



			The woman who told me the Queen disapproved was also going on about how she hadn't seen any squirrels for days  I walked through the flower garden later and there were loads of them.
		
Click to expand...

Well, the Royal Parks do cull the squirrels because they damage the tree bark.  So perhaps you were lucky.



Seafarer said:



			but the people complaining tend to be rather privileged.
		
Click to expand...

This is so inaccurate.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

doveys said:



			I was a Fence Judge at yesterdays XC Test Event ... I think that one of the things that I observed the most, was that of 'locals' being inappropriately dressed. The number of ladies in 'business' dress and heels defied belief.
		
Click to expand...

Hey, welcome to our capital city.  Perhaps they were on their way to the office, after the Test Event.



doveys said:



			At the end of the day I got the chance to talk with a number of local residents, who to a man (and woman) were quite vociferous about 'the idiots' (their words) who are complaining at the use of Greenwich Park.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps they were being polite to you.  I am hearing EVERYWHERE that people who were for the equestrian events in Greenwich Park have changed their minds because of the brutal way the Park was made unrecognisable to those who walk in it every day, who remember their parents walking there, etc.



doveys said:



			Their thoughts were that having the event in their locale would be so good for the community, bringing in lots of trade and visitors.
		
Click to expand...

So you didn't tell them about the IOC's "clean venue" policy or about how local businesses are being told they'll have to trade only in the evening or take deliveries only at night, or how no spectators will be allowed out of the event at lunch-time so no sandwich business there.  And we saw, during the Test Event, what happened to the poor visitors to the Observatory.



doveys said:



			on the whole the vast majority of residents welcomed the attention.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry but this is not true.  Hey, Greenwich Park is the home of the Prime Meridian - we have been "on the map" since at least 1886 and the introduction of Greenwich Mean Time.  We welcome thousands of visitors every year to our baroque landscape and busy markets, while at the same time not being shut out of our own Park.  We don't "need the attention" - we already have the world's attention - as a UNESCO World Heritage Site - the clue is in the word "world".


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Even heard a couple of people talking about '2012' on the tube.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, usually in a sentence that starts "I am getting out of London in ...", "commuting is going to be hell in ..." - no, I am not making this up, just read the Evening Standard web site and Twitter.


----------



## starr_g (10 July 2011)

Having watched the very funny docu-spoof "2012" on BBC4, it would seem Stag beetles will thrive on tree stumps so any trees cut down will benefit the beetle population!


----------



## Tinkerbee (10 July 2011)

Should have given it to the French


----------



## gmw (10 July 2011)

Tinkerbee said:



			Should have given it to the French 

Click to expand...

Too right bet they wouldn't moan about it!!!! We were lucky enough to spend Wednesday at Greenwich it was fantastic. We traveled all the way from Anglesey to it. We haven't a chance of being there for the 'real thing'. Why cant people enjoy this ONCE IN A LIFETIME EXPERIENCE. Beetles bats squirrels and grass will survive. Wonder how many 'local' people usually use the park on a regular basis.? And as for the kids on Wednesday they behaved like kids do. Noisy, laughing, happy, running round, whats wrong with that?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

starr_g said:



			Having watched the very funny docu-spoof "2012" on BBC4, it would seem Stag beetles will thrive on tree stumps so any trees cut down will benefit the beetle population!
		
Click to expand...

You wouldn't expect a docu-spoof to be accurate, and indeed what you have just said is inaccurate.

Try here, instead




			The stag beetle is a globally threatened species, protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and listed as a priority species in the London Biodiversity Action Plan. ... Stag beetles need dead wood to complete their lifecycle. The eggs are laid underground by logs, or stumps of dead trees, and the larva (or grub) will spend up to seven years inside, slowly growing in size. But as adults they are very short-lived and generally die after mating.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/Habitatsandspecies/Species/Londonspriorityspecies/Stagbeetle/tabid/176/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Normally, if the Royal Parks have to cut down a tree, they leave the stump (and therefore leave the stag beetles' habitat untouched).  LOCOG requires that the stump is ground into the soil, therefore destroying the stag beetles' habitat.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

gmw said:



			Why cant people enjoy this ONCE IN A LIFETIME EXPERIENCE.
		
Click to expand...

I'd be enjoying it as much as the next person, if the equestrian events were not destroying a site of important biodiversity, rare habitat, and threatening Bronze Age remains and trees.

Greenwich Park is a Conservation Area and so every tree has a Protection Order on it.  But LOCOG's plans and contractors are damaging trees on every side.



gmw said:



			Beetles bats squirrels and grass will survive.
		
Click to expand...

LOCOG has applied a surfactant to the cross-country course on its entire length, to facilitate water take-up.  This surfactant kills everything to a depth of one metre.  Tell me, then, how the beetles will survive that?

All bats are Protected.  Do you know what that means - it means it is a criminal offence to disturb them or harm them and their roosts.



gmw said:



			Wonder how many 'local' people usually use the park on a regular basis.?
		
Click to expand...

Thousands and thousands and thousands, old and young, rich and poor.  Day in, day out, in all weathers, from all walks of life.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Tinkerbee said:



			Should have given it to the French 

Click to expand...

The French would never have allowed one of their World Heritage Sites to be mutilated in the way that LOCOG's development is mutilating Greenwich Park.

The French would not dreamed of spending £60 million on a horse show in such a way that their own Olympic equestrian competitors did not benefit from it in years afterwards.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Harebell said:



			Unsurprisingly a google search reveals that Rachel Mawhood is an ardent and long standing campaigner against the use of Greenwich Park.....
		
Click to expand...

That's why I used my real name when registering here so that people don't have to waste time wondering where I am "coming from".

I have lived in Greenwich since 1979.  Back in 2005, I was neutral about the proposal to hold the equestrian events in Greenwich Park.  Then I read up on LOCOG's plans and the Olympics Act and the effect these would have, not just on the Park but on the life of the whole area.

People think that Greenwich is all palaces and Listed buildings.  But there is huge deprivation - and now LOCOG wants to deprive them of the one most beautiful (and free to access) thing in the Borough.  For a nine-day wonder that would better be held at Windsor where there would be legacy for the UK's equestrian community.  To spend £60 million in Greenwich and have nothing to show for it afterwards is just obscene, in my view.

Yes, LOCOG will "give back the Park" but only after having damaged or destroyed hundreds of trees in this Conservation Area - LOCOG has no plans whatsoever to replace any trees that die as the result of their development - and perhaps killed what used to be a "stronghold" of the stag beetle (a Protected species) and destroyed a large area of rare acid grassland habitat.  This is vandalism.


----------



## Swirlymurphy (10 July 2011)

Thanks for the wake-up call Rachel.  Sadly the 5,000 people there on Tuesday seemed to be having a marvelous time despite the obviously tragic circumstances.  Poor fools to be so misled 

What about the locals raking in the funds through impromptu B&B offerings?  The ice-cream vendors, hotels, restaurants and the pubs?  Shouldn't they be told as well?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (10 July 2011)

Swirlymurphy said:



			Thanks for the wake-up call Rachel.  Sadly the 5,000 people there on Tuesday seemed to be having a marvelous time despite the obviously tragic circumstances.  Poor fools to be so misled 

Click to expand...

I'm not calling them "fools".  Nearly 4,000 of them were children, on free tickets handed out by Greenwich Council.  You wouldn't expect children - and some of these looked to be aged about 6 - to understand the implications, and I am sure that no one has tried to tell them.

Every spectator at the Test Event was there on a freebie ticket.



Swirlymurphy said:



			What about the locals raking in the funds through impromptu B&B offerings?
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich is a tourist attraction so the B&Bs are in business every summer, without the Olympics.  (Can you make an "impromptu" B&B offering?  I thought that you had first to fulfil local authority hygiene criteria and so on.)  But for the most part visitors stay in central London, not in Greenwich.  The per-visitor spend in Greenwich is actually pitiful, much less than - say - in Canterbury.



Swirlymurphy said:



			The ice-cream vendors, hotels, restaurants and the pubs?  Shouldn't they be told as well?
		
Click to expand...

Ice-cream vendors will not be allowed to operate around the Park.  The way the spectators will be "processed" to/from the local railways and roads and  the Park will bypass the pubs and restaurants.  There are few hotels in Greenwich, and these are already booked up with corporate bookings at four times the usual price.

We are telling the small businesses but we can't do their research for them.


----------



## oldvic (10 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I gather that it affected the concentration of both horses and riders.

Some of the horses competing were young and not that experienced. You cannot train for crowds at home so these horses are unaccustomed to the noise and sight of lots of people. However they soon learnt to cope and will have grown for the experience. Next year the horses will have competed at top level already in order to qualify so they will not be so raw.
If it distracted the riders then they better learn to concentrate!!!!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Swirlymurphy (10 July 2011)

Well I quite understand that 6 yo children couldn't be expected to understand the implications - they were just having a good time some of them even seeing a horse in real life for the first time.  What a shame.  Luckily the local residents I talked to understood what was happening albeit they seemed to be having a good time too.  Someone really must try and point out the error of their ways to them.

And as for handing out free tickets for a test event - shocking.  Why they didn't charge everyone instead I just don't know.  Then there wouldn't have been any happy children which would obviously have been much better.

And as for the B&B-wannabe-hosts - they all seemed to be booked up with lots of individuals, and the hotels likewise.  Of course they all need to be advised of their foolishness too.  I presume someone will do so soon.

The ice-cream vendors I spoke to, and even the pub landlord, seemed to be very happy with the games coming to the Park.  I trust someone will also put them right.  They seem to be expecting quite a few visitors next year, indeed they seemed to have quite a few this year as a result of the test event.  

It seems so awful that there are so many local people who are all having such a good time as a result of the test event and who are clearly looking forward to the games next year, when really they are just deluded.


----------



## BEUnderTheInfluence (11 July 2011)

Oh my goodness, the amount of drivel I'm reading on here!

Suck it up, please. It is rather tedious and all this mongering will come to nothing, I'm sure you can all keep your pacifiers in until next year.

At this rate it won't be terrorist threats security will need to worry about but incensed activists doing an "Emily Davison" infront of Pippa Funnel on the XC or something.

Lest we forget the beatles.....good greif...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

Swirlymurphy said:



			Well I quite understand that 6 yo children couldn't be expected to understand the implications - they were just having a good time some of them even seeing a horse in real life for the first time.
		
Click to expand...

One group of children that passed me, holding hands, were chanting "We're going to the Park".  I think that that was what they were excited about, going to their much-loved local park - most of which has been closed to them for several weeks.



Swirlymurphy said:



			And as for handing out free tickets for a test event - shocking.  Why they didn't charge everyone instead I just don't know.
		
Click to expand...

They were not allowed to charge.



Swirlymurphy said:



			And as for the B&B-wannabe-hosts - they all seemed to be booked up with lots of individuals, and the hotels likewise.
		
Click to expand...

You say "all" - you talked to _all_?



Swirlymurphy said:



			The ice-cream vendors I spoke to, and even the pub landlord, seemed to be very happy with the games coming to the Park.
		
Click to expand...

You are an outsider, I take it.  They may have thought that you might be a Council "spy".



Swirlymurphy said:



			They seem to be expecting quite a few visitors next year, indeed they seemed to have quite a few this year as a result of the test event.
		
Click to expand...

A few Australian and German equestrians - hardly regular customers.

You - not I - are the one using the word "foolish" and "deluded" and "error".  But I think that you are being naive if you think that local people are treating you as their confessor.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

BEUnderTheInfluence said:



			drivel ... Suck it up, please. ... tedious ... pacifiers
		
Click to expand...

One of the elements on this thread that prompted me to join is the slightly sinister portrayal by equestrians of Greenwich opposition as _untermensch_.

See also other posts describing opposition as, say, "idiots" and old ladies who claim to know what HM The Queen is thinking.

NOGOE - which leads the opposition, since all the amenity society executives  were bought off with free tickets, flattery, and LOCOG hospitality - has several lawyers on its committee, as well as other highly-skilled professionals.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

oldvic said:





Rachel Mawhood said:



			Some of the horses competing were young and not that experienced. You cannot train for crowds at home so these horses are unaccustomed to the noise and sight of lots of people. However they soon learnt to cope and will have grown for the experience. Next year the horses will have competed at top level already in order to qualify so they will not be so raw.
		
Click to expand...

It is still illegal to ride horses in Greenwich Park (unless you are a policeman, etc, in the performance of your duties).  Everyone riding a horse in Greenwich Park last week was contravening the Royal Parks Regulations (which can be amended but only by Act of Parliament).  Fine sort of host, LOCOG is - throwing a party at which all the guests are required to break the law - and failing to obtain permission to draw mains water or discharge to the mains sewers (thus massively increasing the cost of staging the Test Event).

I happen to think it was just luck that no one was thrown from their horse.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## mtj (11 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			One of the elements on this thread that prompted me to join is the slightly sinister portrayal by equestrians of Greenwich opposition as _untermensch_.

See also other posts describing opposition as, say, "idiots" and old ladies who claim to know what HM The Queen is thinking.

NOGOE - which leads the opposition, since all the amenity society executives  were bought off with free tickets, flattery, and LOCOG hospitality - has several lawyers on its committee, as well as other highly-skilled professionals.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't this really the point of NOGOE - nimbyism of the local intelligensia cloaked by a screen of environmental and historic concerns.

I personally, with the approval of English heritage, summer graze "ancient monument" with horses.  Horses are also being used in the management of a number of environmentally sensitive areas.


----------



## mtj (11 July 2011)

On a more positive note, can anyone please confirm what  access there will be to the shops and restaurants/cafes?  Is it accurate that we are just going to be herded into the venue?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

mtj said:



			Isn't this really the point of NOGOE - nimbyism of the local intelligensia cloaked by a screen of environmental and historic concerns.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the 13,500 people who signed our petition were not "intelligensia".  I really think that you should read our web site before pronouncing on NOGOE's "point".



mtj said:



			I personally, with the approval of English heritage, summer graze "ancient monument" with horses.
		
Click to expand...

Not in Greenwich Park, you don't, where the archaeological remains are found less than an inch below the surface of the soil.



mtj said:



			Horses are also being used in the management of a number of environmentally sensitive areas.
		
Click to expand...

Horse manure is death to acid grassland, a rare habitat - now even rarer, thanks to LOCOG's plans for a nine-day wonder for an elite sport.


----------



## Spudlet (11 July 2011)

There you go, there's the real objection - it's an 'elite' sport. Of course, all Olympic sport is 'elite' by definition. But for a certain kind of person, anything involving a horse has them frothing at the mouth about the 'elitism'.

Never mind the inner-city farms and riding schools providing discounted riding for local children that have benefitted from Hoof in Town of course... places like the city farm I used to volunteer at. Didn't see many rich kids there - although at least one rider who began there is now a professional rider himself, despite not coming from a rich background. Never mind the riders like me from pooper backgrounds, who worked for our rides and have only purr own hard work to thank for any progress we make. We're all elite too! Heaven forbid anyone should try to improve their lot in life - know your place, back to the shadows, don't dare to aspire to anything better - that's for the elite, not for the likes of you, you poor, disadvantaged person. Let your betters speak for you, there's a good child.

Anyway, to paraphrase: whine whine whiney whiney whine winge whiney whiney whine. London doesn't deserve the Olympics.


----------



## mtj (11 July 2011)

Horse manure is death to acid grassland, a rare habitat - now even rarer, thanks to LOCOG's plans for a nine-day wonder for an elite sport.[/QUOTE]

So acid grassland, this is the stuff that nettles docks and buttercups thrive on isn't it?

Yes, horse manure, as would any fertiliser, damage this habitat.  The blunt truth is that horse owners end up spending lots of money having lime put on their fields to try to smoother the buttercups (toxic to horses).  Thats even with horses grazing 24/7.  

Right I'm off to roll over a few rotting trees and bother some beetles.


----------



## SusannaF (11 July 2011)

While I have sympathy with a lot of your points, Rachel, don't call riding an elite sport.

One in four riders in the UK earns less than £10K a year. We're all fed up with the reverse snobbery.


----------



## SusannaF (11 July 2011)

... and the reverse snobbery is an excuse to give equestrian sports less coverage, and less coverage means less sponsorship, and less sponsorship means fewer chances for people like Phoebe Buckley and Sam Martin (who grew up South London) to get good horses and compete to the best of their abilities...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			There you go, there's the real objection - it's an 'elite' sport. Of course, all Olympic sport is 'elite' by definition. But for a certain kind of person, anything involving a horse has them frothing at the mouth about the 'elitism'. [et seq]
		
Click to expand...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/477/8040206.htm

Select Committee on Public Accounts 
DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT AND UK SPORT
2 APRIL 2008




			Mr Davidson: ... Coming back to the question of equestrianism as well - I recognise that effort is being made but things like equestrianism, for example, it does help obviously to have a horse and there are not many people in my constituency that either have a horse or have ever had a horse or whoever indeed are likely to have a horse! ... *What evidence is there that sports such as equestrianism and fencing are actually genuinely open to all? *What statistics do you have about the make-up of the elite athletes group at the moment? How many of them are public schoolboys and girls?  ...

Mr Steele (UK Sport): *We see our mission as elite sport*, so it is delivering medals, it is building a world class performance programme. Of course we want to have as many talented people in that as possible but participation and inclusion are not a direct objective for that. ...

Mr Davidson: One of the issues I did ask about is this question of role models and if we find that there is a disproportionate number of people in the elite sports group who have public school origins that might very well be a good role model for other public school youngsters, but youngsters at schools in my area would not necessarily see a public school boy or girl on a horse as being a role model because they would see that as something that was just beyond their capacity - not only possibly physically but also financially - and that is why I think it is important.
		
Click to expand...

My emboldening.



Spudlet said:



			although at least one rider who began there is now a professional rider himself
		
Click to expand...

Names?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			... and the reverse snobbery is an excuse to give equestrian sports less coverage, and less coverage means less sponsorship, and less sponsorship means fewer chances
		
Click to expand...

Money follows money, as any professional fund-raiser will tell you.  People give money only to people who can look after money.

At the moment, the whole UK equestrian sector is looking a £60 million gift horse in the mouth and saying: no thanks.  It is totally incomprehensible to anyone who is used to making money work and generate more money and getting value for money.  Unless the UK equestrian sector wakes up in the next few weeks, your chance to have a £60 million upgrade to national equestrian facilities paid for out of "Olympic" funding will have disappeared forever - certainly won't recur in our lifetime.

And the City will look on in utter amazement.


----------



## SusannaF (11 July 2011)

Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on. Are you sure they are the people to blame (and they're not monolithic)? A lot thought Stoneleigh or Badminton or Hickstead should be used.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/272597.html

(incidentally, Ebony also offer elite fencing lessons to their kids).


----------



## SusannaF (11 July 2011)

There had been concerns about the suitability of Greenwich Park from local residents and figures in the horse world.

Members of the Olympic board met yesterday to discuss the potential cost savings of changing the venues for the 2012 Olympic basketball, equestrian sports, badminton, handball and rhythmic gymnastics.

But they announced that Olympic and Paralympic equestrianism, and the running and show jumping phases of the modern pentathlon, will stay at Greenwich Park after a review by accountants KPMG said no saving would be made by moving.

In a statement to the press, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), said: " None of the alternative venues for the equestrian events were close enough to accommodate the modern pentathlon show jumping event, which needs to be located close to the Olympic Park to allow the completion of all five events within one day.

"Any move away from Greenwich would therefore result in a doubling-up of facilities with the need to build a separate Modern penthalon show jumping facility close to the Olympic park.

"In addition all of the alternative venues would also require the funding of additional accommodation as they are not within guidelines for travel time from the Olympic village.

"Given these considerations, an alternative location for equestrian and modern pentathlon would also not result in lower costs than Greenwich Park."
		
Click to expand...


Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.


----------



## Spudlet (11 July 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/08/sam-martin-horse-riding-olympic-dream

ETA
Personally I think an Olympic legacy of young people like Sam getting into horses is far more valuable than any new shiny facilities. We have good facilities, but the difference that places like VCF make to people's lives is far more valuable IMO.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on. Are you sure they are the people to blame (and they're not monolithic)? A lot thought Stoneleigh or Badminton or Hickstead should be used.
		
Click to expand...

I am not apportioning "blame".  There are, however, some individuals and organisations and government departments who are directly responsible for what is an utter out-of-control mess at the moment.  I understand that it was the BEF that signed off the equestrian part of the London Bid for the 2012 Olympics, complete with map of Greenwich Park _drawn to the wrong scale_ - showing Greenwich Park as nearly twice as big as it actually is.

The Secretary of State, in the last government, gave the so-called government permission for the Park to be the equestrian venue, without there having been any formal application or contract (with terms and conditions) and didn't say anything when the stadium was moved into the Park as well - which meant there was less room for all the logistical stuff.  (In the London Bid, the stadium was proposed to be sited in the tilt yard of the National Maritime Museum.)

Now LOCOG's own ticketing organisation is advertising a hospitality suite with a capacity larger than the Painted Hall in Greenwich and which is sited _over Sue Benson's jumps 14a and 14b_.

Complete and utter out of control mess.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Personally I think an Olympic legacy of young people like Sam getting into horses is far more valuable than any new shiny facilities.
		
Click to expand...

I suppose it boils down to: does the UK want to be able to compete in the next Olympics (2016) with some chance of winning medals?  Have you ever asked equestrians in your competitor countries: how do you manage to afford to upgrade the national equestrian facilities in your country without disadvantaging young people who want to "get into horses"?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

If you look at KPMG's terms of reference for that report, you'll see that all they were asked to do was




			Consider and comment on the study presently being carried out by LOCOG (which will be made available to use [KPMG] on completion) looking at the issues associated with the delivery of the Olympic and Paralympics Games Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events at Greenwich Park, London.

_Source:_ letter from Head of Legal, Olympic Delivery Authority, dated 11 December 2008
		
Click to expand...

It is a joke.  At the time of the KPMG report, the cost of staging the equestrian events in Greenwich Park was reported to be £42 million.  KPMG said there would be no savings by moving the venue.  Today, two years later, LOCOG don't deny that the cost is nearer £60 million.  So much for KPGM's "expertise" - they just "found" what LOCOG told them to find.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Sounds like the "equestrian sector" didn't have much of a choice. In fact, it appears to be "The City" in the shape of KPMG who endorsed the £60 million funding splash on Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

If you look at KPMG's terms of reference for that report, you'll see that all they were asked to do was




			Consider and comment on the study presently being carried out by LOCOG (which will be made available to use [KPMG] on completion) looking at the issues associated with the delivery of the Olympic and Paralympics Games Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events at Greenwich Park, London.

_Source:_ letter from Head of Legal, Olympic Delivery Authority, dated 11 December 2008
		
Click to expand...

It is a joke.  At the time of the KPMG report, the cost of staging the equestrian events in Greenwich Park was reported to be £42 million.  KPMG said there would be no savings by moving the venue.  Today, two years later, LOCOG don't deny that the cost is nearer £60 million.  So much for KPGM's "expertise" - they just "found" what LOCOG told them to find.

It is vested interests, not the City, that are hell-bent on using Greenwich Park.  One of those with vested interests is the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			"There had been concerns about the suitability of Greenwich Park from local residents and figures in the horse world."
		
Click to expand...

Why didn't figures in the horse world point out that when you are assessing a venue for suitability and value for money, "iconic background pictures" are not an intelligent reason for choosing Greenwich (such backgrounds can be dropped in digitally, when broadcast on tv) and neither is the stated wish by equestrians not to feel left out of the Olympic Village "party".

If the equestrian events were held at Windsor, the equestrians could stay in hotels or at Royal Holloway College (just two miles down the road) which is empty in August (and they have already said that they could accommodate the equestrians).  Windsor Great Park is very close to the Olympic rowing at Eton, so equestrians could go and have a party with the rowers and make the rowers feel less out of things.

There would then have been fewer flats etc needed in the Olympic Village, thus saving money.  And this is where the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich comes into it.  He seems to have forgotten whose interests he is meant to represent, and he has "good" reasons not to want the Olympic Village to be smaller.

I sent this to _Private Eye_ at the end of June but they haven't used it so I can reproduce it here.




			As you will have read, in the Financial Times of 18 June 2011, 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb2afa80-969a-11e0-baca-00144feab49a.html#axzz1PudEMhUy

Triathlon Homes has the contract to convert, and presumably sell, 1,379 out of the 2818 flats that will be created from the Olympic Village.  The Chairman of this company is (since July 2010) one Nick Raynsford MP.  Can this be the same Nick Raynsford, Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich, who was opposed to reducing the cost and size of the Olympic Village by moving the equestrian events to Windsor?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on.
		
Click to expand...

And now there is enormous dissatisfaction with this venue. Consider some headlines:

"Greenwich Park sparks ground for complaint" - _The Times_, 7 July 2011
"British Showjumpers criticise Greenwich arena after Olympic test" - _The Guardian_, 7 July 2011
"British Trio Raise Surface Concerns" - Sporting Life.com

Top equestrians are concerned that the ground was too much for the horses, and there were also health and safety issues for the spectators: 

The cross-country terrain is steep, with riders such as Piggy French and William Fox-Pitt widely quoted in the media saying it is "intense," and like "riding in a tumble-dryer."

Fox-Pitt hoped that one "punishing" slope can be modified. LOCOG-employed cross-country course designer, Sue Benson, told the media that the terrain is "in your face." Altering the course is not possible because of the Park's limited available acreage and the presence of so many heritage features.

The stadium surface has also been criticised in the media by show jumpers and dressage riders, as a direct result of insufficient water being available, confirmed by venue manager Tim Hadaway. This critical issue of Thames Water not permitting access to the mains or sewers was long ago brought to the attention of the DCMS, LOCOG and Greenwich Council (by me, as it happens, more than once).

Fans of the cross country event next year will be disappointed because only 50,000 will get tickets (at Badminton, there can be 200,000-250,000 spectators), and their freedom of movement would be restricted by the tightness of the cross-country, and the low canopy of the trees.

There's another insane thing - by holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, LOCOG is depriving itself of the revenue from selling four-five times more cross-country tickets.  Apart from unnecessarily disappointing 200,000 more people, you do have to ask: what about LOCOG directors' legal duty to act in the best interest of the company?


----------



## gmw (11 July 2011)

If there are thousands and thousands of old, young, rich, poor etc etc using the park on a daily  basis. Shouldn't they be stopped in their tracks ,they must be doing untold damage!


----------



## SusannaF (11 July 2011)

Talk to the LOCOG, but I suspect that it's beyond the power of most of the equestrian sector, who, as I pointed out earlier and as your sources show, are no monolith, but now have to make the best of it. There was even a question of removing equestrian events from the Games altogether, so I doubt they are truly in a position of influence. 

The juggernaut was primed some time ago, and is rolling. The prime concern of LOCOG seems to have been that the equestrian events would be close to the rest of the venues, and Windsor doesn't fit that bill. 

I have friends, an elderly couple, who live right on the park and have done so for fifty years now. They are much involved in the conservation of Greenwich. I walked a scrap of the course with the lady in February, and have heard how inconvenienced they will be by road blockages etc and about their doubts about the legacy. They still hope to attend with their kids and grandkids, if they can get tickets.

I'm curious to know where the buck has stopped with the Shooter's Hill development as Ebony are  having no problems going ahead (foundations of the stables were all laid out in Feb when I last went to see them). I had stuff about Shooters Hill on file but hadn't heard anything lately and had forgotten about it. Hoof London might know.

Please don't be so dismissive of Ebony and say it's just about benefits. They are an amazing organisation and I've spent time with them, interviewing the organisers and the kids, and it's much more deep rooted than you appear to believe. In a few years they'll have their second generation of Ebony kids, and everyone on that estate knows a child who rides. There's one graduate employed at a racing stable, a few more teens going through the British Racing School and some cracking young riders who are seriously considering a career in horses.

Right now, they can barely watch any equestrian sports on mainstream TV *coverage has plummetted in the last few decades, and a lot of that's inverted snobbery. There was practically no coverage of the World Equestrian games last year, even though Britain topped the medal table. No, there won't be a lasting architectural legacy for Greenwich, but if the sport is at the heart of the games it might squeeze out wider coverage, and that will only make it easier for people like Sam Martin and Phoebe Buckley. I utterly understand your other arguments, but can't get on board with the whole "elite sport" thing or "money follows money" - there has to be publicity before that happens.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (11 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Talk to the LOCOG, but I suspect that it's beyond the power of most of the equestrian sector
		
Click to expand...

LOCOG thought that they could stage a Test Event without mains water.  They were wrong.  It has led to very bad publicity for them.  There has been widespread criticism of the course.  LOCOG might start listening to others, now.



SusannaF said:



			The prime concern of LOCOG seems to have been that the equestrian events would be close to the rest of the venues, and Windsor doesn't fit that bill.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is now about Tim Hadaway hanging onto the remnants of his reputation.  Tim Hadaway was part of the BEF team which recommended Greenwich, which we now know was a back-of-envelope calculation with inaccurate measurements and no idea at all where the acid grasses and archaeology were (which they should have avoided).

The sites considered in the original evalution, in 2003, were:

Greenwich
Regents Park
Hyde Park
Lea Valley
Royal Vet College, Potters Bar
Hickstead
Windsor (considered but not visited)
Great Leighs racecourse (now in administration)
Fairlop Waters (proposed racecourse never built).

I think Great Leighs is nearer the Olympic stadium and village than Greenwich is.  Had LOCOG chosen either that or Fairlop Waters, you might now have a state-of-the-art equestrian centre - instead of a £60 million travelling circus that leaves nothing behind but damage.

Normally, when you are evaluating a proposal, one of the top criteria is value for money, and you commission comparataive analyses of the options so that you can make an informed decision.  As a result of a Freedom of Information request to the ODA, we know that NO financial analysis of the other sites was done.  So KPMG were asked just to review what analysis had been done and concluded that this was the cheapest option rather than a split site option to accommodate Modern Pentathlon.  Ever since then, LOCOG have used the Modern Pentathlon as the lynchpin of their justification for using Greenwich Park.  And, in a reply to a written question last October, the Mayor of London admitted that no costing had ever been done of security for alternative sites.



SusannaF said:



			I'm curious to know where the buck has stopped with the Shooter's Hill development
		
Click to expand...

We did ask Greenwich Council but didn't get an answer.  Sorry but we have too much to do to pursue this and absolutely no desire to talk to Hoof London.



SusannaF said:



			Please don't be so dismissive of Ebony and say it's just about benefits.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to come over as dismissive.  But seen from Greenwich, people don't understand why Ebony got Olympic funding (despite not being in an Olympic borough) whereas the much-respected, popular and long-standing Mudchute Farm got nothing (despite being in the largest Olympic borough).  The general feeling is that the reason must be political, therefore.



SusannaF said:



			but if the sport is at the heart of the games it might squeeze out wider coverage
		
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the publicity is going to be good.  But, for many reasons, it won't be.  Eg the lack of space for the world's media as well as all the other logistical stuff; the truly terrible travelling experience the spectators will inevitably have.  The Test Event tested nothing but the arena and part of the cross-country course.


----------



## teapot (11 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			If the equestrian events were held at Windsor, the equestrians could stay in hotels or at Royal Holloway College (just two miles down the road) which is empty in August (and they have already said that they could accommodate the equestrians).  Windsor Great Park is very close to the Olympic rowing at Eton, so equestrians could go and have a party with the rowers and make the rowers feel less out of things.
		
Click to expand...

Errrrr RHUL isn't EMPTY over the summer. You've got close to 500 postgrads, if not 1000 still on site over the summer. I know that for a fact as I was one of them once! Also, you'll find that the postgrads are living in the accommodation that would be suitable for Olympic athletes. The accommodation that would be available is shockingly bad (which is why they only give it to first year undergrads during term time only). Plus that brings into the whole security situation, they don't have any of the facilities open bar the library and the college shop. Parking's rubbish, traffic on the A30 at those cross roads is awful and it's not _that_ easy a drive to Windsor. 

Plus Windsor as a facility - crap ground, not particularly good travel links, security logistics again given it's the Royals' main residence these days...

Hickstead would need to be entirely re-built to be used as an Olympic facility.

With regards to media, I follow a number of media reps on Twitter and most, if not all were impressed at what was on offer in terms of internet speed, space etc.


----------



## windsorblue (11 July 2011)

Oh Lord!  Never mind a chip - it sounds as if she's carrying the whole sack of spuds.


----------



## SusannaF (12 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I didn't mean to come over as dismissive.  But seen from Greenwich, people don't understand why Ebony got Olympic funding (despite not being in an Olympic borough) whereas the much-respected, popular and long-standing Mudchute Farm got nothing (despite being in the largest Olympic borough).  The general feeling is that the reason must be political, therefore.
		
Click to expand...

No, as I explained earlier, Ebony had absolutely no facilities at all &#8211; no stables, no horses, unlike Mudchute &#8211; and the kids were spending more time in the bus than on a horse. It took an hour or more to get them to Lewisham for lessons. With the new facilities they'll be able to reach far more children at local schools, too. I don't see what's political about that. I don't see why Mudchute shouldn't get some funding either, but Ebony really had nothing but a waiting list of kids and a heap of volunteers.


----------



## Spudlet (12 July 2011)

Mudchute, from memory when I was involved with city farms in London, was pretty well set-up, well known and pretty well funded too. Maybe the Olympics decided to put resources where they were needed most? Anyway, surely the NIMBYs should be glad that part of the Olympics has been taken out of their backyard...

And yes, you do sound dismissive. A lot of people work very hard on these sorts of projects, doing an awful lot with not much in the way of resources. And they do it out of more than self-interest.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Errrrr RHUL isn't EMPTY over the summer. You've got close to 500 postgrads, if not 1000 still on site over the summer. I know that for a fact as I was one of them once! Also, you'll find that the postgrads are living in the accommodation that would be suitable for Olympic athletes.
		
Click to expand...

From the Royal Holloway web site




			Facilities Management designate a certain number of rooms in halls as &#8216;Vacation Residence&#8217;. These rooms are available to book for any period time, subject to availability.
		
Click to expand...




teapot said:



			The accommodation that would be available is shockingly bad (which is why they only give it to first year undergrads during term time only).
		
Click to expand...

Strange, then, that Royal Holloway has 




			Royal Holloway, University of London, has secured the national &#8216;Hospitality Assured&#8217; Accreditation for the 4th successive year.

http://www.instituteofhospitality.org/hospitality-assured/royal_holloway

Click to expand...

No doubt they won this accreditation for all this "shockingly bad" accommodation that they advertise -




			During vacations, Royal Holloway offers you a mix of standard, en-suite and premium en suite accommodation, all of which represent exceptional value for money.

The majority of accommodation can be found on the main campus, while Kingswood Hall, ideal as a self-contained venue, is situated just under 1.5 miles from the main site, providing an additional 400 plus rooms. ...

Superbly situated in Surrey, Royal Holloway has an excellent selection of affordable, 3 and 4 star campus rated accommodation available for conference guests, holidaymakers and college visitors &#8211; all within easy reach of some wonderful visitors&#8217; attractions.

You will be spoilt for things to do during your stay, with Ascot Racecourse, Windsor Castle, Kew Gardens, Legoland, Eton College and much more all nearby.

http://www.conferences.rhul.ac.uk/accommodation/

Click to expand...

They have banqueting facilities, conference and break-out rooms, a full liquor licence, and




			all residentail conference delegates are able to use the fully equipped gym and tennis courts.
		
Click to expand...




teapot said:



			Plus that brings into the whole security situation, they don't have any of the facilities open bar the library and the college shop. Parking's rubbish, traffic on the A30 at those cross roads is awful and it's not _that_ easy a drive to Windsor.  Plus Windsor as a facility - crap ground, not particularly good travel links
		
Click to expand...

From the above web site




			The College is easily accessible from London Heathrow, London Waterloo, Surrey and the Home Counties.
		
Click to expand...




teapot said:



			Hickstead would need to be entirely re-built to be used as an Olympic facility.
		
Click to expand...

Er, what, like in Greenwich Park?



teapot said:



			With regards to media, I follow a number of media reps on Twitter and most, if not all were impressed at what was on offer in terms of internet speed, space etc.
		
Click to expand...

Which venue are you referring to?

When were you at Royal Holloway, then?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

windsorblue said:



			Oh Lord!  Never mind a chip - it sounds as if she's carrying the whole sack of spuds. 

Click to expand...

You do know, don't you, that making _ad hominem_ attacks only demonstrates that you have lost the argument.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Mudchute, from memory when I was involved with city farms in London, was pretty well set-up, well known and pretty well funded too.
		
Click to expand...

Mudchute is, of course, much more than an equestrian centre.  From their web site




			We desperately need to increase our funding to meet the all year round demands on animal care services. We do not charge admission fees to visit our park and farm which has 32 acres and over 200 animals.
		
Click to expand...




Spudlet said:



			Maybe the Olympics decided to put resources where they were needed most?
		
Click to expand...

Hahahaha - the IOC doesn't work like that.


----------



## cefyl (12 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Funny that, because I remember a lot of opposition to the Greenwich plan from the equestrian sector early on. Are you sure they are the people to blame (and they're not monolithic)? A lot thought Stoneleigh or Badminton or Hickstead should be used.QUOTE]

Or even Hartpury.  Most Olympics the actual equestrian venues have been about that distance or more from the host city.  The money used to stage the Olympics at somewhere like Hartpury would have left a lasting legacy for equine training and development in the UK.  And kept the cost of staging the actual events down considering what is already in place there.

As I recall there was alot of opposition from the equine sector too BUT the final say so to hold it there came from Princess Haya with a "like it or lump it Greenwich WILL be the venue so tough" statement.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

cefyl said:



			Or even Hartpury.  Most Olympics the actual equestrian venues have been about that distance or more from the host city.  The money used to stage the Olympics at somewhere like Hartpury would have left a lasting legacy for equine training and development in the UK.  And kept the cost of staging the actual events down considering what is already in place there.
		
Click to expand...

That's interesting.  First time I have seen Hartpury mentioned in this context.  Note to LOCOG: I see that it even has Modern Pentathlon arrangements.  

http://www.hartpury.ac.uk/Hartpury-Facilities/



cefyl said:



			As I recall there was alot of opposition from the equine sector too BUT the final say so to hold it there came from Princess Haya with a "like it or lump it Greenwich WILL be the venue so tough" statement.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I gather she has an imperious - arrogant, domineering - style which she is allowed to get away with.  Like ordering modifications to one of Mike Etherington-Smith's jump at the 2008 Olympics, the night before the start of the competition.


----------



## badattitude (12 July 2011)

There is much wrong information in this thread, Rachel is well informed on the technicalities but not on certain other aspects. The sun was shining on Tuesday and i am sure that everybody who was there had a lovely time. One wonders how positive the impression would have been in torrential rain. 
  Hoof and The London Horse Network are doing nothing tangible for London's current equestrian population, it is all smoke and mirrors so far. 
  Ebony Horse Club was given the FEI development award so it could be used as evidence of an 'equestrian legacy'. But is is not unique in many ways because the riding schools and livery yards in London have all helped underpriviledged children in the past, in greater numbers than Ebony currently can. The South London Branch of the Pony Club held its shows in parks such as Dulwich and Brockwell and virtually all the children were mounted on borrowed ponies provided at no charge by the owners. Many of the children worked at the stables to pay for their lessons. I know as I was one. Dane Rawlings was another. 
  Many of the local businesses will not benefit as much as they think, the audience will indeed be funnelled in and out of the venue. Some, like the pub outside the gate are likely to be closed entirely.
   The park is the size that it is. There is no 'extra space' the course did not turn about as much because only five minutes were required but most of the other loops were along side what was seen last week. 
  Most damming of all. Even though the event is a sell out according to LOGOG's own press release and even though two ballots for tickets have passed, the organisers still have not confirmed the numbers attending. They are still working on 'models'. The only reason  for this reticence  must be that they already know spectator numbers for the cross country will be much more limited than they are stating. 
   The venue is decided now. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## Zebedee (12 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You do know, don't you, that making _ad hominem_ attacks only demonstrates that you have lost the argument.
		
Click to expand...

Rachael love, there is no argument to be had. The Olympic Equestrian events will go ahead at Greenwich. End of. I expect we can all have loads of fun after ther the event debating how things could have been better had they been held elsewhere, but for now such discussions are mere speculation. 

Why don't you reinvest your considerable energies & skills in another cause - one that isn't now totally pointless.


----------



## windsorblue (12 July 2011)

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY  

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. 



Taken from....

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html


----------



## cefyl (12 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			That's interesting.  First time I have seen Hartpury mentioned in this context.  Note to LOCOG: I see that it even has Modern Pentathlon arrangements.  

http://www.hartpury.ac.uk/Hartpury-Facilities/



Yes, I gather she has an imperious - arrogant, domineering - style which she is allowed to get away with.  Like ordering modifications to one of Mike Etherington-Smith's jump at the 2008 Olympics, the night before the start of the competition.
		
Click to expand...

Hartpury was mentioned in many online and verbal debates before Princess "Have My Own Way" finally nailed Greenwich as the venue.  I would have thought it made perfect sense having so much of the basic infrastructure in place, easy access, would be of benefit to the UK long after 2012.  I find it disgusting the BEF / BD / BSJA, and BHS remained submissive on this and did not actively push for somewhere that was not going to be basically the equivalent of pouring money down a drain.  Or maybe PH just did not want to venture any further into the British peasant countryside than she had to, or will have to present medals.


----------



## Spudlet (12 July 2011)

windsorblue said:



			THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY  

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. 



Taken from....

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Click to expand...

Love it - but please cease and desist from taking the name of the spud in vain. We spudlets are a delicate bunch, and we don't like _ad tubernim_ attacks


----------



## mtj (12 July 2011)

Hartpury's own website states that it has potential access problems from the main access road -  road is known to flood.

Choosing this venue or Windsor had the potential to provide a Cypress Mountain (Vancouver olympics) type fiasco.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

mtj said:



			Hartpury's own website states that it has potential access problems from the main access road -  road is known to flood.

Choosing this venue or Windsor had the potential to provide a Cypress Mountain (Vancouver olympics) type fiasco.
		
Click to expand...

Please believe me, as one who has lived in Greenwich since 1979, Hartpury's access problems are tiny compared with those of anywhere in south-east London.  LOCOG wants everyone (except the so-called Olympic family) to use public transport.  However, it is a myth to say that Greenwich has good transport connections: on the railways we have rolling stock that stops working if a hot day is followed by a rainy day, and a stalled train can close the whole line from London Bridge to Charlton (Greenwich is inbetween those two stations); on the roads, just one lorry shedding its load can gridlock the whole of London for the next 8 hours, and we have roads "known to flood" too in heavy rain (due to blocked drains) or as a result of a burst water-main.  A bomb alert can close the Blackwall Tunnel (which is on the Zil lane, the route for the "Olympic family", between the Olympic Village and Greenwich Park) for half a day, even if it turns out to have been a hoax.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

windsorblue said:



			Taken from....

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Click to expand...

Yes, do quote from a vanity web site, instead of coming up with your own contribution.  The abusive _ad hominem_ is often used by those who cannot defend their argument or answer a pertinent question.  Please play the ball, not the man.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

mtj said:



			flood.
		
Click to expand...

On the subject of flooding.  A day or two after LOCOG started installing the temporary arena in Greenwich Park, the drought broke.  We have photographs of the resultant flooding in Greenwich Park, including one of a maelstrom torrent of water bursting out of a manhole.  Entirely normal for these parts and usually no problem because we don't usually have 200 horses running round trying to keep their footing on the steep slopes.


----------



## Spudlet (12 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Yes, do quote from a vanity web site, instead of coming up with your own contribution.  The abusive _ad hominem_ is often used by those who cannot defend their argument or answer a pertinent question.  Please play the ball, not the man.
		
Click to expand...

Is that what you were doing, when you dismissed eventing as an 'elite' sport?

Or is that an _ad equinim_ attack?

As for vanity - how self-centred and delusional do you have to be to keep fighting this long-lost battle?!


----------



## Spot_the_Risk (12 July 2011)

Well, I always thought (and said at the time) that I thought Greenwich was the wrong venue, and having read all the comments on this thread, I'm glad that we didn't get any of the tickets we applied for, and can watch on the TV instead from the comfort of Devon!


----------



## watertray53 (12 July 2011)

Well said Spot_the_Risk I quite agree with you! I was there last Tuesday and the journey from Paddington to Greenwich was hideous! We were travelling after the rush hour and the underground was packed. Heaven only knows what it will be like next year when there will be thousands of extra people using it. I for one am also glad to be staying at home!


----------



## Wishful (12 July 2011)

Paddington to most places is hideous...  I'd probably change at Reading and come in somewhere else (Waterloo/London Bridge) and pick up Jubilee from there.  Or from where I'm starting, direct train to Waterloo (cheaper than Paddington and about 30-45 mins slower).  Paddington to Liverpool Street or Kings Cross is almost as much of a pain although the routes are marginally more direct.  

That said, the Burghley and Badminton traffic is pretty horrific, Windsor is massively constricted by river crossings etc, there would be unlikely to be any camping available on an Olympic site and there is NO sensible public transport to any of them.  Greenwich has the river (which is quite a pleasant journey), Jubilee and Docklands as well as the overlands (which I agree are fairly rubbish, but better than most of the ones in the rest of the country).


----------



## Zebedee (12 July 2011)

I was at the test event on Tuesday. I parked in Orpington & got the train to Lewisham (20mins) In Lewisham I changed on to the LDR, & 10 mins later arrived in Greenwich. It isn't an easy train journey from anywhere like Reading or Slough, but then nor are lots of other places !


----------



## watertray53 (12 July 2011)

Wishful I agree about using the river , which we did on the way back.
A lovely way to travel until you have to use the tube at Westminster
packed with tourists and business people returning home. Sardines in a tin!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			Jubilee and Docklands
		
Click to expand...

There always seems to be something wrong - delays - on the Jubilee line nowadays.  If you follow www.twitter.com/BBCTravelAlert, you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

watertray53 said:



			Wishful I agree about using the river , which we did on the way back.
A lovely way to travel
		
Click to expand...

I agree that the river is a lovely way to travel but, because the Thames is tidal here, you are at the mercy of the tides which can lengthen journey times if you happen to be going upstream when the tide is going out or downstream against the flood tide.


----------



## SusannaF (12 July 2011)

Well I'm sure they won't have bothered to sort out the Jubilee line by 2012


----------



## teapot (12 July 2011)

Facilities Management designate a certain number of rooms in halls as Vacation Residence. These rooms are available to book for any period time, subject to availability.
		
Click to expand...

That availability being dependent on where students are living. And given how much students pay for the privilege of it, they'd be uproar if they were decanted out of it. It's bad enough being a postgrad there during the summer, let alone being kicked out of your room. 




			No doubt they won this accreditation for all this "shockingly bad" accommodation that they advertise.
		
Click to expand...

The accreditation at the highest level is for the double bedded new halls. Which have postgrads living in them during the summer. No they're not full but it would be a little awkward having an 8 room flat with 4 PhD students and 4 Olympic competitors in. The 'shockingly bad' stuff which is no where near a decent standard of living is a.) not accredited and b.) funnily enough the stuff that's available during the summer. Postgrads arn't even offered the option of living in it. First year undergrads who have to share a bathroom between 20, be catered and move all their stuff out at the end of every term do get the option. I'm talking 19th century building which hasn't been modernised. 




			They have banqueting facilities, conference and break-out rooms, a full liquor licence, and all residential conference delegates are able to use the fully equipped gym and tennis courts.
		
Click to expand...

Banqueting facilities my arse. It's a small ish dining room with wood paneled walls. The conference facilities are good though, but they're funnily enough not in use over the summer. The gym's no different to what you'd find in a semi decent hotel. 

Just trust me on this one - never believe what RHUL publish, or at least take it with a pinch of salt. They rely solely on the reputation of being part of the (dying) London collegiate. But they get away with it as the campus is nice, and the accommodation in parts is pretty decent IF you can get access to it. They're not going to mention that the A30 is shocking to drive down, Windsor's not easy to get to by public transport and the campus will still have students living on site. 




			Er, what, like in Greenwich Park?
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich has the open space, hills already built in and general ambiance of a 3 day event venue (and yes I have been there very recently). Hickstead doesn't. It's flat, the stands, loos and facilities need completely re-building, you wouldn't fit an Olympic arena in the international arena space wise, and the stands space by the dressage arenas is pretty limited. Plus as it's a privately owned venue, it would mean convincing the Bunns to knock down the already decreasing standards of stands, loos and re-building from scratch. 




			QuoteWhich venue are you referring to?
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich with regards to reports post test event for the media. 




			When were you at Royal Holloway, then?
		
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with the price of fish?!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Greenwich has the open space, hills already built in and general ambiance of a 3 day event venue (and yes I have been there very recently).
		
Click to expand...

Then you haven't seen LOCOG's plans for the "open space".  Why do you think that spectator numbers are restricted to less than 50,000?  Because Greenwich Park is too small.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (12 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Well I'm sure they won't have bothered to sort out the Jubilee line by 2012 

Click to expand...

The problems appear to be systemic.  Despite an upgrade costing hundreds of millions of pounds, the 




			£100&#8201;million computerised signalling system which allows trains to communicate with each other is not working properly. 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929870-race-to-get-troubled-jubilee-line-on-track-for-olympics.do
8 March 2011
		
Click to expand...





			When asked about the long-overdue completion of the Jubilee line upgrade, Mr Johnson said commuters will have to expect "teething problems" over the summer while the new signalling software is bedded in.

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2011/05/boris-johnson-evasive-over-jub.html

Click to expand...

And so on and so on.  I am not the only one who thinks it won't be straightened out in time to work properly during the Olympics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/20/jubilee-line-disruption-olympics-tube
20 April 2011


----------



## Pebble101 (12 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			At the moment, the whole UK equestrian sector is looking a £60 million gift horse in the mouth and saying: no thanks.  It is totally incomprehensible to anyone who is used to making money work and generate more money and getting value for money.  Unless the UK equestrian sector wakes up in the next few weeks, your chance to have a £60 million upgrade to national equestrian facilities paid for out of "Olympic" funding will have disappeared forever - certainly won't recur in our lifetime.

.
		
Click to expand...

I am really not sure why you are posting on this site to be honest, I think your arguments are directed at the wrong people - we are not the decision makers. And some of your posts seem to contradict each other.

The decision is made,it's too late to change and we are stuck with it although I know a lot of us think it is not the best decision ever made to hold it at Greenwich.  However we might as well make it a success.

Maybe it will ignite a passion in some of the 'inner city kids' like it did with me many years ago. I don't know if I would be classed as one of them - lived in Catford and went to school in New Cross for those who know the area!  Now passionate about Eventing.


----------



## SusannaF (13 July 2011)

Pebble101 said:



			I am really not sure why you are posting on this site to be honest, I think your arguments are directed at the wrong people - we are not the decision makers. And some of your posts seem to contradict each other.

The decision is made,it's too late to change and we are stuck with it although I know a lot of us think it is not the best decision ever made to hold it at Greenwich.  However we might as well make it a success.

Maybe it will ignite a passion in some of the 'inner city kids' like it did with me many years ago. I don't know if I would be classed as one of them - lived in Catford and went to school in New Cross for those who know the area!  Now passionate about Eventing.
		
Click to expand...

Amen.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

Pebble101 said:



			The decision is made,it's too late to change and we are stuck with it although I know a lot of us think it is not the best decision ever made to hold it at Greenwich.  However we might as well make it a success.
		
Click to expand...

In more than one Olympics, in the past, the venue for the equestrian events has been changed quite late in the day.  It is silly - a waste of money and opportunity - to persist with Greenwich Park and could be disastrous from the point of view of the UK national equestrian community.


----------



## Zebedee (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			in the past, the venue for the equestrian events has been changed quite late in the day. .
		
Click to expand...

But that's not going to happen with regard to Greenwich /2012.

As Pebble101 has already said the decision has been made, & the best course of action now is for everyone to pull together & make it a sucess. I'm sure you're a far bigger person than to hope for failure just so you can say 'I told you so' ?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

Zebedee said:



			But that's not going to happen with regard to Greenwich /2012.

As Pebble101 has already said the decision has been made, & the best course of action now is for everyone to pull together & make it a sucess. I'm sure you're a far bigger person than to hope for failure just so you can say 'I told you so' ?
		
Click to expand...

The short-sightedness of the UK equestrian community is extraordinary.  If your promising young equestrians don't win any medals at the Olympics 2016 and 2010 - because your competitors, in Germany, France and the US have benefited from fantastic training facilities upgraded at the same time as the UK was saying "no thanks" to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to upgrade as well at the expense of the tax payer - don't say I didn't warn you.

Why "arrange to fail" - and insist on everyone else "pulling together" to ensure failure - when you could arrange to win?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			The problems appear to be systemic. ..
		
Click to expand...

Topical comment on this:

James Pearce
BBC Sports News Correspondent
www.twitter.com/Pearcesport

Tuesday 12 July 2011, about 11.00am

https://twitter.com/Pearcesport/status/90713144783142912




			Bad omen: British Olympic Association are hosting their first big event in Stratford today. Jubilee Line is down. Everybody late.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SusannaF (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			The short-sightedness of the UK equestrian community is extraordinary.  If your promising young equestrians don't win any medals at the Olympics 2016 and 2010 - because your competitors, in Germany, France and the US have benefited from fantastic training facilities upgraded at the same time as the UK was saying "no thanks" to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to upgrade as well at the expense of the tax payer - don't say I didn't warn you.

Why "arrange to fail" - and insist on everyone else "pulling together" to ensure failure - when you could arrange to win?
		
Click to expand...


You appear to be confusing some punters on HHO with the authorities which decide these things.


----------



## teapot (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			The short-sightedness of the UK equestrian community is extraordinary.  If your promising young equestrians don't win any medals at the Olympics 2016 and 2010 - because your competitors, in Germany, France and the US have benefited from fantastic training facilities upgraded at the same time as the UK was saying "no thanks" to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to upgrade as well at the expense of the tax payer - don't say I didn't warn you.

Why "arrange to fail" - and insist on everyone else "pulling together" to ensure failure - when you could arrange to win?
		
Click to expand...

Well the British eventing squad haven't struggled yet, and whilst they haven't won Olympic team gold in recent years, I'd say that's because of horses, team members, luck (anyone remember Tamarillo cracking his stifle in Athens, or PF struggling to keep Primmore's Pride in check over a too small a course?) and genuine issues, not because there's no national training centre. You're aware that the British event team have won team gold at the past 8 European championships? 

Dressage Team GB are coming into their own at just the right time. Show jumping Team GB has far more pressing issues than national training facilities. Lack of horses and consistent results is the problem. 

 And as well all know with horses having all the gear is nothing if you don't have the idea. The biggest worry for 2020 is that it's highly likely the Equestrianism won't be an Olympic sport. It was touch and go whether it would be in 2016 but is still at the moment.


----------



## Pebble101 (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Topical comment on this:

James Pearce
BBC Sports News Correspondent
www.twitter.com/Pearcesport

Tuesday 12 July 2011, about 11.00am

https://twitter.com/Pearcesport/status/90713144783142912

Click to expand...

I get the impression you are pleased about this there is a smug 'told you so' tone coming out in your posts.  

Those of us who use transport in and around London know what an ordeal it can be.  
Personally I don't know why we would want the Olympics (mind you Football World Cup would be even worse).

However I suspect I am in the minority, and having said that, we have it and I really truly hope it is a success.


----------



## SusannaF (13 July 2011)

Pebble101 said:



			I get the impression you are pleased about this there is a smug 'told you so' tone coming out in your posts.
		
Click to expand...

It's the "don't say I didn't warn you" that gives it away. You can hear the finger wagging.


----------



## Wishful (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I agree that the river is a lovely way to travel but, because the Thames is tidal here, you are at the mercy of the tides which can lengthen journey times if you happen to be going upstream when the tide is going out or downstream against the flood tide.
		
Click to expand...

I commuted on the river for the best part of 2 years- the catamarans that run the service don't really notice the tide - they weren't late that I noticed - even with masses of people getting on and off.   The only tidal issue was an extreme spring tide where the little ferry from where I lived couldn't dock at low tide - so they altered the little ferry times.  The main route cats use docks that are plenty deep enough and have a robust time table.  

London public transport is fantastic - occasionally you get delays, but the only major ones I experienced (from New Cross and Rotherhithe) were very unusual events (7/7).  London is the one city I've lived in where I never missed having a car (apart from shopping - but that was pure laziness).

As for equestrian legacy - unless the equestrian events can prove that they can be run without a stately home to host it in the grounds, they will be out by 2020.  Proving that the Olympic event can be run in a city park with issues and solving those problems will give eventing (and the other horse sports) far more chance of being in the Olympics long term then running a huge event at Badminton, Burghley or Windsor, all of which don't really have equivalents in most Olympic countries.  Not being an Olympic sport will do far more damage than not creating a physical legacy for the UK.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			London public transport is fantastic
		
Click to expand...




Pebble101 said:



			Those of us who use transport in and around London know what an ordeal it can be.
		
Click to expand...

Sans parole.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			You appear to be confusing some punters on HHO with the authorities which decide these things.
		
Click to expand...

My impression is that there is no one in charge of "vision", as it were, for the UK equestrian sport: consulting widely and drawing up five year plans and how to fulfil those plans.  Just competing vested interests.


----------



## Wishful (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Sans parole.
		
Click to expand...

Well in contrast to everywhere else I've ever lived, the public transport options from New Cross and Rotherhithe to the City were amazing.  Between bus, boat, train, underground there was some means of transport available to me between approx 6am and 11pm and night buses after that.  

Where I lived before and since the bus routes stop early, start late (no buses on Sunday where I live at the moment), bus is only means of transport - nearest train station 10 miles, nearest train station with a car park 15 miles, nearest train station with service more than every 2 hours 25 miles, so yes London was amazing for transport.  I'd never drive into London, either train from nearest main line station or deposit car at underground/overland station outside London.  Neither did I ever choose to get a taxi in the city, even when work was paying (unless what I was carrying was confidential or wouldn't fit in a brief case).  Rush hour is busy and fairly uncomfortable, but you don't get stranded - 3 or 4 times the last bus (6.30) from my local town has been too full, so people have been refused travel by the driver - I assume they had to get a £40+ taxi.


----------



## teapot (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			My impression is that there is no one in charge of "vision", as it were, for the UK equestrian sport: consulting widely and drawing up five year plans and how to fulfil those plans.  Just competing vested interests.
		
Click to expand...

Have a read of this: http://www.bef.co.uk/The_World_Class_Programme

It seems to be working...


----------



## Spudlet (13 July 2011)

I am another who is not sure what RM hopes to achieve by coming here and haruanging HHO-ers. There's nothing 'we' can do. Why on earth didn't their campaign focus on building relationships and consensus with the BEF and its member bodies, thus presenting a united front and a well argued and reasoned case for another, viable venue with a decent cost-benefit analysis, including reference to the planned Olympic legacy which has never to my knowledge been about facilities (many of the venues are being dismantled or reduced in size after the games) but is all about bringing up levels of participation in sport. Unfortunately the anti-Greenwich campaign has been fragmented and appears very much rooted in NIMBY-ism (one of my greatest pet hates), and mean-spirited to boot.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Have a read of this: http://www.bef.co.uk/The_World_Class_Programme

Click to expand...

From the BEF link




			The aim is to have in place a sustainable system that can deliver more medals on the international stage now and in the future.
		
Click to expand...

and




			The Programme has been funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, primarily from the National Lottery
		
Click to expand...

That is a contradiction in terms.  I had no idea that the future of UK equestrian medal-winning was wholly dependent upon grant-aid.


----------



## teapot (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I had no idea that the future of UK equestrian medal-winning was wholly dependent upon grant-aid.
		
Click to expand...

Yup! Performance = more money. But they need the money to perform. It's not uncommon for owners to stump up the cost of flights for horses when entered for the Kentucky 3 day event, given the BEF doesn't have the money to do it themselves...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Why on earth didn't their campaign focus on building relationships and consensus with the BEF and its member bodies
		
Click to expand...

It was evident from the outset that the BEF (and the IOC) was completely seduced by the idea of holding the event in Greenwich.



Spudlet said:



			a well argued and reasoned case for another, viable venue with a decent cost-benefit analysis
		
Click to expand...

We actually had a top economist do something on these lines.  Didn't make a blind bit of difference.



Spudlet said:



			Unfortunately the anti-Greenwich campaign has been fragmented and appears very much rooted in NIMBY-ism (one of my greatest pet hates), and mean-spirited to boot.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think any of that is true.  NOGOE is the only pressure group having any effect at all in mitigating the damage to Greenwich Park and trying to have the event moved to a more appopriate venue.  It is not NIMBY-ism or mean-spirited to stand up for the deprived in Greenwich and the rest of east and south-east London for whom Greenwich Park is their "backyard".  

I really wonder if H&HO-ers can conceive of the depth of deprivation in these parts of London.  For instance, on an estate just five minutes' walk from Greenwich Park, there are young children who don't know who their parents are because their father and mother have changed partners so often.  There are children who are not cared for properly because their mother is a drug-addict and the father absent.  And you all think it is OK to deprive them of the one beautiful and free thing in their lives, even for one day?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (13 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Yup! Performance = more money. But they need the money to perform. It's not uncommon for owners to stump up the cost of flights for horses when entered for the Kentucky 3 day event, given the BEF doesn't have the money to do it themselves...
		
Click to expand...

And despite that, you are all prepared to say "no thanks" to the chance of a (at no cost to any of you) multi-million pound upgrade to UK national equestrian facilities?


----------



## teapot (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			And despite that, you are all prepared to say "no thanks" to the chance of a (at no cost to any of you) multi-million pound upgrade to UK national equestrian facilities?   

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind better national equestrian facilities at all. That said it would still split the equestrian world over location and who gets what and someone somewhere still wouldn't be happy. BUT if money can be better spent with regards to team training, getting horses abroad (you're looking at a flight costing close to £8000 to the States per horse) and more support staff I'd rather the 3 main Olympic teams getting that than a new dressage arena. 

And like I said before, you can have all the facilities in the world but without the support staff, riders' abilities and horses, it won't make a blind bit of difference in terms of performance. The US event team is a case in point. They fell apart at their home World Equestrian Games last year despite the facilities and coaching on offer. It was widely documented that when the Team GB event team turned up, they performed over the week at a completely different level to every other nation, from their stables organisation to their warm up to their competition performance. Now if because the Brits don't have national facilities and instead work their arses off at home to get to the right level and then go out and literally wipe the floor then that's fine by me in terms of bringing home medals.


----------



## cefyl (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			It was evident from the outset that the BEF (and the IOC) was completely seduced by the idea of holding the event in Greenwich.

Not seduced but forced by Princess H, come hell or high water it was not about to be moved an inconvenient distance away from London city limits and be in peasant land.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## windsorblue (13 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I really wonder if H&HO-ers can conceive of the depth of deprivation in these parts of London.  For instance, on an estate just five minutes' walk from Greenwich Park, there are young children who don't know who their parents are because their father and mother have changed partners so often.  There are children who are not cared for properly because their mother is a drug-addict and the father absent.  And you all think it is OK to deprive them of the one beautiful and free thing in their lives, even for one day?
		
Click to expand...

Oh, purleeeze! DON'T use THIS to support your intransigence.
There are children like this everywhere in the UK, sadly.  Some in areas that would be far more "affluent" than the East London estates you are alluding to.

"......the one beautiful and free thing in their lives......" yeugh!


----------



## Spudlet (13 July 2011)

Actually, I used to live and work in London and have spent a lot of time in some extremely deprived areas as a volunteer, resident and professional - including yours. I have also seen deprivation VASTLY more severe in my current role with an international organisation. And I'm not exactly one of the silver spoon brigade myself (state school where assault and battery was the norm, drug addication in the family, broken home etc). Hate to burst your bubble of stereotypes there.


----------



## SusannaF (14 July 2011)

Yes, actually, I can imagine. I spent a deal of time with the Ebony Horse Club talking to the people that run it and the kids, and I know what it will mean to them to have a stable right at the heart of their community, which is one of the most beleagered in the UK and has a rising gang violence problem. It'll last a lot longer than the Olympics. 

They're a grass-roots organisation which has been making their own way and fighting for funding since the mid-1990s. 

Which is why I found it grossly insulting when you dismissed them as "just being on benefits" and said they'd "give  up as soon as the benefits dried up".

I think the kids in Greenwich will survive not having the park for a day or two, and I hope that Shooter's Hill restarts and the kids see the benefit of that. Perhaps Greenwich kids could do with someone to advocate for them with as much energy and consistency as the Ebony Horse Club?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			I think the kids in Greenwich will survive not having the park for a day or two
		
Click to expand...

Sigh - what an awful thing to say - most of the Park was closed to the public for several weeks this year and will be entirely closed to the public for several months next year.  Not days, months.  At the height of summer when everyone wants to be outside in green surroundings if they can.  Green spaces are healing and restorative, especially with all the trees around (now extremely threatened by LOCOG).



SusannaF said:



			Perhaps Greenwich kids could do with someone to advocate for them with as much energy and consistency as the Ebony Horse Club?
		
Click to expand...

Why do you think the lads who work off their aggressions in endless games of football on Le Notre's parterre, every day, all day, would be interested in horses?  (The temporary arena occupied the whole of Le Notre's parterre.)  It is a completely different culture/sub-culture.  Greenwich is home to the football club Charlton Athletic (and Beckham's Academy was sited on the Greenwich Peninsula) - that has a big influence on local children and businesses.

Greenwich Park hosts thousands of important activities every day for all sort of people: mothers (keep-fit), children (running around in safety), joggers, elderly (there were lots of memorial benches until LOCOG took them into storage), dog-walkers, young people (for whom the Park is a safe place to socialise, which you cannot say about much of the local area).  Also, I have discovered during the NOGOE campaign, Greenwich Park enables the lonely (retired, unemployed, unwell) to structure their days and fill their time with something useful such as starting a little personal project to study a particular species or area of the Park (going there every day to note developments, take photographs) and therefore have something to talk about with others.  Equestrians are going to take all that away and perhaps even destroy the personal projects of some very very lonely people.  Just for the "iconic backdrop" which seems to have seduced everyone at the BEF, IOC, etc.  This isn't the way to make people feel friendly towards horses and horse-riding.


----------



## Spudlet (14 July 2011)

How patronising of you to automatically assume they won't be - why, are they not clever enough? Not rich enough? Not middle-class enough? How patronising you are to the poor little poor people who you deign to speak for.


----------



## SusannaF (14 July 2011)

So, prior to this campaign, you were completely uninvolved with this section of your community and were not contributing to help them?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Actually, I used to live and work in London and have spent a lot of time in some extremely deprived areas as a volunteer, resident and professional - including yours. I have also seen deprivation VASTLY more severe in my current role with an international organisation. And I'm not exactly one of the silver spoon brigade myself (state school where assault and battery was the norm, drug addication in the family, broken home etc). Hate to burst your bubble of stereotypes there.
		
Click to expand...

Which makes your determination to make things worse for Greenwich children and young people - and the young people who travel to Greenwich Park from all over east and south-east London at weekends - completely incomprehensible.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			How patronising of you to automatically assume they won't be - why, are they not clever enough? Not rich enough? Not middle-class enough? How patronising you are to the poor little poor people who you deign to speak for.
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean.  I have been a member of the residential and small business community in Greenwich since 1977.  I was talking about the local culture/sub-culture.  Not about cleverness, wealth or class.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			So, prior to this campaign, you were completely uninvolved with this section of your community and were not contributing to help them?
		
Click to expand...

To whom are you referring ("this section")?


----------



## SusannaF (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			To whom are you referring ("this section")?
		
Click to expand...

The impoverished inner city kids to whom you refer.

Look, as you have been told ad nauseam, for "the equestrians" read "The London Olympic committe". 

Until you understand that, you are wasting a huge amount of time and energy and alienating people by setting up a false, reverse snobbery divide.


----------



## Pebble101 (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Equestrians are going to take all that away and perhaps even destroy the personal projects of some very very lonely people.  Just for the "iconic backdrop" which seems to have seduced everyone at the BEF, IOC, etc.  This isn't the way to make people feel friendly towards horses and horse-riding.
		
Click to expand...

See previous posts - you are completely off target on this forum we are not the decision makers.  As you say it's the BEF and IOC you need to be targeting - why not route your energies in that direction?  

I have no doubt now that you will be s*** stirring among locals and saying that horses and horse riders are the route of all evil.

I would have loved to have gone to the test event, but didn't get the chance which the locals did.  So in my eyes they have already experienced something many of us couldn't.  Or can't you see any positives in this?  Probably not.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			The impoverished inner city kids to whom you refer.
		
Click to expand...

I do my bit to "give something back" and have done so all my adult life (I am now 60).



SusannaF said:



			Look, as you have been told ad nauseam, for "the equestrians" read "The London Olympic committe".
		
Click to expand...

If UK equestrians spoke with one voice and said: "We - and the rising generation of Olympic-competitors - deserve better than this", the national authorities would have to listen to you.  An "iconic backdrop" is not a good, ie grown-up, sensible, reason for choosing Greenwich Park.  I would go further: it is a bonkers reason for choosing an urban park (180 acres, some of this "off limits" because of important archaeological remains and rare habitat, Badminton is 1,500 acres) in a densely populated city district, with - in reality - road and transport infrastructure that cannot safely cope with tens of thousands coming and going every day, to whom will have to be applied "airport type" security checks.  (Once spectators are in the Park, they will not be allowed to go out and return, eg at lunch-time.)

Unfortunately, the UK equestrians' voice appears to be that of the BEF.  That the BEF never insisted on cost-benefit analyses being done on the alternative venues, never costed the security necessary on ANY of the sites, says an awful lot about the calibre of people at the BEF and the culture - looks from here like a sort of "cargo culture" - which is not acting in the best interests of the UK's equestrians.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

Pebble101 said:



			See previous posts - you are completely off target on this forum we are not the decision makers.  As you say it's the BEF and IOC you need to be targeting
		
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.  The UK signed contracts with the IOC, so the IOC is not interested in details now.  The BEF have a problem, and equestrians could - if they spoke up - help solve it for them.



Pebble101 said:



			I have no doubt now that you will be s*** stirring among locals and saying that horses and horse riders are the route of all evil.
		
Click to expand...

Silly.  I myself learned to ride while at boarding school.


----------



## Pebble101 (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Silly.  I myself learned to ride while at boarding school.
		
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.


----------



## Over2You (14 July 2011)

gmw said:



			If there are thousands and thousands of old, young, rich, poor etc etc using the park on a daily  basis. Shouldn't they be stopped in their tracks ,they must be doing untold damage!
		
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point I was going to bring into this debate. The vast majority of those opposing the use of Greenwich, all like to point out that their beloved park (used by many thousands of people a year), must not be damaged, without realising that irreversible damage *WILL* have been done already. Inevitable, really, considering all those thousands of feet tramping over the grass.

On the subject of manure, and the effect it will have on the grass. What about bird droppings? You cannot protect against those, and they are very acidic too. The park is also frequented by countless dog walkers. Surely, all the urine that dogs excrete must be harmful as well. In fact, a dog urinating on grass has just the same effect as pouring undiluted bleach onto it. Not to mention all the other animals that use the park as a toilet. Once again, damage *HAS* been done. 

I am really sick of all those whining about the park's closure too. By the way they keep harping on, you would think the park is being taken away from them forever. It is only for a couple of months for heaven's sake! It reminds me of the residents of several Perthshire communities who are so selfish, that they will go to great lengths to try and stop an annual bicycle race. They have even been known to put carpet tacks on the roads to stop the bikes. Their reason: They can't get out in their cars for a few days! The residents of Greenwich are as petty as that. With all the stirring you have done, Ms. Mawhood, it would not surprise me if people are inspired to try and sabotage Greenwich as a result of your hate-filled rants! 

Also to Ms. Mawhood: You are vilifying equestrian sports, yet seem to support football. Well, my cousin stopped going to football matches years ago because of all the trouble it causes. If it's not players disgracing themselves on and off the pitch, it's the crowds and their anti-Semitic chanting. I'll never forget reading about a boy with Down's Syndrome who was beaten and killed. His crime? Wearing a Celtic shirt. If anything, you should be focusing your energy on having football violence stamped out. Instead of persecuting a collection of sports that are full of positive role models, and that are open to a wide range of competitors. By the way: I have never heard of a single arrest at an equestrian event.

Do yourself a favour and leave this forum. You only joined, so you could get peoples backs up. That is what you call trolling. Besides, you are fighting a losing battle anyway.


----------



## millimoo (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood - stop being such a NIMBY.
The Olympics is a once in a lifetime event... if it ever comes back to London, we'll all probably be 6ft under. It's going to happen, get over it.

Your fight should have been taken to the IOC & BEF ahead of the decision, and if it were, it clearly fell on deaf ears. 
I just hope poeple like you don't spoil it for attendees when the time comes, because that would be truly pointless and tragic.

You have a very biased view, and this forum is not the place for your posts.
Goodbye


----------



## CarolineB1962 (14 July 2011)

I am in full agreement with you Rachel.  I just cannot understand why the Equestrian Olympics are being held in Greenwich Park which is totally unsuitable, when we already have established courses which could accommodate a far larger crowd of people.  £60 million is being spent on developing Greenwich Park only to be ripped down after the event with no lasting effect for the equestrian community.  If one of the already established venues was used, probably only a fraction of this money would have to be used and a far greater number of people could be accommodated, therefore bringing in a larger revenue.  The venue could then be used for training for future olympics and maybe even some of the money saved could be put to better use - Riding for the Disabled?  You are right, the equestrian community need to get behind this and stand up and say "No, we deserve better".  We are, after all, one of the main contenders for Olympic Gold, why not then hold it where more people can have the opportunity to see this on our home soil.  There is still time to change it so let's try!


----------



## wilde2 (14 July 2011)

I rarely post, but after reading this through again feel compelled to. I was not keen on Greenwich as a location originally, and when I went to the test event, still had some concerns although to be fair isn't the whole point of the test event to identify these? I think at this point the decision has been made, and the athletes are identifying areas that could be improved for next year rather than just saying its wrong to hold it here (even if they think that) Plenty of people made their opinions known early on. It won't be changed now - surely the best option would be to work to improve things rather than campaign for something that will not be altered? I am sure there are valid arguments against (as for) - but equally, I presume there would be similar arguments on other venues if selected. I realize that this is not your opinion, and nothing said on here will influence you. However, I think you are loosing rather than gaining supporters here. No one on here will be able to change the venue - and if you are trying to drum up support for your campaign, in my case where I was a sympathizer to some extent, after reading these posts, I am no longer. I think your passion for the cause and how you have presented things here will alienate people - really was that what you wanted to achieve?


----------



## bseage (14 July 2011)

I'm just concerned that Horse and Hound, the most respected equine journal is unreservedly supporting a three day event at Greenwich

Surely a more cautious initial reaction to the test event at Greenwich would have been appropriate, *(Riders, Spectators and even Grooms were unanimous in their praise for Greenwich etc),* as reviews in other publications were not so supportive of the venue.  *Daily Telegraph 7 July 'Riders Slate Greenwich' for example.  Quotes from internationally respected riders were also cautious, Fox - Pitt felt that one descent was 'punishing', Andrew Nicholson a veteran of 6 Olympics, 'It's not my ideal terrain for a championship', and Pippa Funnell felt that it required a particular type of horse, Redesigned rather than Primmore's Pride.*  In the arena, the surface was nowhere near good enough.  With only 19 of the 40 jumps in place and only 9,000 spectators of a capacity of 78,000 on the course, the venue was hardly under the pressure it will experience on cross country day.

Many experienced people have reservations about staging the event at Greenwich which covers barely 1.5 square kilometers, with much taken up by the Observatory, the ancient monument now occupied by the Maritime Museum, gardens and the connecting drives and pathways.  Into this small area there will be 78,000 spectators, over 100 horses and their riders, grooms and other staff, and the media.  

We all wish our sport well , but there is still time to move the three day event to a tried and tested international venue.


----------



## SusannaF (14 July 2011)

Hmmmmm.


----------



## pootler (14 July 2011)

I am a Greenwich resident and regular park user (well daughter is, just kicked her out there to walk the dogs).  I have lived here for nearly ten years and have seen the parked used for all kinds of events, the biggest of which being the London Marathon with some 120,000 runners.

I annually face more disruption from the marathon than I have from the test event.  Despite the disruption I support these events as I believe they are good for the Borough.

The park recovers very well despite heavy usage and I'm afraid any argument about damage etc is very hard to support.

I believe the general consensus of the locals is that the Olympics are great for Greenwich.  The 12,000 applications for 1,000 tickets at the test event show that.

Whatever anyone says they are not going to change RM's mind, her mind is firmly made up and no amount of rational discussion will change the mind of a hardened NIMBY!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

pootler said:



			the biggest of which being the London Marathon with some 120,000 runners.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - pluck a number out of the air, why don't you?  The number of runners in the 2011 London Marathon was 35,000.  Source: the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13107523

That's on one day, they all (a) arrive in Greenwich the night before or very early on the morning and (b) leave Greenwich altogether within two hours.  And 35,000 is much less than the 50,000 that LOCOG wants to squish into Greenwich Park, on more than one day, and all arriving at the same time.  



pootler said:



			The park recovers very well despite heavy usage and I'm afraid any argument about damage etc is very hard to support.
		
Click to expand...

You - we - aint seen nothing.  The main event next year will have 10 times as many people in the stadium than there were in the arena this year; four times as many horses participating; the world's media; all the logistical stuff (that wasn't needed this year).  There has already been damage to habitat and trees (irreversible).



pootler said:



			I believe the general consensus of the locals is that the Olympics are great for Greenwich.  The 12,000 applications for 1,000 tickets at the test event show that.
		
Click to expand...

They were FREEBIES, and nearly 4,000 of them were distributed in schools.  And you are wrong about the general consensus - did you hear BBC London "Drive Time" this evening?



pootler said:



			Whatever anyone says they are not going to change RM's mind, her mind is firmly made up and no amount of rational discussion will change the mind of a hardened NIMBY!
		
Click to expand...

At least I get my facts correct.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

bseage said:



			a capacity of 78,000 ...there will be 78,000 spectators
		
Click to expand...

Just a point of information.  Whenever LOCOG mentions 78,000 spectators, that includes 23,000 in the stadium.  The maximum possible - ie safe - number of spectators for the cross-country would be about 50,000.  Which is one quarter/one fifth of the spectators able to enjoy cross-country at Badminton. 

Think of all the eventers being needlessly disappointed because they can't - because of LOCOG's insistence on this tiny tiny venue - obtain tickets to the Olympics cross-country.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

Over2You said:



			That is exactly the point I was going to bring into this debate. The vast majority of those opposing the use of Greenwich, all like to point out that their beloved park (used by many thousands of people a year), must not be damaged, without realising that irreversible damage *WILL* have been done already. Inevitable, really, considering all those thousands of feet tramping over the grass.
		
Click to expand...

Very funny.  Just as funny as Derrick Spurr saying that joggers' plimsoles  damaged the grass more than half-ton horses wearing studs going at a hundred miles an hour.



Over2You said:



			Ms. Mawhood, it would not surprise me if people are inspired to try and sabotage Greenwich as a result of your hate-filled rants! ... Also to Ms. Mawhood: You are vilifying equestrian sports, ...  You only joined, so you could get peoples backs up. That is what you call trolling. Besides, you are fighting a losing battle anyway.
		
Click to expand...

There have been no "hate-filled rants" from me.  I have not "vilified" equestrian sports.  I am not a troll.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

millimoo said:



			Your fight should have been taken to the IOC & BEF ahead of the decision, and if it were, it clearly fell on deaf ears.
		
Click to expand...

There was no public consultation before the decision about using Greenwich Park.



millimoo said:



			I just hope poeple like you don't spoil it for attendees when the time comes, because that would be truly pointless and tragic.
		
Click to expand...

To be honest, from what I have seen of LOCOG's project management over the last 18 months or so, I believe that LOCOG needs no help at all in spoiling this event for the participants.

I am not against the Olympics.  I do believe that Greenwich Park is not the right venue for the equestrian events, for the reasons I have given on this thread.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 July 2011)

wilde2 said:



			However, I think you are loosing rather than gaining supporters here. No one on here will be able to change the venue - and if you are trying to drum up support for your campaign, in my case where I was a sympathizer to some extent, after reading these posts, I am no longer. I think your passion for the cause and how you have presented things here will alienate people - really was that what you wanted to achieve?
		
Click to expand...

If you had really read the whole thread, you will see that what prompted me to join was the apparent tendency of some - Test Event "fence judges" among them - to treat the locals as _untermenschen_.

That and the incredible amount of disinformation that was being spread around on this thread unchallenged.


----------



## Over2You (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Very funny.  Just as funny as Derrick Spurr saying that joggers' plimsoles  damaged the grass more than half-ton horses wearing studs going at a hundred miles an hour.

*Hundreds of miles an hour? You have just said you deal in facts. And, yes, thousands of footsteps (even made by plimsoles) a year over the same area will cause damage. It is called erosion.*



There have been no "hate-filled rants" from me.  I have not "vilified" equestrian sports.  I am not a troll.
		
Click to expand...

*Oh, but there have been hate driven rants. With responses such as this*:

Originally Posted by Spudlet:

"Actually, I used to live and work in London and have spent a lot of time in some extremely deprived areas as a volunteer, resident and professional - including yours. I have also seen deprivation VASTLY more severe in my current role with an international organisation. And I'm not exactly one of the silver spoon brigade myself (state school where assault and battery was the norm, drug addication in the family, broken home etc). Hate to burst your bubble of stereotypes there." 

Your reply:

"Which makes your determination to make things worse for Greenwich children and young people - and the young people who travel to Greenwich Park from all over east and south-east London at weekends - completely incomprehensible."

*You are making the Equestrian Olympics out to be some kind of horrible, evil entity for depriving people of a park for a couple of months.

You have made more than fifty-posts, but all in this thread. The only thing you have done is castigate the event. There has been nothing positive from you whatsoever. You are out to point a very long finger at the equestrian community for spoiling your enjoyment of something for several weeks. Now, you do not join an equestrian forum, then vent all your frustrations at its members for all the disruption their sports will cause. Like it or not, that is what you call trolling - thereby, making you a troll.*


----------



## Sleighfarer (14 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			One of the elements on this thread that prompted me to join is the slightly sinister portrayal by equestrians of Greenwich opposition as _untermensch_.

See also other posts describing opposition as, say, "idiots" and old ladies who claim to know what HM The Queen is thinking.

NOGOE - which leads the opposition, since all the amenity society executives  were bought off with free tickets, flattery, and LOCOG hospitality - has several lawyers on its committee, as well as other highly-skilled professionals.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say the ladies I spoke to were old. You have made that up.


----------



## millimoo (14 July 2011)

THE LOCATION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE!!!!!
Take it up with your local MP, the majority of forum
Members are not going to fight your crusade. Your posts are pointless, and I'm not actually sure what you're trying to achieve, and getting you friends to add to your trolling will not get you anywhere either???
Go and spout to someone who can actually take your grievances further.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

Over2You said:



			Oh, but there have been hate driven rants. [et seq]
		
Click to expand...

I hesitate to suggest that you are projecting but I don't know what else it could be.  I am angry about the obscene waste of money - £60 million and no legacy - the damage to rare habitat and ancient trees, and the way the people of Greenwich and the surrounding poor areas of London have been treated but I don't feel hatred.  There is nothing wrong with anger.  Anger can change things for the better.



Over2You said:



			You have made more than fifty-posts, but all in this thread.
		
Click to expand...

This thread is about the Test Event held in Greenwich last week.  I am in Greenwich.  I know quite a lot about the impact of the equestrian event preparations on Greenwich Park.



Over2You said:



			There has been nothing positive from you whatsoever. You are out to point a very long finger at the equestrian community for spoiling your enjoyment of something for several weeks.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I have suggested alternatives and backed up them with reasoning.  It isn't my spoiled enjoyment that prompts me to oppose the 2012 equestrian events in the Park.  (I have a garden and other interests.)  No, as I have also pointed out, it is unjustifiable damage to a World Heritage Site that will take years and a great deal of public money to put right (if it can be put right which, in the case of the rare acid grasslands, is doubtful), and it is the impact on thousands of people who do not have many other options for places to play and relax and socialise safely.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

millimoo said:



			THE LOCATION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE!!!!!
Take it up with your local MP
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich and Woolwich is incredibly, undeservedly unfortunate in their MP.  He is (since July 2010) chairman of Triathlon Homes which is the Olympic Village on the other side of the River Thames, ie not in his constituency.  He will make a lot of money when the Village is sold so he has no interest whatsoever in representing his constituents' best interests in this matter.  He has no interest in the Village being smaller, as it would be if equestrians didn't have to be accommodated there, ie if the equestrian events were held - say - at Windsor.



millimoo said:



			I'm not actually sure what you're trying to achieve
		
Click to expand...

Getting the 2012 equestrian events moved to a better - larger - venue where there will be something left to show for the £60 million.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

Two things, before I go and walk the dog and do some work.

1.  Equestrians deserve to be better served by the BEF.  It was the BEF that signed off the diagram (in the London Bid) of Greenwich Park drawn to the wrong scale, thus purporting to show that the Park was twice as large as it actually is.  It has all been downhill since then, with the BEF trying to justify that decision.  With your - ie taxpayers - money (central funding grant-aid).  Trebles all round.

2.  Yesterday evening, BBC London's "Drive Time" programme was broadcast live from General Gordon Square in Woolwich, asking people about Olympic legacy for Greenwich and Woolwich.  A local councillor and the MP for Eltham (not the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich) took part, and both of them tried to pass off any new development (Crossrail, a new school) as "Olympic legacy".  Neither said anything about a new riding school on Shooters Hill so I think we can assume that that is not going to happen, that it was all a "sop" to keep people quiet.


----------



## bseage (15 July 2011)

It is fascinating to see the conflicting views on the viability or otherwise of the Olympic 3 day event at Greenwich.  I have had horses that have evented, point to pointed, showjumped and hunted for over 40 years and do not feel 'precious' about horses.  

But we seem to have lost sight of the point that eventing, dressage and show jumping are the only events in which the athlete is not a human being and so we have to just think about them, the horses, for a moment.

As dressage and show jumping pose little real dangers for a horse, I'll just talk a bit about eventing.

The test event has been hailed as a success by the major equine magazine, Horse and Hound.  But they failed to balance their article with the negative comments made by some competitors.  Restrained though these were, because the riders have their sponsors and their places in the team to consider, there was evidence that they felt the venue and its steep terrain was less than ideal for an Olympic 3 day event.

A very steep, twisting course, at least twice as long as the one for the test course and with three ascents and descents of the steep hill will be highly stressful for the horses, but their riders will be keen to push it to get a medal.  There were falls during the test event on a course that was described by Horse and Hound as *'not unduly difficult'*.  It was also run in ideal sunny dry conditions.  What would three times up and down the hill, with 40 jumps and and over 5 kilometers of galloping do to these event horses on a wet day and with all the pressure to win that the Olympics requires?

Horse and Hound has also indicated that there will be no tangible legacy from the event, *'If the only legacy of 2012 is nailing down equestrianism's place in the Olympic pantheon then it will have achieved something momentous' H&H.
*
So, for an ego trip for Coe who wants a spectacular in London, to ensure eventing remains an olympic event, to please the sponsors, and to give their riders a chance of a medal, horses will have to compete at a totally unsuitable venue from which there will be no lasting legacy for Greenwich or London.


----------



## watertray53 (15 July 2011)

So, for an ego trip for Coe who wants a spectacular in London, to ensure eventing remains an olympic event, to please the sponsors, and to give their riders a chance of a medal, horses will have to compete at a totally unsuitable venue from which there will be no lasting legacy for Greenwich or London. 

Bravo! Well said bseage! Got it in a nut shell


----------



## millimoo (15 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood - having done 5 minutes of googling I think you have a nerve to come onto an Equestrian forum with your friends.

The fact that you (I quote) describe 'Equestrianism is an "elite sport". completely undues any credibility you think you have.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23597474-2012-chief-greenwich-park-wont-be-harmed.do

I think you need to decide the basis of your objections.
Is it the environmental impact, lack of legacy, or just generally being a NIMBY. Fundamentally you could be perceived a bigot who thinks Horse Riding is for Toffs??? When if fact if you spent some of your energies educating yourself about the Equestrian community across the UK you may well be surprised that we come from all walks of life - with the majority working damn hard to make ends meet to take part in a sport we love.

Do you not think now is the time to accept that this fantastic event is taking place alongside all the other Sports held during the Olympics.
I'm British and proud that I will be attending Greenwich Park for this once in a lifetime opportunity.


----------



## pootler (15 July 2011)

Given all the concerns about the damage to the park, it is now possible to access areas where the horses have competed.  RM seems to have a lot of time on her hands so we would all be very grateful to see photos of the irreversible damage done to the park.


----------



## teapot (15 July 2011)

pootler said:



			Given all the concerns about the damage to the park, it is now possible to access areas where the horses have competed.  RM seems to have a lot of time on her hands so we would all be very grateful to see photos of the irreversible damage done to the park.
		
Click to expand...

I walked some of the course on Saturday and you had to look very carefully to find any track markings/hoof imprints. The difference in the ground though from marked course to normal parkland was HUGE and I know which one I'd rather be walking/running on as a park user. I only took one pic, and as you can see, you can only just make out where the horses landed and went forwards to the water (you can clearly see where the fence was but that'll change within days back to normal):


----------



## pootler (15 July 2011)

Exactly!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

pootler said:



			Given all the concerns about the damage to the park, it is now possible to access areas where the horses have competed.  RM seems to have a lot of time on her hands so we would all be very grateful to see photos of the irreversible damage done to the park.
		
Click to expand...

There are tons of photographs on our Flickr site

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/

Eg these of the prepared cross-country track where it traverses the ancient, rare acid grassland habitat.  In these two pictures, you are looking at the most appalling damage - mutilation, no less, by LOCOG.  So that a tiny handful of you guys can win a medal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/5929703409/in/photostream

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/5929703055/in/photostream


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

teapot said:



			I only took one pic, and as you can see, you can only just make out where the horses landed and went forwards to the water (you can clearly see where the fence was but that'll change within days back to normal):
		
Click to expand...

That jump, into the boating pond, was created specially last autumn.  

This is what it usually looks like, seen from the other side of the boating pond,

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_background_images/165628731/nogoe-for-twitter.jpg


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

millimoo said:



			Rachel Mawhood - having done 5 minutes of googling I think you have a nerve to come onto an Equestrian forum with your friends.
		
Click to expand...

Not aware that any of my friends is posting here.  Funny attitude, you have.  This is the web, and anyone can come onto this forum by creating a login and agreeing to the terms and conditions.



millimoo said:



			The fact that you (I quote) describe 'Equestrianism is an "elite sport". completely undues any credibility you think you have.
		
Click to expand...

"Completely", eh?



millimoo said:



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23597474-2012-chief-greenwich-park-wont-be-harmed.do

Click to expand...

Lord Coe has been economical with the actualite.  Greenwich Park is already harmed, in parts probably irreversibly.  All because the BEF pretended to the IOC that the Park was twice as large as it is and, also, believes that an "iconic backdrop" is a sensible criterion for choosing a site for equestrian events.  Isn't Coe married to an equestrian?



millimoo said:



			I think you need to decide the basis of your objections.  Is it the environmental impact, lack of legacy, or just generally being a NIMBY.
		
Click to expand...

All those things - and 13,500 "NIMBYs" signed our paper petition; 3,500 signed a Downing Street e-petition; more than 2,000 letters of objection were submitted to Greenwich Council (a Greenwich record) against LOCOG's original planning application.  Greenwich Park is the "backyard" for hundreds of thousands of people in run-down east and south-east London.



millimoo said:



			you may well be surprised that we come from all walks of life - with the majority working damn hard to make ends meet to take part in a sport we love.
		
Click to expand...

Then go and do it somewhere else - why destroy our Park?  (Incidentally, for many people, I myself would qualify as a "toff".  But I don't believe that that gives me the right to destroy community assets for the sake of a nice day out for myself.)



millimoo said:



			I'm British and proud that I will be attending Greenwich Park for this once in a lifetime opportunity.
		
Click to expand...

You could still be proud to be British, if the 2012 equestrian events were being held at a suitable equestrian venue such as Windsor.  I am not stopping you being proud to be British.  In faraway Yorkshire.


----------



## Kokopelli (15 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood you lost all credibility when you dragged your friends into this and markinf horse riding as an 'elitist sport' a very misinformed ignorant opinion.



cefyl said:



			Or even Hartpury.  Most Olympics the actual equestrian venues have been about that distance or more from the host city.  The money used to stage the Olympics at somewhere like Hartpury would have left a lasting legacy for equine training and development in the UK.  And kept the cost of staging the actual events down considering what is already in place there.
		
Click to expand...




Rachel Mawhood said:



			Please believe me, as one who has lived in Greenwich since 1979, Hartpury's access problems are tiny compared with those of anywhere in south-east London.  LOCOG wants everyone (except the so-called Olympic family) to use public transport.  However, it is a myth to say that Greenwich has good transport connections: on the railways we have rolling stock that stops working if a hot day is followed by a rainy day, and a stalled train can close the whole line from London Bridge to Charlton (Greenwich is inbetween those two stations); on the roads, just one lorry shedding its load can gridlock the whole of London for the next 8 hours, and we have roads "known to flood" too in heavy rain (due to blocked drains) or as a result of a burst water-main.  A bomb alert can close the Blackwall Tunnel (which is on the Zil lane, the route for the "Olympic family", between the Olympic Village and Greenwich Park) for half a day, even if it turns out to have been a hoax.
		
Click to expand...

There is no way Hartpury would be suitable for the olympics. For a start it has no rail links or even bus links to get to and there is no where near enough parking for the amount of spectators. The main arena grandstand has a capacity of 600 people, yes 600. That wouldn't even cover the grooms and connections to the riders let alone paying spectators.

As for flooding it is a big issue, may I ask what a flood in London is like? I'm guessing it's about 6 inches of water not much? In Gloucester the entire road is totally closed off from water as deep as 3ft on the roads with a current, that would kill you if you got caught in it. There is no way you could get a car across the road when the river floods. May I also remind you of the flooding of Gloucester in 2007 which could happen again, there would be no way of accessing Hartpury without being diverted for about an hour around country lanes. I'm sure 50,000 people driving around tight windy lanes without an idea of where they are is a good idea. 

I suggest you take your ignorant opinions else where as the people on this forum are not the sort that take offensive comments about their sport lightly.


----------



## mtj (15 July 2011)

Can I clarify why Windsor is not an option.

Whilst some wonderful arena events, Euro Dressage Champs etc, have been held here, the ground conditions have been proven to be unreliable for the cross country.  The transport system will also not be able to cope.

Getting to and from Greenwich will not be fun.  As I spent a number of years living and working in London, its not going to come as a shock. 

I have read your links and noticed that the grassland habitat is specified as rare for London.
It looks very much like my poor grazing (keep it like that as i think its more natural as a horse diet) and I'm extremely confident the soil will soon revert once the games are over.

I am disappointed that we will not have access to the shops/cafes etc in Greenwich.  That had always been part of my plan for the day.  OH might be releaved...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

mtj said:



			Can I clarify why Windsor is not an option.

Whilst some wonderful arena events, Euro Dressage Champs etc, have been held here, the ground conditions have been proven to be unreliable for the cross country.
		
Click to expand...

If some of the £60 million had been spent preparing the cross-country track in the same way (I have read up on this) as that in Hong Kong, it would be perfect.



mtj said:



			I'm extremely confident the soil will soon revert once the games are over.
		
Click to expand...

No, it won't.  Acid grassland is called "acid" because of the low-nutrient and natural extreme acidity of the soil (pH 4-5.5).  LOCOG's preparations on the cross-country course  included applying an (alkaline) surfactant and then watering with London tap water which has a pH of 9.  When we carried out tests, about two months ago, we got astonishingly high (alkaline) readings on the cross-country course.  We are going to repeat the tests, at least once.

If, and it is a big if, the acid grassland can be restored - I hope you will acknowledge Natural England to be experts on this? - it will take about a decade, cost a great deal, and require specialised dedicated management.  Eg the track will have to be mown separately from the rest of the acid grasslands and the clippings swept up, not allowed to rot down.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

Kokopelli said:



			The main arena grandstand has a capacity of 600 people, yes 600. That wouldn't even cover the grooms and connections to the riders let alone paying spectators.
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich Park doesn't have a grandstand/stadium.



Kokopelli said:



			As for flooding it is a big issue, may I ask what a flood in London is like?
		
Click to expand...

It causes traffic gridlock.  In Greenwich Park, because of the steep slopes and thin soil cover over rocky ground, the rain runs down to and collects in Le Notre's parterre - just south of the Queens House - which becomes a swamp.  Normally, that doesn't matter.  It would matter to horses and riders.  It would be unsafe.


----------



## Kokopelli (15 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Greenwich Park doesn't have a grandstand/stadium.

_Yes but it has space to build one, there is no space at Hartpury for a grandstand which partly why most horses stabled there don't get turnout_

It causes traffic gridlock.  In Greenwich Park, because of the steep slopes and thin soil cover over rocky ground, the rain runs down to and collects in Le Notre's parterre - just south of the Queens House - which becomes a swamp.  Normally, that doesn't matter.  It would matter to horses and riders.  It would be unsafe.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop the flow of traffic there does it? The course can easily be diverted around the 'swampy' part or horses and riders can be told to not go in it. As for unsafe I highly doubt that, in the winter many fields turn very swampy and the horses cope fine.


----------



## meardsall_millie (15 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Greenwich and Woolwich is incredibly, undeservedly unfortunate in their MP.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe if the vast numbers of G&W residents who are so vehemently opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Eventing had voted against Mr Raynsford, then you could have elected someone else - we do live in a democracy after all.

Let's face it, he has hardly been parachuted in against everyone's will when he's been voted in by over 20,000 local residents with a 10,000 majority.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the vast majority of G&W residents are actually quite supportive of the Olympics after all?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

Kokopelli said:



			It doesn't stop the flow of traffic there does it?
		
Click to expand...

Flooding can stop the flow of traffic all over London.  That's what "gridlock" means.  It also causes trains to stop running and, sometimes, London Underground stations have to be closed due to flooding.



Kokopelli said:



			The course can easily be diverted around the 'swampy' part or horses and riders can be told to not go in it.
		
Click to expand...

If you read around this subject, you will soon find that - because the Park is so small - there is no room for re-routing the cross-country course.



Kokopelli said:



			As for unsafe I highly doubt that, in the winter many fields turn very swampy and the horses cope fine.
		
Click to expand...

Are they being ridden at top speed, having to pull up quickly to negotiate hair-pin turns, with a rider who desperately wants to win a gold medal?  No, the horses you are thinking of are just standing around.


----------



## mtj (15 July 2011)

Whilst I don't doubt your sincerity, please have a think about these transport issues.  You are doing your case no good at all.

Windsor would be dependent on exactly the same transport system that you claim could fail for Greenwich (and all the other venues).

Having lived in London, rural UK  and overseas, I would much rather take my chances with the London public transport network than try to cope with difficulties in areas that do not have alternatives.  Yes, I have had to get across London during tube strikes, flooded stations etc.  Not pleasant, but i managed.  Horsey folk are generally dogged, so we will cope.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (15 July 2011)

meardsall_millie said:



			Maybe if the vast numbers of G&W residents who are so vehemently opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Eventing had voted against Mr Raynsford, then you could have elected someone else ... Or perhaps, just perhaps, the vast majority of G&W residents are actually quite supportive of the Olympics after all? 

Click to expand...

A number of factors caused Mr Raynsford to be re-elected:

1.  Inertia - Raynsford has been MP here for a long time.
2.  Labour - Greenwich has been a Labour constituency and a Labour council for about 40 years (with the except of a couple of years when the MP was a LibDem).
3.  "Client" voters - ie lots of people on State benefits.
4.  No credible alternative candidate - unfortunately, this part of the world does not produce credible alternative electoral candidates.
5.  Infantilisation of the electorate - Greenwich has shamefully low turn-outs at elections.

And, of course, Raynsford did not actually seek re-election on an "Olympic ticket".  I think his majority was reduced, though, at the last election.


----------



## meardsall_millie (15 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			A number of factors caused Mr Raynsford to be re-elected:

1.  Inertia - Raynsford has been MP here for a long time.
2.  Labour - Greenwich has been a Labour constituency and a Labour council for about 40 years (with the except of a couple of years when the MP was a LibDem).
3.  "Client" voters - ie lots of people on State benefits.
4.  No credible alternative candidate - unfortunately, this part of the world does not produce credible alternative electoral candidates.
5.  Infantilisation of the electorate - Greenwich has shamefully low turn-outs at elections.

And, of course, Raynsford did not actually seek re-election on an "Olympic ticket".  I think his majority was reduced, though, at the last election.
		
Click to expand...

My point being though, the inertia could have been reversed if so many residents felt strongly enough about something which Mr Raynsford clearly has an interest in, even if he did not seek re-election on an "Olympic Ticket".

Other constituencies have switched allegiance - some showing enormous swings.  Public feeling about key topics is often the reason for this.

I'm slightly confused about your comments regarding those voters on state benefits - do they not have a valid opinion?  Are they incapable of voting?

If you feel your alternative candidates are not credible, could someone with strong views similar to your own not have been persuaded to stand?

Most areas have shamefully low turnouts, G&W is not unique in this matter - indeed that gives even more opportunity for a determined group to hammer their point home as less 'swing' voters are required to make a significant difference.

Your arguments don't stack up I'm afraid.  I return to my original point - maybe the majority of G&W residents are indeed supportive and your voice is one of a tiny group of objectors?


----------



## badattitude (15 July 2011)

There is no balance to this discussion, rather like the articles I have reading in both Horse and Hound and Eventing today. Rachel is too far one way and most of the others too far the other. It is a pity that non of you appear to have listened to the BBC London radio debate this morning. It came from Greenwich but was about the Olympics all together. There is still much disinformation. Lord Coe himself refered to 'two weeks of disuption' so he has conveniently forgotten the Para Olympics, like many of the BE people commenting at the test event. The disruption will be more like six weeks and the representative from Transport for London would not confirm exactly which roads would be closed and for how long but there is a map if you search for Olympic Road Network. The residents they spoke to who whole heartedly supported the Games had businesses like B and B's. The residients without were much more ambivalent. Most expressing some dismay at the lack of local involvement, promised jobs and tickets. These concerns were echoed by the people who spoke from Stratford. Do the people on this forum realise that Londoners will each be paying approx £250 each in increased council taxes etc to pay for the Games. One Greenwich resident mentioned the bill for the equestrian is heading for 60 million pounds. Interestingly Lord Coe did not contradict him. There were many other interesting points raised but perhaps this one is the most important. A study was done to see the long term impact of having an Olympics in any city going back many years. It seems you need five or ten years to assess the impact properly. So far only Barcelona (1992, which by the way had the equestrian except the cross inside the city at an excellent facility still much used) has come out ahead. the most recent one in the study was Athens. I probably don't need to say what the impact was on their economy as this country along with many others are currently baling them out of bankruptcy (sp?).


----------



## bseage (15 July 2011)

My last post on this subject (thank goodness) but the evidence seems to indicate that the people of Greenwich are being inconvenienced so that Coe can have the ego trip of holding an Olympic 3 day event in London but on totally unsuitable terrain that may well be dangerous for the horses and the spectators and damage Greenwich Park.  

That this is being enthusiastically supported by the Horse & Hound and British Eventing who should be upholding the standards and safety of a sport in which the horses, who have no say, are the athletes is a disgrace. 

So, please do continue to campaign to get the event moved to a suitable, safe and tested venue just for the sake of the horses.


----------



## millimoo (16 July 2011)

bseage said:



			the people of Greenwich are being inconvenienced so that Coe can have the ego trip of holding an Olympic 3 day event in London
		
Click to expand...

And there lies the truth. You can all profess to care about protecting the park as much as you like, but I think this comment probably sums up the feeling of the minority who feel aggrieved



bseage said:



			That this is being enthusiastically supported by the Horse & Hound and British Eventing who should be upholding the standards and safety of a sport in which the horses, who have no say, are the athletes is a disgrace.
		
Click to expand...

What a desperate comment, that is verging on laughable.

And as for the previous posters comments about Greenwich residents paying an extra £250, well quite frankly that's small fry compared to what everyone is paying thanks to Lie-bours financial Legacy, so you won't get any sympathy from me. I contribute quite significantly as i'm in the 40% tax bracket. I'll never see the benefit of my contributions, but I have to suck it up as thats just how it is - i'm probably paying an extra 3-4 times that amount per annum with NI rises, reductions in Tax thresholds, cost of fuel / food etc.

And to RM, what has coming from 'faraway' Yorkshire got to do with it (It's 2hrs 20 mins on the train from Leeds??? we're not out of touch in the back of beyond). I regularly travel to London Windsor and Slough on Business, have done for years, and of the three, I know which location is more convenient to get to (London in case you were wondering). I accept, it will be a nightmare, but less so than getting to a venue elsewhere. 
Whilst it would be lovely to have a venue nearer, you have to accept that the Olympics were awarded to LONDON... not Leeds, not Manchester or anywhere else in the UK. 

I very much look forward to the party at Greenwich next year, I think we all deserve a bit of fun in the current financial doom and gloom. Rest assured, I will wear sensible shoes, dispose of my litter, and will make a point of walking very carefully whenever on the grass, and ensure I don't stand on the same spot for too long in case I squash a worm or something.

This is a few weeks of inconvenience out of your whole life - truly, where is the pain in that?
If I were you I would embrace this once in a lifetime event.

I officially sign off, all credibility went out the window at Equestrianism being an Elite Sport, and rubbing Seb Coe's ego.


----------



## Danny1234 (16 July 2011)

I officially sign off, all credibility went out the window at Equestrianism being an Elite Sport, and rubbing Seb Coe's ego.
		
Click to expand...

Well. If M.A. Rath gets his gold medal or two next year, it will be quite a stretch to make up those medals could have been won by anyone, if they were just talented, hardworking, and lucky enough.


----------



## Vindaloo (16 July 2011)

Have you not seen the film 2012?  Acid Grass is going to be the least of our worries.

Lets all run for the hill!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

millimoo said:



			The fact that you (I quote) describe 'Equestrianism is an "elite sport". completely undues any credibility you think you have.
		
Click to expand...

OK - you close a public park in an area of social deprivation for two months or more at the height of summer for your own, closed competition; you undo decades of expert stewardship at public expense by the Royal Parks, for your own two-week, exclusive event; you sanction the destruction of rare habitat and protected species in a UNESCO World Heritage Site so that you can look good on telly.  Then you rubbish the opposition, calling them "idiots", NIMBYs, "intelligentsia".

What's not elite about that?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

mtj said:



			Whilst I don't doubt your sincerity, please have a think about these transport issues.  ... I would much rather take my chances with the London public transport network than try to cope with difficulties in areas that do not have alternatives.  Yes, I have had to get across London during tube strikes, flooded stations etc.  Not pleasant, but i managed.  Horsey folk are generally dogged, so we will cope.
		
Click to expand...

So all the announcements about how the Olympics is going to impact on transport and travel in London has completely passed you by?  Londoners are being told to travel to work at different times, businesses are being told to take deliveries at night (when they don't usually have to employ staff at night) or close down for the duration.  Here is a round-up kindly provided by a popular and well-known blogger:

http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2010/11/keep-on-running.html

Here is an east London MP's warning:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/blackwall_tunnel_london_s_worst_nightmare_by_2012_mp_warns_1_961727

Even food distribution is going to be a "nightmare":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/7920990/London-Olympics-2012-transporting-food-will-be-a-nightmare.html

and during the Olympics there will actually be FEWER train services on the Greenwich line during the Olympics than we have at the moment.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

meardsall_millie said:



			My point being though ... Your arguments don't stack up I'm afraid.
		
Click to expand...

My arguments do stack up.  I write from the perspective of someone who has been a member of the residential and small business community in Greenwich since 1977 - more than 30 years of immersion in the sub-cultures, watching the playing-out of the vaulting ambitions of poorly-educated (mainly Labour) councillors and the petty rivalries between groups (which, I have to say, LOCOG has expertly exploited) - observing the effects of vain politicians deliberately misleading the electorate (eg through the Council newspaper, known here as _Pravda_).  I am on lots of local "networks".

If you don't already know what the implications of being a "client voter" are, I could suggest that you read up on it.  This isn't the place for me to explain it.



meardsall_millie said:



			I return to my original point - maybe the majority of G&W residents are indeed supportive and your voice is one of a tiny group of objectors?
		
Click to expand...

The Council itself reported that 93 per cent of "neighbours" opposed LOCOG's application to hold the 2012 equestrian events in the Park.  There were more than 2,000 letters of objection - a record for Greenwich.


----------



## meardsall_millie (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			OK - you close a public park in an area of social deprivation for two months or more at the height of summer for your own, closed competition; you undo decades of expert stewardship at public expense by the Royal Parks, for your own two-week, exclusive event; you sanction the destruction of rare habitat and protected species in a UNESCO World Heritage Site so that you can look good on telly.  Then you rubbish the opposition, calling them "idiots", NIMBYs, "intelligentsia".

What's not elite about that?
		
Click to expand...

"Your own closed competition", "Your own two-week, exclusive event", "so that you can look good on telly"????? - I'm sorry, I didn't realise the HHO faithful was actually designing, running and competing in the Olympics, and indeed that Equestrianism was the only sport that is happening and is not actually part of a huge sporting phenomenon that happens once every 4 years.  

I was under the (obviously deluded) impression that this was a world-wide competition for those who are the best at their particular sport and are chosen to represent their country in competition.

Where are the entry forms.... I'll get mine downloaded, filled in and sent off now.....


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

badattitude said:



			One Greenwich resident mentioned the bill for the equestrian is heading for 60 million pounds. Interestingly Lord Coe did not contradict him.
		
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to preen on behalf of NOGOE but - we did predict this, more than two years ago.

The Docklands
Tuesday 10 March 2009
http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/50_million_olympic_cost_of_greenwich_park_1_619749




			CAMPAIGNERS say using Greenwich Park as a 2012 Olympic venue could cost the economy £50 million.

Members of NOGOE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) have handed an independent economic report to the Olympic Board urging them to reconsider their decision to use the historic park.

NOGOE say Olympic authorities have not properly assessed the true costs and when they are compared with likely expenses in a more suitable location the savings to the economy could reach £50 million.

As well as the prolific NOGOE board members, Royal eventing world champion Zara Phillips has recently criticised the use of Greenwich Park and the lack of legacy it would leave.

NOGOE member and international barrister Sir Frank Berman said: "The rules governing Greenwich as a Royal Park are incompatible with its use for the equestrian events and the Secretary of State does not have unfettered discretion to change them."

Founder of NOGOE Michael Goldman, pictured, added given the current global recession it was particularly important Olympic organisers delivered value for money.

The report has been given to the four members of the Olympic board - Olympics minister Tessa Jowell, Mayor Boris Johnson, British Olympic Association chairman Colin Moynihan and London 2012 Organising Committee chair Sebastian Coe.

It has also been given to four of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) board members.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## meardsall_millie (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			The Council itself reported that 93 per cent of "neighbours" opposed LOCOG's application to hold the 2012 equestrian events in the Park.  There were more than 2,000 letters of objection - a record for Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Define "neighbour" - 93% of how many.  10? 100? 222,000?

2,000 letters out of a population of over 222,000.  Result!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

meardsall_millie said:



			I didn't realise the HHO faithful was actually designing, running and competing in the Olympics, and indeed that Equestrianism was the only sport that is happening
		
Click to expand...

It is the only Olympic event that is happening in Greenwich Park - World Heritage Site, Conservation area, never been built on before in 600 years, _was_ a "stronghold" of the protected species the stag beetle, the finest Baroque landscape in England (until LOCOG cut huge branches off 300 trees just for "access", ie for its construction vehicles, despite every tree having a Tree Protection Order on it).

Just so that a handful of equestrians can look good on telly.  (They could easily compete for those medals in another venue.)


----------



## meardsall_millie (16 July 2011)

.... and once again, the actual tone and intention of my comment has flown straight over your head.....


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

meardsall_millie said:



			Define "neighbour" - 93% of how many.  10? 100? 222,000?
		
Click to expand...

People who are directly affected - by massive lorries passing their front doors (the pavements are very narrow), and there were a great many complaints about the noise of the generators during the Test Events that ran through the night as well as during the day, and about the racket made by some machine that was brought in to flatten the arena surface at 3.00am



meardsall_millie said:



			2,000 letters out of a population of over 222,000.  Result! 

Click to expand...

Well, children would not have written.  People whose first language is not English would not have written (there are a lot of these in Greenwich, people from Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia, the Indian sub-continent), partly because they don't want to upset the Home Office.  Employees of the Council, and anyone receiving Council-dispensed grant-aid or dependent upon Council permission for doing things, would not have written.  It sounds as if you really don't understand this subject.

In Essex, Sally Gunnell's parents have just had to abandon their plans to have a caravan park on their farm near Chigwell - after only 600 letters were received by the local authority.  

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/shart/100017831/london-2012-olympics-diary-gunnell-shocked-at-nimby-response-to-olympic-caravan-club/

Sounds as if democracy is alive and well in Essex.  Unlike Greenwich.

Incidentally, the Leader of Greenwich Council ordered local councillors not to meet residents in the Park to discuss their concerns, as the preparations for the Test Event were starting.  We have the e-mail, copied to us openly - either by mistake or perhaps in exasperation - by the deputy leader.  In Greenwich, democracy is being subverted by the Leader of the Council.


----------



## meardsall_millie (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			People who are directly affected - by massive lorries passing their front doors (the pavements are very narrow), and there were a great many complaints about the noise of the generators during the Test Events that ran through the night as well as during the day, and about the racket made by some machine that was brought in to flatten the arena surface at 3.00am

Well, children would not have written.  People whose first language is not English would not have written (there are a lot of these in Greenwich, people from Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia, the Indian sub-continent), partly because they don't want to upset the Home Office.  Employees of the Council, and anyone receiving Council-dispensed grant-aid or dependent upon Council permission for doing things, would not have written.  It sounds as if you really don't understand this subject.
		
Click to expand...

Ha, priceless!  Clutching at straws now?  
I don't feel any need to reply any more, your responses speak for themselves.

Enjoy the event next year.  We certainly will


----------



## Spudlet (16 July 2011)

This is a shining example of how _not_ to run a campaign. Don't build relationships, don't present anything approximating a balanced view, waste your energies commenting on forums and newspaper websites rather than engaging decision makers, adopt a hectoring tone, revert to using stereotypes, presume to speak for people rather than involving them in your work... if they ever write a 'how not to do it' guide, I suspect that's exactly what they'll put in it. You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

meardsall_millie said:



			Enjoy the event next year.  We certainly will 

Click to expand...

If NOGOE succeeds in moving the 2012 equestrian events to a more appropriate venue - better for UK equestrianism, as well as better for Greenwich - the memory of gloating, triumphalist comments such as this by you (and a couple of others on this thread) will make our success taste even sweeter.  But we won't come here to crow over you, we'll be too joyful, celebrating and getting on with our lives.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Don't build relationships, don't present anything approximating a balanced view
		
Click to expand...

We have done all that - and more - over the past three years, you just haven't bothered to look it up, and we have achieved a lot.  Few organisations take on the - completely unaccountable - IOC and win but we might.

This is my last comment on this thread.  There is more still to come out about LOCOG's incompetence, double-dealing, and stonking wastefulness.  The UK equestrian community had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure its competiveness for future Olympics - and blew it, thanks to the BEF and everyone who went along with their baloney.  Way to go, people.

If anyone wants to contact me, please use the reply@nogoe2012.com address - I am one of those who deals with messages received at that address.


----------



## Vicki_Krystal (16 July 2011)

I went to Greenwich Park on Tuesday this week - plenty of people were still running round it, still having picnics on it and quite frankly, seemed excited by peering through the gates to try and see some of the test event site.

There were other people clearly looking at the signs dotted around the park to see when / if the park would be closed. I didnt hear one complaint - i did however hear lots of excited chatter from people who have tickets working out where they will be queing / where the fences will be etc

Its the Olympic games - not some school fete.
Its a games that will bring (much needed) millions into our economy.

It would also seem that things in Greenwich have already been changed to suit the residents of Greenwich - this is taken from the website -

Total Park closure period reduced to four weeks

Cross Country course moved to avoid sensitive areas

Children&#8217;s Playground and Flower Garden will remain open except for Cross Country day 

Arena moved to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas and reduce impact on Romney Road 
Some operational facilities moved to Circus Field to reduce impact on the
Park itself 

The new venue plan means we can also amend the transport plan and significantly reduce impact on the roads in Greenwich Town Centre and East Greenwich.

From 2010 - 2012 we will continue to attend and organise events and other activities locally to ensure you know what is happening in the Park in advance of the Games


----------



## Spudlet (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			We have done all that - and more - over the past three years....
		
Click to expand...




Rachel Mawhood said:



			It was evident from the outset that the BEF (and the IOC) was completely seduced by the idea of holding the event in Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

The BEF were your key, crucial allies. You HAD to get them on your side. You did not. You are wasting time and energy here. You have not swayed the balance of public opinion. You appear to have fundamentally failed to review and revise your approach throughout the course of your campaign. Have you considered WHY you are taking the actions you are? What was the point of the protest at the test event? What did you aim to achieve? A protest for its own sake, an empty PR stunt, achieves nothing - it MUST be backed up by useful action. You should have used it as an opportunity to present new, unseen evidence. You failed to capitalise on it. And with your language and approach you have made it impossible for the IOC to work with you now, even if they wanted to. You have allowed yourself to be presented as the outsiders, the mean-minded minority, the party-poopers. And you have then gone out of your way over the best part of a week to prove that judgement right!

I do this kind of thing for a living.


----------



## windsorblue (16 July 2011)

RM continues to use the word "elite".
I have a feeling she interprets it as something belonging to a small, priviliged minority, stress being on the "priviliged" bit. There's the stereotype....... priviliged, spoilt, posh, snobby etc etc , horsy types.  I prefer to believe that ALL athletes at 2012 are Elite, being in a minority, at the top of their chosen sports through dedication and hard work.  IF that makes them "Elite", then it's a bl****y good thing. What on earth is the point of having any Tom, Dick or Harry having a go - we'd never win anything. There is a huge difference between "Elite" and "Elitism". Sorry, Spudlet - I still think she's carrying a sackful!


----------



## cefyl (16 July 2011)

Question to RM (and I am too opposed to Greenwich venue as I strongly object to not having a lasting legacy to benefit the UK equine community or indeed the UK afterwards).

You are so against the venue and your postings here make some very very valid points.  But it is also bringing up alot of "like it or lump it" remarks from HHO forum members, al la Princes "Pushy" Haya.  Maybe the views would be better directed into the public domain more - i.e. Sunday Times, The Times, and so on (not the tabloids though).  Radio and TV interviews.  Even get Prince Charles involved, who after all is on of the most public of British conservationists.  It is not too late to bring a back track from the Olympic organisers but I feel the debate is being limited to within the equine community and "Joe Public" have very very little idea of the whole truth.

The sailing venue is a fair way from the city yet there were some equally good locations much closer to London.  Of course a certain foreign royal has no interest in sailing.

Also a knock on effect on the UK economy is highlighted here http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tourism-warning-over-london-olympic-games-022508290.html and it certainly was true of past Olympic venues.  Surely spreading the events outside of London would encourage some addtional tourism rather than deter visitors.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

Evidently, am going to have to be selective about not commenting, when this forum is being used to propagate LOCOG's disinformation, as it would appear that no one else is bothered about disabusing the people of LOCOG's lies.



Vicki_Krystal said:



			this is taken from the website ... Arena moved to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas and reduce impact on Romney Road
		
Click to expand...

LOCOG originally wanted the arena in the tilt yard of the National Maritime Museum (north of the Queens House).  You can still find folksy artist's impressions of this on the web.  There is A RAILWAY TUNNEL not far below the tilt yard (the Greenwich main line).  That's why they had to move the arena because it might have caused the roof of the tunnel to collapse.  But the so-called "government permission" to use Greenwich Park for the equestrian events did not include siting the arena within the Park.



Vicki_Krystal said:



			Some operational facilities moved to Circus Field to reduce impact on the Park itself
		
Click to expand...

More lies.  LOCOG do not have planning permission to use Circus Field because Greenwich Council do not have the power to give that permission.  Ownership of Circus Field is vested part with the Crown and part with the earls of Dartmouth.  Two laws are relevant: the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 and the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

The Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 states




			The Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the inclosure of a metropolitan common under the control and management of a London borough council, or any part thereof; . . . and notwithstanding any proceedings taken under any Act other than this Act, or any provisional order of the Commissioners made but not already confirmed by Act of Parliament, proceedings may be taken under this Act in relation to any metropolitan common.&#8221;
		
Click to expand...

Blackheath was then designated as a &#8220;metropolitan common&#8221; in the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

Some of these laws were brought in to prevent powerful landowners from using their knowledge of state processes and their friends in high places to appropriate public land for their personal benefit, shut out the lumpen proletariat and disenfranchise them. Sometimes called &#8220;class robbery&#8221;, and all over the country it led to the destruction of whole villages. Read the history of enclosures/inclosures in this country. Without it, there would probably be no such area as Circus Field now, or any part of Blackheath open to the public.

Since 1871, Circus Field has been a protected metropolitan common and, thus , subject to quite rigorous legal control. LOCOG seems not have noticed that when it decided to encroach on the Circus Field without asking first.  LOCOG's line on this has been that they will seek the relevant permissions.  But you cannot obtain consent to do something that is unlawful.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

cefyl said:



			Question to RM (and I am too opposed to Greenwich venue as I strongly object to not having a lasting legacy to benefit the UK equine community or indeed the UK afterwards). ...  Maybe the views would be better directed into the public domain more - i.e. Sunday Times, The Times, and so on (not the tabloids though).  Radio and TV interviews.
		
Click to expand...

It has been very evident since the last general election that the mainstream media have been told to "get behind the Olympics".  But we have had a lot of - balanced - coverage in the local press (Mercury, Wharf, Docklands, Newsshopper) and in the international press at the Test Event: Al Jazeera, ESPN Brasilia, Fox Sports Australia, Canadian tv, French tv, NZ tv, and Chinese CCTV (a worldwide, English language channel, non-political rather like Al Jazeera. It will also be translated for home consumption.  Apparently 17 million tune in to their nightly news. They've been doing a five-part series on the Olympics, the last on opposition).  Viewers in every country in the world will have a more complete picture of the equestrian venue controversy than anyone in Britain.



cefyl said:



			Even get Prince Charles involved
		
Click to expand...

His sister is on the board of LOCOG.  And an equestrian.  It would be a waste of waste.


----------



## windsorblue (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			...............a worldwide, English language channel, non-political rather like* Al Jazeera*.QUOTE


You ARE joking! 

Click to expand...


----------



## Over2You (16 July 2011)

windsorblue said:





Rachel Mawhood said:



			...............a worldwide, English language channel, non-political rather like* Al Jazeera*.QUOTE


You ARE joking! 

Click to expand...

Like she was when she said her post (about the second or third before last) would be her final one. Like her calling equestrian sports 'elite' when she herself admitted to being educated at boarding school. Even learning to ride there too. Not that anyone would find that to be a privileged (AKA elite) upbringing. 

Click to expand...


----------



## MagicMelon (16 July 2011)

Wondermare said:



			They were very, very excited and controlling them was a bit like nailing jelly to a wall. We had several complaints from fence judges and fellow spectators, and whilst I can understand their ire, I also feel that our local green space has been taken away from us and we have been given no local legacy.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but thats ridiculous.  If you cant keep control of 29 children, you should not be taking them to an event where 1/2 tonne animals are galloping about! If you were getting complaints from fence judges, the kids were obviously posing a risk to the riders which is very serious.  I also wish people surrounding the park would stop calling it "our green space". The Olympics is British, it must be held somewhere. After its finished, the park will be back to exactly as it was before (if not better, I imagine as part of the deal the Olympic people will have to plough a bit of money into the park afterwards)!



Wondermare said:



			My feeling is, if you're trying to appease local residents by involving them, make it a pleasurable experience for them - if you don't want noise and excitement, don't invite schoolchildren.
		
Click to expand...

Again crazy thing to say - many schoolchildren are very well behaved!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

MagicMelon said:



			I also wish people surrounding the park would stop calling it "our green space".
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich Park is _our_ green space.  It is a community asset, not the BEF's private property, or LOCOG's.  The clue is in the two words: "Greenwich" and "park".



MagicMelon said:



			The Olympics is British, it must be held somewhere.
		
Click to expand...

But the 2012 equestrian events do not have to be held in Greenwich Park.  Indeed, Greenwich Park is the least appropriate venue for these events.



MagicMelon said:



			After its finished, the park will be back to exactly as it was before
		
Click to expand...

No, it won't.  There is already irreversible damage done by LOCOG in its preparation of the cross-country course.  You can't put branches back on trees.  Some trees may die as a direct result of LOCOG's development.  If the acid grasslands are restored, it will take a decade of specialist management and a lot of money.



MagicMelon said:



			(if not better, I imagine as part of the deal the Olympic people will have to plough a bit of money into the park afterwards)!
		
Click to expand...

Imagine away.  LOCOG have refused to put any money aside for reinstatement.  LOCOG have no plans at all for replacing trees that die as a result of their development.  Tim Hadaway is on record saying that he won't know what has to be reinstated until after he has damaged it.  Yet planning condition 1 (of the 42 plus conditions) set by Greenwich Council was that a reinstatement plan had to be agreed before LOCOG started any work.  But LOCOG twisted the Council's arm and started work without anything legally binding was put in place.  There is still nothing legally binding LOCOG to reinstate Greenwich Park.


----------



## windsorblue (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Greenwich Park is _our_ green space.  It is a community asset, not the BEF's private property, or LOCOG's.  The clue is in the two words: "Greenwich" and "park".





I think you will find that Greenwich Park is one of the Royal Parks of London.
Thereby part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown.
I am sure if the "Owner" had any huge objection to one of her parks being used, she would have made her feelings VERY clear. 

The public does not have any legal right to use the Parks, as public access depends on the grace and favour of the Crown, although there may be public rights of way across the land.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SusannaF (16 July 2011)

windsorblue said:



			I think you will find that Greenwich Park is one of the Royal Parks of London.
Thereby part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown.
		
Click to expand...

Time to take this to the top, folks! No more small-time discussions with a couple of randoms on HHO! Queen's the one to go to. AND she likes "elite" sports!

Sorted.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

windsorblue said:



			I think you will find that Greenwich Park is [et seq]
		
Click to expand...

There you go, quoting Wikipedia without acknowledgement.

Here's something more recent, from the debate on the Localism Bill, Public Bill Committees, 15 February 2011, 10:30 am




*Andrew Stunell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government):* It is extremely likely that Greenwich park will turn out to be an asset of community value ...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## badattitude (16 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Evidently, am going to have to be selective about not commenting, when this forum is being used to propagate LOCOG's disinformation, as it would appear that no one else is bothered about disabusing the people of LOCOG's lies.



LOCOG originally wanted the arena in the tilt yard of the National Maritime Museum (north of the Queens House).  You can still find folksy artist's impressions of this on the web.  There is A RAILWAY TUNNEL not far below the tilt yard (the Greenwich main line).  That's why they had to move the arena because it might have caused the roof of the tunnel to collapse.  But the so-called "government permission" to use Greenwich Park for the equestrian events did not include siting the arena within the Park.



More lies.  LOCOG do not have planning permission to use Circus Field because Greenwich Council do not have the power to give that permission.  Ownership of Circus Field is vested part with the Crown and part with the earls of Dartmouth.  Two laws are relevant: the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 and the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

The Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 states



Blackheath was then designated as a metropolitan common in the Supplemental Act for Blackheath of 1871.

Some of these laws were brought in to prevent powerful landowners from using their knowledge of state processes and their friends in high places to appropriate public land for their personal benefit, shut out the lumpen proletariat and disenfranchise them. Sometimes called class robbery, and all over the country it led to the destruction of whole villages. Read the history of enclosures/inclosures in this country. Without it, there would probably be no such area as Circus Field now, or any part of Blackheath open to the public.

Since 1871, Circus Field has been a protected metropolitan common and, thus , subject to quite rigorous legal control. LOCOG seems not have noticed that when it decided to encroach on the Circus Field without asking first.  LOCOG's line on this has been that they will seek the relevant permissions.  But you cannot obtain consent to do something that is unlawful.
		
Click to expand...

Rachel is in fact correct on all of these points and a great many others although not all. Personally I think the arrogant 'like it or lump it' type comments need to stop. There are a great many people in the area who do not have an opinion either way but are frankly bemused at all the fighting, misinformation and lies told by one side or the other to get their own way. One thing is for sure, with comments like some of those on this thread it is no wonder the residients of Greenwich and more importantly Lewisham and Blackheath think that horses are the preserve of rich snobs who could not care less about lesser mortals because that is exactly the impression being given. Rachel is somewhat misguided but she lives there and is passionate about it for all the right reasons. Perhaps that might be respected as personally I applaud her for being brave enough to come on here, use her real name and be lynched by this forum. It is not great reading.


----------



## SusannaF (16 July 2011)

Lewisham has had its own riding school for forty plus years and it's definitely not full of rich snobs. Just FYI.


----------



## badattitude (16 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Lewisham has had its own riding school for forty plus years and it's definitely not full of rich snobs. Just FYI.
		
Click to expand...

And for yours the borough has more than one licensed establishment but I can assure you most of the people on Lewisham High Street will assume riding is for the rich snobs. I spent a hour waiting for someone while the test event was on at Lewisham bus station and spent the time talking to the locals. I was rather surprised actually, there is was no animosoty towards horses in general ( a horse drawn hearse went past while I was there, much appreciated) but they seemed very ill informed.


----------



## badattitude (16 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			Lewisham has had its own riding school for forty plus years and it's definitely not full of rich snobs. Just FYI.
		
Click to expand...

And that sort of tart, know it all response is precisely what I was referring to in the first place. There is no need.


----------



## sywell (16 July 2011)

The type of horse that is popular for eventing may not be the best horse for this venue and the selectors will have a tough job to exclude a popular rider and horse because it is not suitable for what has been described by a rider as a BMX track


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

Thank you, badattitude.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

So the butterflies on Box Hill are worth saving, but not the bats, stag beetles, trees and Saxon burial mounds in Greenwich Park?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23970329-rare-wildlife-puts-a-spoke-in-the-wheel-of-2012-cycle-fans.do

Surely it cannot be because the BEF is not organising the cycling for the 2012 Olympics?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 July 2011)

I gather that, in the current issue of _Horse & Hound_, Tim Hadaway 
says that in 2012 in Greenwich Park spectators will need maps and clearer routes around the course, and that more cross-country tickets than the present figure of 55,000 "could be available. We are currently undertaking crowd modelling and traffic work but I hope to increase that number."

What planet is he on?  We worked out that each spectator will have 2 square metres to stand on.  No requirement for maps - and no chance of safely squeezing in more spectators for the cross-country.

Why is Hadaway making these wild promises?  To get the IOC to take the heat off?


----------



## georgiegirl (17 July 2011)

Mixed feelings re greenwich. Yes it is a beautiful venue which would lend itself very well to staging the events. And im pretty sure hosting it there will not be as horrific to its environment as people are saying - the world will keep turning and greenwich park will still continue to be - I'd bet a 2-3 months and you wouldnt even know it had been there.

However I cannot get over the fact there will be no lasting equestrian facilities left from london. It an obscene amount of money to the just 'throw away'. We are all paying out of our own pockets to host these games and they have put them in a venue where there will be no lasting facilities. Also the venue is pretty poor on capacity when you compare with events like burghley or badminton - I missed out on tickets and to be honest im left feeling slightly short changed and uninspired by the whole thing - something I never thought I would feel like.


----------



## Teaselmeg (17 July 2011)

georgiegirl said:



			Mixed feelings re greenwich. Yes it is a beautiful venue which would lend itself very well to staging the events. And im pretty sure hosting it there will not be as horrific to its environment as people are saying - the world will keep turning and greenwich park will still continue to be - I'd bet a 2-3 months and you wouldnt even know it had been there.

However I cannot get over the fact there will be no lasting equestrian facilities left from london. It an obscene amount of money to the just 'throw away'. We are all paying out of our own pockets to host these games and they have put them in a venue where there will be no lasting facilities. Also the venue is pretty poor on capacity when you compare with events like burghley or badminton - I missed out on tickets and to be honest im left feeling slightly short changed and uninspired by the whole thing - something I never thought I would feel like.
		
Click to expand...

Good post Georgiegirl, and totally how I feel about this.  I have been to two Olympics and was really looking forward to seeing the Olympics here.  I volunteered, but was not picked. Applied for tickets, didnt get any, so I cannot go to my home Olympics, because they are being held in a venue that is too small and on top of that will give no lasting legacy to Equestrian sports in this country, the whole thing is just crazy.


----------



## SusannaF (17 July 2011)

badattitude said:



			And that sort of tart, know it all response is precisely what I was referring to in the first place. There is no need.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, we're all snappy on this thread.

I would have added that the Greenwich test event does seem (from testimony of a teacher in this thread) to have sparked the interest of a lot of local youngsters in horse sports. Hopefully Shooters' Hill will actually happen, and will do something to keep that interest up...

I went to the riding school in Lewisham during a half term and it was full of kids from Brixton and Eltham who'd travelled miles across London to muck out.

But while tempers have gotten frayed, I think that people would be more broadly sympathetic to RM's aims if she hadn't already held forth elsewhere online and dismissed horse sports are elitist, and had quite such a finger-wagging attitude. It gave the impression that she will take any line &#8211; including anti horse sports &#8211; to make her point.

People have made good points about how equestrianism is over something of a barrel here &#8211; it's fighting not to be dropped from the Olympics full stop. As I, and others, said earlier, there's not much point in giving ordinary riders an earbashing, or declaring that we won't have any more medal winners ever if Greenwich goes ahead. To mix my metaphors, it's better to build bridges than to shoot out of every buttonhole and break Godwin's Law (with the untermenschen comment).


----------



## cefyl (17 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			It has been very evident since the last general election that the mainstream media have been told to "get behind the Olympics".  But we have had a lot of - balanced - coverage in the local press (Mercury, Wharf, Docklands, Newsshopper) and in the international press at the Test Event: Al Jazeera, ESPN Brasilia, Fox Sports Australia, Canadian tv, French tv, NZ tv, and Chinese CCTV (a worldwide, English language channel, non-political rather like Al Jazeera. It will also be translated for home consumption.  Apparently 17 million tune in to their nightly news. They've been doing a five-part series on the Olympics, the last on opposition).  Viewers in every country in the world will have a more complete picture of the equestrian venue controversy than anyone in Britain.



His sister is on the board of LOCOG.  And an equestrian.  It would be a waste of waste.
		
Click to expand...


No one outside of London will read the local press.  The foreign press may mention it but who will care?  I spend 50% of time in the US and no one I have spoken to is aware of the controversy going on and my mother in law was a VP of the largest US tv network and the people I know there at the network are oblivious to the Greenwich debate.  You feel so strongly with valid reason and yet you do seem to have a very defeatist attitude.  Have you actually put the points to UK journalists like Simon Barnes?  "Getting behind the Olympics" is not a reason the UK media would use to delibarately hide this saga.  Or is HHO an easy target to get a point across without having to dig up the courage to try a wider audience.  We all know the UK media - print, tv, and radio love a story, have you even contacted conservation groups to take over from you to get the issue into the UK population.

And HOW do you know it would be a "waste of a waste"?  As you obviously from your remarks have not bothered to try.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 July 2011)

cefyl said:



			Have you actually put the points to UK journalists
		
Click to expand...

Yup.  



cefyl said:



			"Getting behind the Olympics" is not a reason the UK media would use to delibarately hide this saga.
		
Click to expand...

Forgive me but that is a naive thing to say.  People have been removed from their posts for being not behind the Olympics.



cefyl said:



			have you even contacted conservation groups
		
Click to expand...

Yup - Zoological Society, Bats Conservation, etc etc - they are all silent.  Only the small organisations are prepared to speak up.



cefyl said:



			yet you do seem to have a very defeatist attitude.
		
Click to expand...

No one who knows me would ever call me defeatist.



cefyl said:



			And HOW do you know it would be a "waste of a waste"? As you obviously from your remarks have not bothered to try.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was meant to be "waste of time", of course.  Practically speaking, how much influence do you think HRH The Prince of Wales has in this area.  He is not a noted equestrian.  LOCOG would say that we were trying to embarrass HRH The Princess Royal.  I think the instincts of everyone on the NOGOE committee is to be realistic about what the royal family can achieve, which is practically nothing.  Mark Phillips' remarks carry weight because he is the Chef d'Equipe of the United States Eventing Team, not because he was once married to a princess.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			equestrianism is over something of a barrel here  it's fighting not to be dropped from the Olympics full stop.
		
Click to expand...

Even if we were to agree to disagree on urban horse-riding, how does the BEF think that the Greenwich venue promotes the interests of riders - being "showcased" at the so-called centre of the Olympics - if, in doing so, they squander a once-in-a-lifetime £60m windfall for the sport, which could have been spent on upgrading existing equine facilities. Even Mark Phillips himself, who knows about these things, thinks that UK equestrian facilities are falling behind those of other countries.

How is it promoting the interests of riders to squander a £60m windfall?


----------



## cefyl (17 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Yup.  

Forgive me but that is a naive thing to say.  People have been removed from their posts for being not behind the Olympics.

No one who knows me would ever call me defeatist.

QUOTE]

Look who is being naive - you.  You do not know me at all.  Go on name names of people who have been removed from their posts for not being behind London 2012.  The media folk I have spoken to in the past week have been unaware of the points you are raising against Greenwich.  PR and being persistent works wonders.

And no I do not know YOU, but you do come across as defeatist because every reply is "yes but; no one will listen; sob sob".  Have the b@!!* to get out there and stick up for what you TRUELY believe in with accurate facts and figures.  Lynching was outlawed in the UK decades ago.  No use hiding behind the pretence that everyone in the media has a "fright and flight" attitude to this story because they do not.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Galupy (17 July 2011)

SusannaF said:



			But while tempers have gotten frayed, I think that people would be more broadly sympathetic to RM's aims if she hadn't already held forth elsewhere online and dismissed horse sports are elitist, and had quite such a finger-wagging attitude. It gave the impression that she will take any line  including anti horse sports  to make her point.
		
Click to expand...

^^Agree.  New to this thread today and reading through from beginning to end I can't help but wonder how it would have gone if Rachel had posted a call to arms of the equestrian community to help move the events rather than come on and insult the majority of people here as elitist and uncaring about the local Greenwich community.  I suspect that she would have achieved quite a number of supporters had she approached it a different way given the potential that the Olympic legacy could have provided in a world-class facility to use in the future and the general feeling of the HHO community that the events would be better held somewhere else anyway.  That could have been exploited and used to her benefit and instead she has succeeded in angering the community she wishes to help her instead.


----------



## brighteyes (17 July 2011)

What I'm going to do is sit back and wait to see if what I think will happen, actually does.  But by then, of course, it will be too late and the I told you so's will have a bitter and hollow, useless ring...

RM - I think you'll be proved right. Sadly.


----------



## SusannaF (17 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Even if we were to agree to disagree on urban horse-riding, how does the BEF think that the Greenwich venue promotes the interests of riders - being "showcased" at the so-called centre of the Olympics - if, in doing so, they squander a once-in-a-lifetime £60m windfall for the sport, which could have been spent on upgrading existing equine facilities. Even Mark Phillips himself, who knows about these things, thinks that UK equestrian facilities are falling behind those of other countries.

How is it promoting the interests of riders to squander a £60m windfall?
		
Click to expand...

Straw man, my friend. I'm telling you that the BEF is not bargaining from a strong position. Which might be why they are not making this point about the legacy strongly. That is what we are trying to explain to you.


----------



## Rambo (17 July 2011)

The legacy argument is a mute point. What you are all missing is that the majority of the 60m spend will be on temporary things anyway.....security, temporary stands, media centre, data centre etc Even if the equestrian disciplines were moved to an existing facility a huge amount of money would still be wasted on 'temporary' infrastructure.


----------



## watertray53 (17 July 2011)

^^ Good point Rambo !


----------



## cefyl (18 July 2011)

Rambo said:



			The legacy argument is a mute point. What you are all missing is that the majority of the 60m spend will be on temporary things anyway.....security, temporary stands, media centre, data centre etc Even if the equestrian disciplines were moved to an existing facility a huge amount of money would still be wasted on 'temporary' infrastructure.
		
Click to expand...

So NOT a mute point unless you believe 60m is a trivial amount.  If moved to a facility with much of the basic infrastructure required in place already there would be a huge saving out of the 60m (which from all accounts is a low estimate considering the amount to be spent following the games for some years after).  There always is going to be a certain amount of waste spending for media, and so on, but the more left after to benefit the UK equine industry the better.

The BEF and other UK equestrian sport organisations constantly moan about lack of UK facilities this was their chance to really push for it.  But sadly like much else they will whinge about it long after 2012 through letting certain parties who have no vested interest in the UK at all except for a wish to wield power through the IOC and FEI govern OUR Olympic equine events.


----------



## MadisonBelle (18 July 2011)

I was born in Stratford. Not Shakespear country but East London. E15! I lived there for 29ys and my parents are still there some 15 years after I left. From a VERY young age all I ever asked for was a pony. Of course I never got one and was told that I had to wait until I could buy my own. We never had a "space" like Greenwich but used to go to West Ham Park or "The Wreck". The only horses I saw were Black Beauty and Champion the Wonderhorse (also loved White Horses) thanks to our black and white TV. The closest I ever got apart from the rag and bone man's steed was our family holiday at the caravan in Clacton where I was allowed to go on the beach donkeys and if I was very lucky I went to the local riding school there. We went to Clacton for at least 12 years until my Grandad sold the caravan. 

When I turned 17 I got a job so left college as I was told by my parents that a job in a BANK was much better than doing A level art so I left. Coming from the East End a job in a back was like winning the lottery! Within about 6 months of working I found a riding school in South London and 2 years later I bought my very first horse. My mum was horrified but I think secretly proud that I had done what she had told me to do some 15 years earlier. Of course my parents that it was such a waste of money and that I would "grow" out of it.

I left the bank but still work in London. I commute every day and still have a horse who is still at the yard in South London. I moved from East London to South London/Kent borders as it was cheaper to commute and buy a house there than do the typical East End move into Essex.

I see the stadium when I visit my parents and feel a tingle up my spine as it is so exciting!....

I was even fortunate enough to get tickets for the X/C at Greenwich for 2012 and I honeslty think I may burst before then (and I am now 44!!!).

Yes I read the concerns re Greenwich but I assume that the decision makers know better than I and now I am behind it 100%.

You may lose "your" park for a while but then you are lucky to have that space in the first place..... I never did as a child......We made do with what we had and didn't complain. I went to Greenwich when I was old enough to use public transport without my parents and thought I was in the countryside so I am afraid I cannot quite see the side of Greenwich that is "deprived" as for me as a child I though it was magic.

This country is becoming a nation of moaners and seems to be losing that spirit of making the most of what we have.

I was there in Trafalgar Square waving my flag when we won the games (as I had been when the Rugby team showed off their world cup and when we won the ashes and I lined the roads at the Queen Mothers funeral too). Huge moments and I just wanted to be there for that moment in history.

I was brought up very simply to enjoy the moment.

The Olympics will be one brief moment in our lives and I find it so hard to understand my friends who are leaving the country for 3 weeks to avoid it!?!?!? What will they say to their granchildren!!?!? Where is their spirit and HUMOUR??? 

When did so many people stop being proud as there is still so much for ua all to be proud of and I am very proud we got the games and I know I shall have a lump in my throat all day when I go to Greenwich X/C 2012 a I will be so proud.

I'm only sad I didn't get tickets for everything as I will be cheering on every sport and will be taking quite a few days off of work to watch it. The only time my humour may fail me is if I cannot take time off as I have to cover for someone who is going off to Florida!! )


----------



## CarolineB1962 (18 July 2011)

cefyl said:



			So NOT a mute point unless you believe 60m is a trivial amount.  If moved to a facility with much of the basic infrastructure required in place already there would be a huge saving out of the 60m (which from all accounts is a low estimate considering the amount to be spent following the games for some years after).  There always is going to be a certain amount of waste spending for media, and so on, but the more left after to benefit the UK equine industry the better.

The BEF and other UK equestrian sport organisations constantly moan about lack of UK facilities this was their chance to really push for it.  But sadly like much else they will whinge about it long after 2012 through letting certain parties who have no vested interest in the UK at all except for a wish to wield power through the IOC and FEI govern OUR Olympic equine events.
		
Click to expand...


Well said cefyl !!  My sentiments exactly.


----------



## millimoo (18 July 2011)

Lovely post MadisonBelle... 
This is the spirit of the Games for this country, and totally how i feel about it being a moment in our lives to talk about for years and years to come - it is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Whilst I'm sad for those who failed in the ballot, it was open to the nation, and I was fortunate to get tickets for the Dressage Kur Finals. 
I cannot wait, and will treasure the memories with my family for the rest of my life once all is said and done.


----------



## BBH (18 July 2011)

[


I'm only sad I didn't get tickets for everything as I will be cheering on every sport and will be taking quite a few days off of work to watch it. )[/QUOTE]


Ditto

Only I wonder how much equestrianism will actually be on telly given the sheer volume of sports needing coverage and ours being a minority sport.


----------



## Spudlet (18 July 2011)

Hopefully the red button will be fully used - I think the digital switchover will be all done by 2012, so fingers crossed everyone will be able to get this service. It would be a shame for any sport to be missed by TV coverage when this option is there - whether that's eventing or greco-roman wrestling (although I know which one I'd rather watch).


----------



## BBH (18 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Hopefully the red button will be fully used - I think the digital switchover will be all done by 2012, so fingers crossed everyone will be able to get this service. It would be a shame for any sport to be missed by TV coverage when this option is there - whether that's eventing or greco-roman wrestling (although I know which one I'd rather watch).
		
Click to expand...


I hope so too but as with Olympia sometimes red button isn't available on freeview. Last year a couple of nights were available on freeview but not all of it. I couldn't understand if they were there anyway why not make it available for everyone to see.


----------



## teapot (18 July 2011)

Given the Olympic schedule for next year, the Eventing at least will get decent tv coverage purely because there's not actually that much else going on during those 4 days (and by that I mean, it's mainly preliminary heats for a number of sports)


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (18 July 2011)

Two points of information



teapot said:



			The difference in the ground though from marked course to normal parkland was HUGE and I know which one I'd rather be walking/running on as a park user.
		
Click to expand...

In the normal way, Greenwich Park is never watered or fertilised.  Never.  The cross-country track has been watered, fertilised and had a surfactant applied to it every month for almost a year.  That's why the difference is huge.  After the Olympics, the cross-country track will no longer be watered or fertilised.  The grasses sown on the track will perish.  The difference will then be even more marked than it is now, between the parkland and the cross-country track.  The track will be a long ribbon scar.  It will have to be reseeded with the seeds of the same grasses that grow in the rest of the parkland and cordoned off to recover.  If there is no money to do this, though, that won't happen.  The track will just remain, a long 10ft wide scar winding all over the Park.



georgiegirl said:



			im pretty sure hosting it there will not be as horrific to its environment as people are saying - the world will keep turning and greenwich park will still continue to be - I'd bet a 2-3 months and you wouldnt even know it had been there.
		
Click to expand...

See above.  Also the damage to environment is already worse than even the most pessimistic of us envisaged.  At the Greenwich Council planning board in March 2010, the CEO of The Royal Parks told the public that the cross-country course would just be scarified.  Will Connell, of the BEF, contradicted him, saying that the course would be prepared in the usual way.  What has happened is something in between, and it is still awful.


----------



## toffeesmarty (18 July 2011)

Slightly off topic but Greenwich is not the only area in the place in the UK to be holding an event where the environment has been adapted to suit the Games. I am not saying this is right but it is so tiresome reading the positive comments by people who are genuinely excited at this once in a lifetime event being attacked by another negative. Lets hope we medal so that equestrianism gets the media attention it deserves and hopefully will continue within the Olympics for future generations.
Before there is another 'yes but' comment about the cost, the environmental damage, the loss of 'your park', the needs of your community, the cost, the transport links and the inconvenience, (have I missed anything?), for millions of young people across the world the Olympics will be the inspirational moment that can be life changing.
When I was a child I didn't go to boarding school, nor could my parents afford a pony but I knew this was all I ever wanted. I read horsey books, watched every minute of tv coverage of HOYS/Hickstead, etc and remember cheering when Richard Mead and the others medalled in the Olympics. My dream was that one day I would be able to ride and perhaps own my own horse. It wasnt until I was in my late 20s that I achieved my dream. 
Where you grow up does not have to be a barrier to your future life dreams. 

We have the sailing in Dorset. The road network to Weymouth is appalling. There is not one mile of motorway in Dorset - plus we don't have the public transport system that there is in London. We know that during the Games the road network will come to more of grinding halt than it does every weekend when people travel down here with their cars and caravans. A new road leading into Weymouth has carved through the cliff and downland. Lizards, butterflies and rare plants were resited. Not the best solution but the tourism coming into Dorset should benefit the economy and hopefully if there experience here is memorable they will return. Only time will tell to what extent- but personally I can't wait for this time next year.
I would have done anything to get equestrian tickets, but it will be the tv for us.


----------



## Rambo (19 July 2011)

Quote de cefyl So NOT a mute point unless you believe 60m is a trivial amount. If moved to a facility with much of the basic infrastructure required in place already there would be a huge saving out of the 60m (which from all accounts is a low estimate considering the amount to be spent following the games for some years after). There always is going to be a certain amount of waste spending for media, and so on, but the more left after to benefit the UK equine industry the better.

The BEF and other UK equestrian sport organisations constantly moan about lack of UK facilities this was their chance to really push for it. But sadly like much else they will whinge about it long after 2012 through letting certain parties who have no vested interest in the UK at all except for a wish to wield power through the IOC and FEI govern OUR Olympic equine events.
		
Click to expand...

In the context of £12bn that is the total cost of the games then yes, £60mn IS trivial.....0.5% to be precise. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a shiny new equestrian venue somewhere....but that would bring its own problems....arguments about where it should be, who should run ot etc. Let's also not forget that new/updated facilities need to be economically viable otherwise they will just fail. Great Leighs is one example..and Towerlands another which seems to struggle to make money despite having millions poured in.


----------



## cefyl (19 July 2011)

Rambo said:



			In the context of £12bn that is the total cost of the games then yes, £60mn IS trivial.....0.5% to be precise. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a shiny new equestrian venue somewhere....but that would bring its own problems....arguments about where it should be, who should run ot etc. Let's also not forget that new/updated facilities need to be economically viable otherwise they will just fail. Great Leighs is one example..and Towerlands another which seems to struggle to make money despite having millions poured in.
		
Click to expand...

£60m is not trivial to the UK equine industry.

Towerlands and Great Leighs are private enterprises and run as such and therefore it is no surprise given the way they are run why they struggle.

Colleges such as Hartpury already have excellent infrastructure in place and would benefit the future generations.  Stoneleigh Park also has excellent facilities and infrastructure, easy transport access.  The BEF / BHS / BSJA / BD / BE et al are short sighted in not seeing an opportunity once and for all to get the national training facility they have been griping about needing for decades.  

Before someone screams transport if you had been to Atlanta, Barcelona, Athens, Sydney, the equine venues were a fair distance from the host city and this was overcome easily.  Look at Hong Kong, that did not exactly deter equine spectators.

How about all of you complaining, and dissapointed at missing out via the insane allocation system of tickets for 2012.  A venue away from Greenwich would mean far greater capacity for spectators.

Sadly the typical British attitude of the moaners who run equine sport in the UK with a shut up and put up approach has been evident.  So they let people with no interest, or direct connection to the UK equine industry dictate OUR Olympics without a whisper of complaint, or the courage to stand up and speak out.


----------



## Rambo (19 July 2011)

Yes, but £60mn is the cost of putting on the event NOT the amount of money being invested in temporary infrastructure. How much do you think Badminton costs to host every year....and that is only a third of what is required at the olympics and lasts just 3.5 days. 

You are also correct in that Towerlands and Great Leighs are privately owned....but that is an even bigger concern because if the private sector can't make these venues wprk financially how the hell are the federations going to !? Someone will have to pay ultimately....and yhat will come down to the likes of you and i in our BE, BS and BD subs...which we all already moan about.

People have to realise, equestrianism isn't a profit centre....it's a cost. A fairly small number of very wealthy people subsidise the sport for the masses....be it in subsidising prizemoney/sponsorship at shows, spending wildly intralistic prices on horses or just by giving up time for free.


----------



## bseage (19 July 2011)

I've scanned through the postings since my previous one on 15 July and feel just disappointed that no one has responded to my major concern which is who is representing the athletes here?

Is it really fair to ask a horse, *the athlete*, to do 40 jumps at 4 star level, over 5.7 kilometers which will require three ascents and descents of Greenwich hill?  And why are BE and H&H not picking up on the reservations expressed by some of the riders after the test event.  On a wet day this *'BMX track'* to quote Fox-Pitt could be lethal.

So, important though they are, issues such as legacy, damage to the park and disruption of the lives of the residents of Greenwich are insignificant compared to the safety of the horses.  But this is then given no priority compared to the needs of the riders to be in the team and have a chance of a medal, Coe's desire for a spectacular in London and the sponsors of the games and the riders to see themselves at a spectacular, but totally unsuitable venue.

There is still time to move it to a proven and safe (for the horses) venue.


----------



## cefyl (19 July 2011)

Rambo said:



			Yes, but £60mn is the cost of putting on the event NOT the amount of money being invested in temporary infrastructure. How much do you think Badminton costs to host every year....and that is only a third of what is required at the olympics and lasts just 3.5 days. 

You are also correct in that Towerlands and Great Leighs are privately owned....but that is an even bigger concern because if the private sector can't make these venues wprk financially how the hell are the federations going to !? Someone will have to pay ultimately....and yhat will come down to the likes of you and in our BE, BS and BD subs...which we all already moan about.

People have to realise, equestrianism isn't a profit centre....it's a cost. A fairly small number of very wealthy people subsidise the sport for the masses....be it in subsidising prizemoney/sponsorship at shows, spending wildly intralistic prices on horses or just by giving up time for free.
		
Click to expand...

As a sponsor, and past organiser of successful equine events I am very well aware thank you of production costs, profits, and loss.  As a current owner, and past competitive rider (international be it 25 yrs ago) I am well aware that the equine industry is generally not a profit centre.  However as I do have an international view point I am saddened at the opportunities the UK has failed to grab to keep up with the rest of the world over the past 3 decades.  

No sport is cheap.  All sport is supported by people who give up time for free at some point. But sponsorship in the UK for equine sport is not at the level it could be and there is a very good reason why.  Compared to other UK sports it is pitiful and this is something the BEF should be looking at. To whine about the price of horses is another typical British excuse.  There are plenty of horses and rider combinations who do make it to top international level without extortionate prices paid, but they do have the full backing of their country federations.  Again the various equine governing bodies here seem too preoccupied with infighting and ego shoving to be of benefit.  Subs - another typical moan, what would you rather, a cheap sub for a cheap service, or pay a bit more and reap the rewards?  As you like to throw around % the cost of a yearly sub is a tiny % of the whole picture.  If you cannot afford the subs then why buy a horse of the quality to compete at that level anyway?  And that is not elitist just fact.  It's like saying I can buy a the animal but not afford the insurance or possible vets bills.


----------



## Rambo (19 July 2011)

bseage

I've scanned through the postings since my previous one on 15 July and feel just disappointed that no one has responded to my major concern which is who is representing the athletes here?

Is it really fair to ask a horse, the athlete, to do 40 jumps at 4 star level, over 5.7 kilometers which will require three ascents and descents of Greenwich hill? And why are BE and H&H not picking up on the reservations expressed by some of the riders after the test event. On a wet day this 'BMX track' to quote Fox-Pitt could be lethal.

So, important though they are, issues such as legacy, damage to the park and disruption of the lives of the residents of Greenwich are insignificant compared to the safety of the horses. But this is then given no priority compared to the needs of the riders to be in the team and have a chance of a medal, Coe's desire for a spectacular in London and the sponsors of the games and the riders to see themselves at a spectacular, but totally unsuitable venue.

There is still time to move it to a proven and safe (for the horses) venue.
		
Click to expand...

Correct me if i'm wrong but Olympic eventing is 'only' 3* level isn't....to make it easier for the emerging nations to participate ?


----------



## bseage (19 July 2011)

I'm fairly certain that the test event was 2 star and that the olympic event is 3 star plus that is with some jumps at 4 star level.  Thank you for noting that, but yet again, there has been no response to the point that where is the 'voice' of the athletes in the decision to use Greenwich which is a totally unsuitable venue.


----------



## badattitude (20 July 2011)

Bseage, I think some people have noticed the points you mention. Perhaps you might care to read this.
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/index.php/blogs/2011/07/observations-and-comments-on-london-2012/


----------



## mtj (20 July 2011)

Badattitiude, that certainly made interesting reading.

Especially the author, who i believe is the former HHO, Lucretia, who was very opposed to the use of Greenwich.


----------



## watertray53 (20 July 2011)

Thank you badattitude for posting that link. 
Very interesting reading indeed!


----------



## cefyl (20 July 2011)

mtj said:



			Badattitiude, that certainly made interesting reading.

Especially the author, who i believe is the former HHO, Lucretia, who was very opposed to the use of Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant article, I hope this can get published in a UK major newspaper such as The Times.  This is exactly the kind of thing, and the way it needs to be said, to be put into the public eye now.  Lucretia is sorely missed as a HHO contributor.

One point that this article brings home is that the future generations of UK equine sport will be very sparse on the ground of spectators in 2012 due to the lack of capacity, and the ill thought out ticket allocation.  What a shame there will not be a chance at all of the many equine colleges and training establishments in the UK being "allocated" tickets, these are the future of our sport and the Olympics in our own country should have been the opportunity to inspire and drive forward ambitions.  Instead they will be left with a red button experience that frankly will be not any different to that of any previous Olympics.


----------



## bseage (20 July 2011)

Badattitude...thank you.  But did you notice that there is nothing even in this well written critique of the test event and Greenwich as a venue that touches upon the thing that concerns me most....is the venue fair to the horses?

The horses are fit, but there can be no real preparation for a twisting track over 40 fences, up and down Greenwich hill 3 times and possibly in the wet.  LongLeat was cancelled a few weeks back because of the wet and it is a far rounder and less steep course than that proposed at Greenwich.

But as you indicated many of the points I have made are being discussed, so time for me to sign off.  All the best.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (20 July 2011)

Whether you are an equestrian or a taxpayer or a resident, this well-informed and measured report on the Test Event could make you cry.

Observations and comments on London 2012
July 20th, 2011 by Lulu Kyriacou

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/index.php/blogs/2011/07/observations-and-comments-on-london-2012/




			A party of people with much experience of international events, especially in Hong Kong, walked around for a few minutes and then asked me where &#8220;the rest of it&#8221; [the cross-country course] was. On being told that this was it, mouths dropped open and there were expressions of &#8220;but Sha Tin was bigger than this&#8221; and other words to that effect. ...
		
Click to expand...





			Discussions about the showjumpers&#8217; reactions did provoke what could only be called the most staggeringly ignorant comment from a professional rider heard all week. One event rider proclaimed in an airy fashion that "the show jumpers were much too fussy, they should just shut up and get on with it".

Indeed. Just as the eventers should if their BMX, jump-off type cross country track happens to come up wet ...
		
Click to expand...





			British Eventing. The members of that august body descended upon Greenwich in their droves and professed themselves delighted with everything as they sat on the grass (mostly in spaces that will not be available next year) in the sunshine. When asked about the absence of the locals (local adults had just a tenth of the ticket allocation), the opinion seemed to be that "the locals would not want to come anyway" or "they all objected, why should they be invited" and "they will only have to put up with it for a couple of weeks".
		
Click to expand...





			despite initiatives like the so far toothless London Horse Network and HOOF, virtually none of London&#8217;s horse people appeared to have been invited to attend, either. ... It is a pity that the people who will be responsible for the education of any potential new equestrians were not given a taste of the Olympic experience.
		
Click to expand...





			A member of Team GB senior support staff who did not wish to be named said that he had never seen such a waste of money in his life; it was being "thrown about like water". There are riding tracks and exercise rings in many London parks including Richmond, Wimbledon, Tooting, Mitcham and Streatham commons, Trent Park and Lee Bridge. No money has been earmarked for any improvement in any of these facilities.
		
Click to expand...

Edited to add: posted before I saw that "badattitude" had posted a link to it.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (20 July 2011)

bseage said:



			Greenwich as a venue that touches upon the thing that concerns me most....is the venue fair to the horses?

The horses are fit, but there can be no real preparation for a twisting track over 40 fences, up and down Greenwich hill 3 times and possibly in the wet.  LongLeat was cancelled a few weeks back because of the wet and it is a far rounder and less steep course than that proposed at Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Incidentally, is everyone aware that, in Greenwich Park, the difference in height between the lowest and highest parts of the Park is 50 metres.




			One of the most interesting aspects of Greenwich Park is the topography. The height difference between the lower and the upper parts of the park is around 50 metres. This does not sound much but in terms of horses having to gallop up that incline in warm weather its not insignificant. It will be revealing to see how the horses cope with this. The combination of softer going (following heavy rainfall), hot weather and steep long inclines could prove a challenge for any horse not suitably prepared. "
		
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencesupplements.co.uk/blog.asp?Display=151


----------



## bseage (20 July 2011)

But the 50 metre change in height takes place between the back of the Queens House ( National Maritime Museum) and the top of the ridge by the Observatory.  So a height change of 50 metres over around 250 metres making a 20% gradient.  It is dangerous for a horse to gallop across the face of a hill, so they would have to gallop up and down it and three times.  Is it fair to the horses?


----------



## teapot (21 July 2011)

In terms of gradient, what's the height difference in the course at Gatcombe/Bramham/Chatsworth? Lu's article is as interesting and well written as always.


----------



## Orwell (23 July 2011)

Spudlet said:



			The BEF were your key, crucial allies. You HAD to get them on your side. You did not.
		
Click to expand...

Please forgive my ignorance, but can anyone explain the BEF's position to me? 

Are they in favour of holding the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park? 

If so, then why? There would be no legacy. Are they not supposed to promote the interests of riders? Do they not care about the future of their sport? Do they not care that spectator numbers would be limited, to that approximately 200,000 would-be spectators will have to settle for watching the events on TV? 

If not, then why are they not exerting pressure to have the events moved? Do they not care about the future of their sport? ...


----------



## cefyl (23 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			Please forgive my ignorance, but can anyone explain the BEF's position to me? 

Are they in favour of holding the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park? 

If so, then why? There would be no legacy. Are they not supposed to promote the interests of riders? Do they not care about the future of their sport? Do they not care that spectator numbers would be limited, to that approximately 200,000 would-be spectators will have to settle for watching the events on TV? 

If not, then why are they not exerting pressure to have the events moved? Do they not care about the future of their sport? ...
		
Click to expand...

BEF's postion - Head in sand.

Obviously they do not care enough, nor to support, the thousands of dedicated UK spectators who support the various equine events year in year out in Britain, in all weathers, at all venues.  Most of whom now with the incredibly little capacity for spectating at Greenwich will be limited to watching our own Olympics on tv instead of being there supporting Team GB.

The BEF owe it to the UK equine community to explain why they have not from the start voiced even a tiny opinion and request to get the equine events moved to a more suitable venue. The silence from the start has been frightening. Oh wait a minute.  Of course Princess Pushy rules lets not forget.  The location has been decided and written in stone by people who have no earthly interest in UK EQUINE SPORT before or after the Olympics.  And NO - THE BEF DO NOT CARE ONE LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE SPORT IN THE UK.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (23 July 2011)

cefyl said:



			BEF's postion - Head in sand. ... The BEF owe it to the UK equine community to explain why they have not from the start voiced even a tiny opinion and request to get the equine events moved to a more suitable venue. The silence from the start has been frightening. Oh wait a minute.  Of course Princess Pushy rules lets not forget.  The location has been decided and written in stone by people who have no earthly interest in UK EQUINE SPORT before or after the Olympics.  And NO - THE BEF DO NOT CARE ONE LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE SPORT IN THE UK.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you can blame Will Connell for the fact that the 2012 equestrian events venue is - still - Greenwich Park.  He - and Lord Coe - attended the fateful Greenwich Council planning board meeting in March last year and spoke forcefully for LOCOG's planning applications.  I was there.  Had those two really been interested in UK equine sport, they could have talked round Princess Haya.  So ask: _qui bono_.  For Lord Coe, the "bono" is the chance of being the next head of the IOC and rewards beyond the dreams of avarice.  And Will Connell?  Well, you tell me.


----------



## teapot (23 July 2011)

To be fair, the BEF are probably slightly more worried about Equestrianism being an Olympic sport or not in the future and if having Greenwich as a venue appeased certain people at the top of the greasy pole, you can kinda understand why they said yes...

Everyone seems to have forgotten the worrying times pre Beijing over the future of the sport...


----------



## cefyl (23 July 2011)

teapot said:



			To be fair, the BEF are probably slightly more worried about Equestrianism being an Olympic sport or not in the future and if having Greenwich as a venue appeased certain people at the top of the greasy pole, you can kinda understand why they said yes...

Everyone seems to have forgotten the worrying times pre Beijing over the future of the sport...
		
Click to expand...

BEF should be worried about the future of equestrianism in the UK. The location of the 2012 equine events could well seal the fate of the future of the sport in subsequent Olympics with a totally unsuitable venue.  As I said before Head in Sand.  And as for appeasing certain people they should be taking care of their own first and foremost and thinking about the horses welfare, not having the courage to do so is appalling, but sadly not surprising.


----------



## Wishful (23 July 2011)

At the moment, the two sports at the top of the IOC hit list are fencing and equestrianism - they would like them to be replaced by golf and rugby sevens (or not replaced) as neither are particularly universal and equestrianism costs a fortune and there is a perception that the events can only be run in the grounds of a stately home, or on a dedicated horse stadium, things which don't really exist in the parts of the world the IOC is keen to hold the Olympics...
Plus there are subjective judging issues with both, which the IOC also dislikes.

Fencing (my other sport) has been working unbelievably hard to make the IOC keep it in the olympics as not being an olympic sport would probably kill it stone dead as an international sport.  Fortunately Beijing made the Chinese interested, so suddenly it is not dominated by Europe and the USA, which in combination with the new technology (wireless and video replays) gives us a chance of staying part of the Olympic movement.

IF the UK can pull off a good equestrian games in the heart of the Olympic city this will do far more for the future of equestrian sport in the UK than fantastic facilities which get mothballed as the UK sport funding is pulled when equestrianism gets dumped from the Olympics (the difference in funding between the Olympic disciplines and Carriage Driving/Vaulting which aren't Olympic sports is massive).  Holding the event at Burghley (or any other established venue) would do nothing for the sustainability of eventing in the Olympic movement as it would show that even with the much vaunted British expertise at running equestrian events, we have to fall back on pre-existing infrastructure.  Holding a successful event at Greenwich would show that any city with a decent park (not even a golf course) can hold the equestrian events at the heart of the games, and should help eventing's fight to stay in the Olympics.

I was disappointed not to get tickets, but I'd far rather watch eventing at many future Olympics than see it live once, and never see it again as the IOC managed to ditch it in favour of golf!


----------



## Orwell (24 July 2011)

Thank you for your replies. 

Wishful's reply is particularly interesting. It suggests that the reason why the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park is because it is desperately trying to persuade the IOC  to keep the equestrian events in the Olympics. 

Wishful says that equestrianism is not particularly universal, it 



Wishful said:



			costs a fortune and there is a perception that the events can only be run in the grounds of a stately home, or on a dedicated horse stadium, things which don't really exist in the parts of the world the IOC is keen to hold the Olympics.
		
Click to expand...

So, in order to challenge these views, it was decided to hold the Olympic equestrian events in a London park. Because:


Wishful said:



			IF the UK can pull off a good equestrian games in the heart of the Olympic city this ... would show that any city with a decent park (not even a golf course) can hold the equestrian events at the heart of the games, and should help eventing's fight to stay in the Olympics.
		
Click to expand...

This might have seemed like a good idea when considering Olympic politics, but it should quickly become apparent that it is a very bad one when one starts to consider the practicalities. 

Holding an essentially rural event in a city park is fraught with difficulties; because they are vital recreation areas for hundreds of thousands of people, because of disruption to the surrounding areas, and because of congestion on the streets and in the public transport systems. And all of these problems are amplified if the city also happens to be hosting the Olympic Games and the park is close to the centre of them. 

As if these considerations were not headache enough, the BEF have made life virtually impossible for themselves by choosing Greenwich Park. It is too small for a cross-country course, the terrain is unsuitable, and large parts of the park are protected.  So the course will be compromised and potentially dangerous (especially in the wet). Even building a stadium is difficult enough as they are not allowed to dig in the park (in this case because of sewers). In order to ensure a level field of play on sloping ground it is necessary to build a massive platform and to devise a suitable surface for it (a problem which has not yet been solved). And then there is the fact that the park is part of a World Heritage Site, with millions of visitors each year. As a nation we have a duty to keep it open and to do what we can to ensure that those visitors see it at its best. 

According to other comments, especially by Rachel Marwood, the cost of holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park has already risen to £60m. Who knows what the final cost will be. And, on the basis of the evidence of the Test Events, there is the real danger that the Olympic events themselves will be compromised. The fact that spectator numbers will be severely limited will also add to the perception that the sport is elitist. 

If the BEF persist with Greenwich Park, they are likely to demonstrate conclusively (to many they have done so already) that the equestrian events cannot be held in an urban park, that they really do cost a fortune, and that they are essentially the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful. 

That is, in choosing Greenwich Park and persisting with it, the BEF are likely to prove the very opposite of what Wishful thinks they are trying to prove. 

Fortunately there is still time for them to realise this and to change the venue.  

Wishful is against using an existing venue because:  



Wishful said:



			Holding the event at Burghley (or any other established venue) would do nothing for the sustainability of eventing in the Olympic movement as it would show that even with the much vaunted British expertise at running equestrian events, we have to fall back on pre-existing infrastructure.
		
Click to expand...

But, given that time is short, it seems to me that  this is the rational choice. At least the BEF could count on staging successful Olympic equestrian events, on keeping the costs down, and on demonstrating that the events have  a large following. 

Wishful's aside -- "not even a golf course" -- also suggests an idea for the future of Olympic eventing. The hosts of future Games may well not have established equestrian venues, but they probably do have golf courses and these would, it seems, make ideal venues; certainly far less problematic and costly ones than inner city parks.


----------



## mtj (24 July 2011)

Thank you Wishful.  Its a pleasure to see the voice of reason on this thread.  I have worked (in London) at national and international sport and can confirm Wishful's comments on olympic v non olympic sports.

I'm going to sign off this now as I have not been moved by the protestors posts.  If anything you have reinforced my view that you are throwing a wobbly about the temporary inconvenience.

If you are truely concerned about the children/youth you normally use the park, why not use this energy to set up some projects to entertain them next summer.


----------



## cefyl (24 July 2011)

Well it certainly is clear the camps are clearly divided in to for and against Greenwich.

Those FOR:  Want it at Greenwich come hell or high water.  It is the LONDON Olympics full stop, the UK equine community and those outside of London be damned.  And the suitability of the site for an equine event of this magnitude is irrelevant as is the welfare of the competing horses and riders.  Tough luck that the huge volume of UK supporters will not be able to attend their Olympics due to retricted space and face and favour ticket allocation.  And so what that at the end of the day they have poured all that money down the drain, who cares it did not come from my pocket.

Those AGAINST:  Nothing left at the end of the Olympics for the UK equine community and all that money poured away is mind blowing - the question of a suitable alternate venue be used where a legacy for the benefit and future of the sport in the UK will be left, e.g. a college springs to mind that already has excellent basic facilities in place, has been ignored.  We have waited a long time for the Olympics on home soil, particularly for events where the UK stands a great chance of success, the hope of being there in person to witness it blown away with severly restricted spectator capacity.  Welfare of the horse and rider is paramount and the reports following the test event basically was an "I told you so" from the experts that Lord Coe et all have chosen to ignore from the start.  

So will this be the final nail in the coffin for equine events in future Olympics?  Well if even the slightest little mishap occurs at Greenwich that will probably seal it's fate.  Already the whole shambles is going a long long way to making 2012 history for all the wrong reasons.  Arrogance, inflated egos, and cowardice rule Greenwich 2012.


----------



## toffeesmarty (24 July 2011)

Wll done Wishful and mtj: intelligent and considered posts. 

Will the huge demand for tickets hold any weight in securing the future of equestrianism? You'd have to hope so, or am I just being naive?


----------



## badattitude (24 July 2011)

Wishful would has made some excellent observations but he/she is slightly in error on one aspect. I think when the IOC sit down to debrief as they do after each Games and then vote on which sports will be in or out for, in this case the 2020 Games (Rio is already decided more or less) the huge cost of running a venue with no legagy what so ever IN A NATION POSSIBLY ONE OF THE MOST HORSEY ON THE PLANET, will be seen as a huge waste of money. If they had used Richmond (for example) where existing equine facilities could have been improved and then used afterwards, this cost could be justified but I expect the IOC delegates from other countries and other sports are currently rubbing their hands with glee. The IOC can lose/change a catagory within a sport if it likes so I believe show jumping and dressage are safe for a while longer but eventing, as an Olympic sport is doomed. Rio is prepared to have eventing but adding the cost of building an xc course which will probably get no significant use unless the Pan American games are located there again will just be another black mark added to the huge cost of flying all the horses out to Rio, whatever their discipline. As far as the IOC are concerned dressage and showjumping are the money making disciplines, they attract the biggest audience and the greatest amount of participation. Reining is very keen to get into the Games (supported by the huge weight and finance of the AQHA) as is vaulting (supported by some very well off countries) and endurance (Arab money there) and even though this is not entirely true, as far as the IOC is concerned, two of these alternatives to eventing can be run in the same arena. If equestrian makes it to 2020 in any form we will be lucky but if it does, eventing will almost certainly not be part of it and that sadly is the legacy LOCOG and the BEF  will leave British equestrianism.


----------



## SusannaF (24 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			At the moment, the two sports at the top of the IOC hit list are fencing and equestrianism - they would like them to be replaced by golf and rugby sevens (or not replaced) as neither are particularly universal and equestrianism costs a fortune and there is a perception that the events can only be run in the grounds of a stately home, or on a dedicated horse stadium, things which don't really exist in the parts of the world the IOC is keen to hold the Olympics...
Plus there are subjective judging issues with both, which the IOC also dislikes.

Fencing (my other sport) has been working unbelievably hard to make the IOC keep it in the olympics as not being an olympic sport would probably kill it stone dead as an international sport.  Fortunately Beijing made the Chinese interested, so suddenly it is not dominated by Europe and the USA, which in combination with the new technology (wireless and video replays) gives us a chance of staying part of the Olympic movement.

IF the UK can pull off a good equestrian games in the heart of the Olympic city this will do far more for the future of equestrian sport in the UK than fantastic facilities which get mothballed as the UK sport funding is pulled when equestrianism gets dumped from the Olympics (the difference in funding between the Olympic disciplines and Carriage Driving/Vaulting which aren't Olympic sports is massive).  Holding the event at Burghley (or any other established venue) would do nothing for the sustainability of eventing in the Olympic movement as it would show that even with the much vaunted British expertise at running equestrian events, we have to fall back on pre-existing infrastructure.  Holding a successful event at Greenwich would show that any city with a decent park (not even a golf course) can hold the equestrian events at the heart of the games, and should help eventing's fight to stay in the Olympics.

I was disappointed not to get tickets, but I'd far rather watch eventing at many future Olympics than see it live once, and never see it again as the IOC managed to ditch it in favour of golf!
		
Click to expand...

Thank you - this is what I was trying to convey about BEF and the Olympic Federation, without having half of your intelligence (in both senses).


----------



## Orwell (24 July 2011)

toffeesmarty said:



			Wll done Wishful and mtj: intelligent and considered posts. 

Will the huge demand for tickets hold any weight in securing the future of equestrianism? You'd have to hope so, or am I just being naive?
		
Click to expand...

The conclusion established by some of the recent posts is that the only hope of keeping the cross country in the Olympics is to show that it can be staged for a reasonable sum and that it attracts a large following. Greenwich Park fails disastrously on both counts. 

I can't help thinking that many of the posters on this forum, and I suspect the officials of the BEF also, are aware that they are making a terrible mistake but that they cannot bring themselves to admit it. In colloquial parlance, they  are "in denial". People don't want to know that they have made a mistake or even that a mistake has been made for them.


----------



## watertray53 (24 July 2011)

^^^ Bravo! Well said Orwell. I totally agree!


----------



## Wishful (24 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			Thank you for your replies. 

Wishful's reply is particularly interesting. It suggests that the reason why the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park is because it is desperately trying to persuade the IOC  to keep the equestrian events in the Olympics. 

Wishful says that equestrianism is not particularly universal, it 
So, in order to challenge these views, it was decided to hold the Olympic equestrian events in a London park. Because:

This might have seemed like a good idea when considering Olympic politics, but it should quickly become apparent that it is a very bad one when one starts to consider the practicalities. 

Holding an essentially rural event in a city park is fraught with difficulties; because they are vital recreation areas for hundreds of thousands of people, because of disruption to the surrounding areas, and because of congestion on the streets and in the public transport systems. And all of these problems are amplified if the city also happens to be hosting the Olympic Games and the park is close to the centre of them. 

As if these considerations were not headache enough, the BEF have made life virtually impossible for themselves by choosing Greenwich Park. It is too small for a cross-country course, the terrain is unsuitable, and large parts of the park are protected.  So the course will be compromised and potentially dangerous (especially in the wet). Even building a stadium is difficult enough as they are not allowed to dig in the park (in this case because of sewers). In order to ensure a level field of play on sloping ground it is necessary to build a massive platform and to devise a suitable surface for it (a problem which has not yet been solved). And then there is the fact that the park is part of a World Heritage Site, with millions of visitors each year. As a nation we have a duty to keep it open and to do what we can to ensure that those visitors see it at its best. 

According to other comments, especially by Rachel Marwood, the cost of holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park has already risen to £60m. Who knows what the final cost will be. And, on the basis of the evidence of the Test Events, there is the real danger that the Olympic events themselves will be compromised. The fact that spectator numbers will be severely limited will also add to the perception that the sport is elitist. 

If the BEF persist with Greenwich Park, they are likely to demonstrate conclusively (to many they have done so already) that the equestrian events cannot be held in an urban park, that they really do cost a fortune, and that they are essentially the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful. 

That is, in choosing Greenwich Park and persisting with it, the BEF are likely to prove the very opposite of what Wishful thinks they are trying to prove. 

Fortunately there is still time for them to realise this and to change the venue.  

Wishful is against using an existing venue because:  

But, given that time is short, it seems to me that  this is the rational choice. At least the BEF could count on staging successful Olympic equestrian events, on keeping the costs down, and on demonstrating that the events have  a large following. 

Wishful's aside -- "not even a golf course" -- also suggests an idea for the future of Olympic eventing. The hosts of future Games may well not have established equestrian venues, but they probably do have golf courses and these would, it seems, make ideal venues; certainly far less problematic and costly ones than inner city parks.
		
Click to expand...

Universiality as far as the IOC is concerned is nothing to do with the demographic within a country - they want diversity of competitors and nationality.  Alex Hua Tian, the Japanese team, Samantha Albert, and ideally someone representing an African country, somewhere close to the top of the world rankings would be the major thing to make the IOC very happy with their universiality criteria.  Equestrian events rank fairly lowly - the majority of medals go to Europe, USA/Canada and Australia/New Zealand.  The chances of a non "Western" medal are relatively low.

Hills are a feature of most XC courses - many courses are notoriously hilly (Blair) - far better than fake hills (Fontainbleau?).

The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ -  this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.

Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event.  Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.  

I also don't think London has a suitable golf course... Happy to be corrected though.  Richmond/Hyde Park might also have been possibilities but Richmond is a total git to get to (far worse than Greenwich) and Hyde Park was going to be used for softball (and is a bit on the flat side).


----------



## Orwell (25 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			Hills are a feature of most XC courses - many courses are notoriously hilly (Blair) - far better than fake hills (Fontainbleau?).
		
Click to expand...

Hills are a feature of most XC courses, but in the hills and tight turns of the Greenwich course make it particularly difficult in good weather and dangerous when wet. The riders at the test event reported that the course was: intense, in your face, like riding in a tumble dryer, like a BMX course, etc. And that was on a gloriously sunny day. It could just as well have been raining heavily making the steep slopes treacherous. The organisers were lucky that there weren't any serious accidents. In her blog, in the Telegraph on the 6th of July, Pippa Cuckson says that



			Greenwich is a punishing terrain, without  the jumps. ... If it were in the middle of nowhere, this topography would never be sanctioned for a championship cross-country course. 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...st-event-lets-hear-it-for-the-screaming-kids/

Click to expand...




Wishful said:



			Universiality as far as the IOC is concerned is nothing to do with the demographic within a country - they want diversity of competitors and nationality.  Alex Hua Tian, the Japanese team, Samantha Albert, and ideally someone representing an African country, somewhere close to the top of the world rankings would be the major thing to make the IOC very happy with their universiality criteria.  Equestrian events rank fairly lowly - the majority of medals go to Europe, USA/Canada and Australia/New Zealand.  The chances of a non "Western" medal are relatively low.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. But if you were going to choose a course which encouraged universality, you wouldn't pick an extremely challenging course like Greenwich. It may well be too challenging for some of the Olympic competitors. 



Wishful said:



			The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ -  this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but a great deal of money has been spent on it, expenditure which would not have been necessary at an established venue and which just adds to the IOC's impression that equestrianism is too expensive. Moreover the problem of producing an adequate artificial surface for the arena has not yet been solved. See, for example



http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/lon...011/jul/06/showjumpers-greenwich-olympic-test

Click to expand...




Wishful said:



			Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know about the park in Malmo and so can't comment. But I suspect that the circumstances are very different.



Wishful said:



			Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.
		
Click to expand...

Parks in London are used for events but these normally only occupy part of the park in question. I can't recall an example of an event which closed a major London park completely for even a few hours. In particular Greenwich Park has hosted the start of the London Marathon since 1981. This is an entirely appropriate use of a public park: there is some disturbance for two weeks or so during the preparations and the clearing up afterwards, and parts of the park are closed for half a day. As far as I know nobody objects to this, and most locals welcome it. 

But for the Olympics, LOCOG propose closing Greenwich Park for four weeks in midsummer, largely so that the XC riders can ride around it once. 



http://www.london2012.com/greenwich-park/frequently-asked-questions.html

Click to expand...

This is a completely inappropriate use of an urban public park. Moreover, as has been oft repeated, Greenwich Park is part of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. It has over 4 million visitors a year. Who but a mad dictator would think of holding an Olympic XC event there?



Wishful said:



			I also don't think London has a suitable golf course
		
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I think that the BEF should move the events to an established venue. If they do so, and if as a result the XC is still an Olympic event, then the golf-course idea could be proposed for the 2016 Games in Rio.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (25 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			The major cost of the platform thing is in the development - if this can be developed (and from reports it was pretty close - the eventers loved it for the dressage- not massively far off for SJ -  this is a major legacy for equestrian sport - suddenly some of the major restrictions on location can be overcome as there is no need for a flat, grass arena, and no need to put down a permanent surface.
		
Click to expand...

Only if you can afford the £2 million or so to rent it.  Not much of a legacy if no one can afford it.



Wishful said:



			Greenwich isn't the only city park to be used for equestrian events - Malmo in Sweden is also used for an event.  Parks often get closed for events of various types - concerts, exhibitions, random unknown shows - it's not unusual in London - there are plenty of other parks people can use while Greenwich is closed, all within easy striking distance.
		
Click to expand...

You are not comparing like with like.  Greenwich Park is a World Heritage Site, among other things because it is the finest baroque landscape in England.  It was laid out according to a set of aesthetics, to capture certain effects.  It is also a Conservation Area of national importance.  

Greenwich Park has never before been built on, in 400 years or more.  It is unlikely that the Secretary of State really has the power to enclose it.  It is still illegal to ride horses in Greenwich Park (other than on the tarmac road between Blackheath Gate and St Mary's Gate).  Government should act within and uphold the law.  That the Government and Greenwich Council are conniving with LOCOG to organise illegal equestrian events in Greenwich Park is an obscene abuse of power - in my view - and shows how uncivilised the DCMS, the Council and LOCOG all are.


----------



## HashRouge (25 July 2011)

I'll admit I hadn't given a lot of thought to where the equestrian sports should be held before reading this thread. I assume there is little chance they will be moved elsewhere. But one thing that has struck me after reading all your posts is the implication that there would potentially be more tickets for the XC if it were held elsewhere, because the Greenwich site has invariably been described as too small and somewhat cramped. As one of the many people who tried and failed to get XC tickets, I can't help feeling a bit miffed about this! Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't one of the priorities be maximizing crowd sizes?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (25 July 2011)

HashRouge said:



			I'll admit I hadn't given a lot of thought to where the equestrian sports should be held before reading this thread. I assume there is little chance they will be moved elsewhere. But one thing that has struck me after reading all your posts is the implication that there would potentially be more tickets for the XC if it were held elsewhere, because the Greenwich site has invariably been described as too small and somewhat cramped. As one of the many people who tried and failed to get XC tickets, I can't help feeling a bit miffed about this!
		
Click to expand...

If the 2012 equestrian events were held at somewhere like Badminton, you'd have about 200,000 more chances to obtain tickets for the cross-country.



HashRouge said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't one of the priorities be maximizing crowd sizes?
		
Click to expand...

And maximising revenue from ticket sales.  LOCOG is behaving as if they were funded by the Bank of Mum and Dad: throwing money around like water (£60 million and counting) to create a very exclusive teeny weeny Olympics event.

The more tickets LOCOG sells to the cross-country, the less the poor trodden-down taxpayer will have to subsidise them.  It is obvious that LOCOG have a duty to sell as many tickets as possible.  LOCOG will be lucky to get even 50,000 into Greenwich for the cross-country.


----------



## teapot (25 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			Thanks for the explanation. But if you were going to choose a course which encouraged universality, you wouldn't pick an extremely challenging course like Greenwich. It may well be too challenging for some of the Olympic competitors.
		
Click to expand...

That very reason is why the difficulty level of the Olympics was lowered. Sydney was chaos for the lesser nations. On the flip side, given the qualifying nature of eventing for the Olympics, they have to be of a certain standard anyway. If they are below that standard for any reason, then should they really be there (am talking individuals, not nations).


This is interesting: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/308774.html


----------



## Orwell (25 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Sydney was chaos for the lesser nations.
		
Click to expand...

There is very little scope to make the Greenwich course less challenging; I believe that the designer, Sue Benson, has talked of the proposed course already being "set in stone". So if the events are not moved to a more suitable venue, there is bound to be chaos again and, given the terrain, probably on a larger scale. As Al Jolson used to say, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" 




teapot said:



			This is interesting:http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/308774.html

Click to expand...

Equestrian volunteers and officials might receive "a portion of the additional free tickets -- rumoured to number 60,000". Good, but how big a portion of the rumoured number? And what about all those followers of eventing who applied for tickets and didn't get them. I think that I am right in saying that if the events were moved to Badminton then everyone who applied could have been given tickets. Inclusiveness should, where possible,  be a central criterion of any Olympic event.

In contrast, Greenwich would be exclusive. At most 50,000 spectators could be admitted to the XC. I wonder how many of the available tickets have been allocated to "important people", and how many corporate hospitality packages there will be. 

It looks very much as if the BEF want the rest of the world to see a "typically English" event: restricted to the Establishment, hugely expensive, and held in an urban public park  which has been "privatised" for four weeks for the purpose.  And this feudal throwback is supposed to convince the IOC that eventing should be retained at the expense of Golf or Rugby Sevens?


----------



## Wishful (25 July 2011)

I don't think the Olympics should be less challenging - the approach should be to help the "up and coming" nations to improve to a level where they are competitive - through training etc.  It's coming - but it would be good to have things to point at to say - we are doing this to help the non- established nations.

Ideally the course would have long routes so it's possible for less experienced competitors to complete safely, but with some time faults.  

I really don't think that Badminton or Burghley would increase the number of tickets available.  Suppose there are 24 fences on the course, 50,000 tickets means 2000 people per fence - anyone think there's going to be much of a view if you double or quadruple that number.  The ONLY way that Badminton and Burghley work with their entry numbers is that there are tradestands and some people go only to shop.   Burghley would be marginally better than Badminton as the hilly terrain gives better viewing for more people at more fences. At Badminton viewing is ropey unless the weather is pants.  They also don't put big screens out on the course where you can see both a fence and the big screen - Burghley at least does this.  There is no point maximising crowd sizes if you will struggle to see any of the action.

As for Burghley/Badminton being the holy grail of places to hold the equestrianism:

1.  Modern Pentathlon is sharing the facilities - they need the Olympic infrastructure (pool + suitable sized hall) for the swim and the run.  Very wasteful to build two equestrian stadia.

2.  Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.  

3.  Having everyone drive to an Olympic event would be a logistical nightmare.  The Olympics have far more stringent security requirements than Badminton or Burghley.  Each car would need to be searched/checked by sniffer dogs. The queues would be astronomical.  Course-side parking would probably be banned, taking out a large proportion of the parking used for the normal 4* events, so the theoretical capacity is smaller.  Likewise on site camping would not be allowed, decimating the affordable accommodation options used for the normal events.

4. Transport.  Everyone would need to drive.  There are no realistic public transport options for the numbers involved.  There is no rail service to Badminton - Chippenham is the nearest, and is on the First Great Western route which is running at/beyond capacity.  From Chippenham, the only option would be a chartered bus.  Burghley is on the rail network, but on a branch line which is largely single track and set up for 2-3 coach rural stopping services.  The major railhead would be Peterborough, but there aren't any frequent public services to Stamford from there.  Buses have a capacity of 50 or so people - 1000 bus journeys?

Perhaps Richmond Park or Hyde Park would have been better, but the decision has been made, changing now will not work as none of the other possible venues could be ready in time (unless SJ + Dressage get treated separately from the eventing), massively adding to the cost as you'd then need 3 equestrian venues or a new 50m pool somewhere near the equestrian facilities.


----------



## teapot (25 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			There is very little scope to make the Greenwich course less challenging; I believe that the designer, Sue Benson, has talked of the proposed course already being "set in stone". So if the events are not moved to a more suitable venue, there is bound to be chaos again and, given the terrain, probably on a larger scale. As Al Jolson used to say, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
		
Click to expand...

Sydney was chaos because the course itself was too hard, ie - technicality, height and width with lesser nations also coming in too fast to fences. As far as I remember, terrain didn't come into it, and it had some pretty steep slopes on it at the time.


----------



## teapot (25 July 2011)

Size wise - Horsely Park/Sydney International Centre is only roughly 40 acres more than Greenwich in size, with Beas River being about 70 acres smaller than Greenwich.


----------



## Orwell (25 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			I don't think the Olympics should be less challenging - the approach should be to help the "up and coming" nations to improve to a level where they are competitive ... Ideally the course would have long routes so it's possible for less experienced competitors to complete safely, but with some time faults.
		
Click to expand...

Ideally, but this doesn't look possible in Greenwich Park. You can't go half-way up a hill and there is hardly enough room for the Olympic course and a few spectators, let alone alternative routes.



Wishful said:



			I really don't think that Badminton or Burghley would increase the number of tickets available.  Suppose there are 24 fences on the course, 50,000 tickets means 2000 people per fence - anyone think there's going to be much of a view if you double or quadruple that number.
		
Click to expand...

Well, for a start they could build a few temporary stands. And, as you say, they could


Wishful said:



			put big screens out on the course where you can see both a fence and the big screen
		
Click to expand...




Wishful said:



			As for Burghley/Badminton being the holy grail of places to hold the equestrianism:

1.  Modern Pentathlon is sharing the facilities - they need the Olympic infrastructure (pool + suitable sized hall) for the swim and the run.  Very wasteful to build two equestrian stadia.
		
Click to expand...

The tail wagging the dog. The XC course should not be compromised (as in Greenwich) for the sake of the equestrian element of the Modern Pentathlon. It should be very easy to accommodate the Modern Pentathlon using existing facilities; all you need is a stadium and a bit of a track. Wikipedia: "The riding discipline involves show jumping over a 350450 m course with 12 to 15 obstacles".  




Wishful said:



			2. Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.
		
Click to expand...

The platform that they have built for Greenwich could equally be used at Badminton nor Burghley.   



Wishful said:



			3.  Having everyone drive to an Olympic event would be a logistical nightmare.  ... 4. Transport.  Everyone would need to drive.  There are no realistic public transport options for the numbers involved.  ...  The major railhead would be Peterborough, but there aren't any frequent public services to Stamford from there.  Buses have a capacity of 50 or so people - 1000 bus journeys?
		
Click to expand...

I agree that transport would be a problem, but it should be possible to solve the problems by enhancing existing public transport. After all, Badminton usually has 100,000 visitors. Moreover, the transport problems associated with Greenwich should not be overlooked. Greenwich is embedded in south-east London. Public transport is already overloaded and the smallest accident on the roads can lead to widespread gridlock. 



Wishful said:



			Perhaps Richmond Park or Hyde Park would have been better, but the decision has been made, changing now will not work as none of the other possible venues could be ready in time.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see why Badminton of Burghley couldn't be ready in time. They have nearly finished demolishing the stadium that they built in Greenwich Park this year. Next year they plan to build one about 10 times as big. Why could they not build appropriate temporary stands at Badminton of Burghley?


----------



## teapot (25 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			I agree that transport would be a problem, but it should be possible to solve the problems by enhancing existing public transport. After all, Badminton usually has 100,000 visitors. Moreover, the transport problems associated with Greenwich should not be overlooked. Greenwich is embedded in south-east London. Public transport is already overloaded and the smallest accident on the roads can lead to widespread gridlock.
		
Click to expand...

Think the point that Wishful is making is that there is NO public transport within the immediate area of either Badminton or Burghley (or Hartpury either actually). They have enough problems on the local country lanes for the relevant events, let alone something Olympic wise. Add into that the logistics of security, parking and everything else Wishful mentioned...





			I don't see why Badminton of Burghley couldn't be ready in time. They have nearly finished demolishing the stadium that they built in Greenwich Park this year. Next year they plan to build one about 10 times as big. Why could they not build appropriate temporary stands at Badminton of Burghley?
		
Click to expand...

Stands wise - it could be do-able. Ground and course wise, less so, especially for Badminton. Outside of the actual track, the ground at Badminton is pretty bad and the whole lot is deer & sheep grazing with the course fenced off months in advance. It took them a LONG time to get decent going post the mass withdrawl debacle year a couple of years back so there's only a specific track which would be event standard. Badminton is early May with the Olympics being the end of July. No organiser would want 80 horses galloping down a track + the 20000 odd spectators at an Olympic site weeks before the Olympics kicked in. The track wouldn't get as much damage as the outside bits. Think this pic shows exactly what happens during a wet year. Look at the difference between course and standing crowd. That wouldn't recover in time to provide good enough ground for an Olympic event:








I can see your reasoning but there are so many ifs and buts, given the proximity of Badminton to the Olympic event. And whilst we all know fences can be put in pretty quickly, event set up for big BE events takes months, not weeks...


----------



## Rambo (25 July 2011)

Neither Badminton nor Burghley has a surfaced main arena - they are run on grass. There is no WAY that showjumping or dressage could be held on grass.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know about the dressage diva's but the SJ'ers could compete on grass....no problem.

Think back to Athens, Barcelona, Seoul, Montreal....and non-olympic events such as Aachen and Hickstead....Falsterbo and La Baule


----------



## Orwell (25 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Think the point that Wishful is making is that there is NO public transport within the immediate area of either Badminton or Burghley (or Hartpury either actually). They have enough problems on the local country lanes for the relevant events, let alone something Olympic wise. Add into that the logistics of security, parking and everything else Wishful mentioned...
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that these problems will easily be solved, just that they could be if the will was there. Badminton usually has 100,000 spectators for the XC. Even this many is 50,000 more than Greenwich. 

As I said before, Greenwich also has transport problems, and these will be exacerbated during the Olympics because of all of the additional visitors to London and the additional demands on the transport system. Remember the fiasco on Millenium night when the grandees were left stranded at Stratford Station? As Al Jolson said ...



teapot said:



			Outside of the actual track, the ground at Badminton is pretty bad and the whole lot is deer & sheep grazing with the course fenced off months in advance. ... No organiser would want 80 horses galloping down a track + the 20000 odd spectators at an Olympic site weeks before the Olympics kicked in.
		
Click to expand...

Again, it seems to me that where there's a will there's a way. Tens of millions of pounds have been spent making the impossible possible in Greenwich Park. It seems to me that for a fraction of that amount they could solve the problem of the trackside turf at Badminton. All that is needed is a surface that the spectators can use for a day. 

Your photo will make lovers of Greenwich Park weep. If the events go ahead there, then the sort of damage shown in the photo can be expected to the lawns, including protected areas such as the ancient acid grasslands.


----------



## teapot (25 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			Your photo will make lovers of Greenwich Park weep. If the events go ahead there, then the sort of damage shown in the photo can be expected to the lawns, including protected areas such as the ancient acid grasslands.
		
Click to expand...

Only if it chucks it down, has 200 000 people on it and numerous cars (as some of that is traffic damage). Damage control will be in place at Greenwich given its location so no traffic on the grass, fewer spectators and hopefully not monsoon like weather.


----------



## Orwell (26 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Damage control will be in place at Greenwich given its location so no traffic on the grass, fewer spectators and hopefully not monsoon like weather.
		
Click to expand...

There has already been serious damage to Greenwich Park, and further damage is inevitable if the events go ahead there next year.  There is also no guarantee that any serious attempt would be made to restore the park afterwards. The organisers, LOCOG have no legal obligation to restore it and, to date, have not set any money aside to do so. 

Then there is also the human cost.  As a result of the closures and the  construction work, regular park users (from Greenwich and further afield) and visitors to the World Heritage Site have been badly abused this year. And if the events go ahead in the park next year, then the disruption will be much worse. The closures will be longer, there will be about 10 times as much construction work, there will be at least 10 times as many spectators to cater for, there will be at least 10 times as much congestion on the roads, etc. 

Rachel Mawhood has already raised many of these issues during this discussion, and there is ample evidence for all to see on NOGOE's website and its flickr diary. 

These factors are already more than reason enough persuade anyone who considers them with an open mind that the events should be moved. But, as I have been trying to point out in my earlier posts, holding the events in Greenwich Park would also be contrary to the interests of equestrians.  

It is not too late to move the events to a more appropriate venue. But time is short, so courageous decisions and bold actions are needed. Given these, and given the Olympic windfall, it should be possible to use one of Britain's leading venues to stage the greatest eventing event ever seen. It seems to me that this would be the best way to promote eventing in this country and to try to ensure that it remains as an Olympic sport.


----------



## bseage (26 July 2011)

Everything I have read about the test event and the comprehensive coverage in this forum persuades me the Greenwich is a totally unsuitable site for an Olympic standard 3 Day event.  That the test event in no way replicated the parameters of the full 2012 event but is being regarded as a success and extrapolated into what will happen on the day in 2012 is just bonkers.  

Damage to the Park, disruption of Greenwich and its folk, the cost, the lack of room for spectators, the lack of legacy etc are all serious issues, but are in my view insignificant compared to the danger the course would pose to even the best prepared horse and even more so on a wet day.  After all, they would not dare to cancel it because of the weather, would they?


I have had a response from a potential member of the Olympic 3 day event team, in which they recognise the difficulties presented by the course, regard the location as unsuitable, *but continue by explaining that the decision on Greenwich as the venue has been made and that we should all now rally round and support the event at Greenwich*  Evidence, I feel that the pressure by sponsors and the desire to be in the team and so win a medal overrides considerations of horse safety and all the other factors that make Greenwich totally unsuitable as an Olympic 3 Day Event venue. 

*You can still get a package from a travel agent which will include 2012 cross country day, but it would cost £2k per person!*


----------



## watertray53 (26 July 2011)

I have had a response from a potential member of the Olympic 3 day event team, in which they recognise the difficulties presented by the course, regard the location as unsuitable, but continue by explaining that the decision on Greenwich as the venue has been made and that we should all now rally round and support the event at Greenwich Evidence, I feel that the pressure by sponsors and the desire to be in the team and so win a medal overrides considerations of horse safety and all the other factors that make Greenwich totally unsuitable as an Olympic 3 Day Event venue. 

Thank you bseage for posting this piece of information......You have highlighted what pressures a place on the Olympic team puts on riders/owners when they are prepared to risk their horses for the sake of glory, be it for their country or for themselves. 

When I started reading this thread I very naively believed that equestrian sport at London 2012 was going to be a show case for what this country does best & that there would be a lasting legacy for the future, well for equestrianism at Greenwich the judge & jury is still out !


----------



## brighteyes (26 July 2011)

*watertray53, bseage, Orwell, badattitude, teapot and to huge extent Rachel Mawhood* have all IMO got it right.  Is the damage to the park, the complete unsuitablilty of the venue, in terms of size and safety and appropriateness for an 'event', the inexcuseable lack of a legacy and flawed choice of location going to leave us with the unacceptable taste of needless deaths (horse or rider) and egg on our faces?  My guess is yes.  That the unfathomable (or is it?) decision to use Greenwich Park instead of a much more suitable venue even on the grounds of fairness to the horses and riders _in itself_ is enough to show this to be a choice not based on anything other than 'looking good'.  What an awful position to put our event teams in. The lack of any legacy for the riders of GB, and irreparable damage to the Park is pretty much par for the course.  They don't care beyond the closing ceremony.


----------



## cefyl (26 July 2011)

brighteyes said:



*watertray53, bseage, Orwell, badattitude, teapot and to huge extent Rachel Mawhood* have all IMO got it right.  Is the damage to the park, the complete unsuitablilty of the venue, in terms of size and safety and appropriateness for an 'event', the inexcuseable lack of a legacy and flawed choice of location going to leave us with the unacceptable taste of needless deaths (horse or rider) and egg on our faces?  My guess is yes.  That the unfathomable (or is it?) decision to use Greenwich Park instead of a much more suitable venue even on the grounds of fairness to the horses and riders _in itself_ is enough to show this to be a choice not based on anything other than 'looking good'.  What an awful position to put our event teams in. The lack of any legacy for the riders of GB, and irreparable damage to the Park is pretty much par for the course.  They don't care beyond the closing ceremony.
		
Click to expand...

Well said in a nutshell - they really do not care beyond the closing ceremony.

As for the issue of "public" transport to an ideal location such as Hartpury this is not something that affected the decision to use Weymouth as a sailing venue!  Not exactly just off a motorway network is it. The problems of resident access and parking in the area, on top of that spectator and competitor access is already looking like a nightmare.  And if you are not involved in sailing you have no idea of the amount of "kit" that needs to be taken into a competition venue by road.  I do as that is my husbands sport.  Hartpury has a far far better access to motorways, and A / B road access that could well be utilised as a "one way" system for in / out traffic during events.  Interesting to read the planning application for Weymouth - Portland Harbour for 2012 where it repeatedly mentions LEAVING A LEGACY afterwards.  What happend to any equestrian legacy???   But then the powers that govern sailing are not held under an iron grip of fear by someone with no earthly interest in the sport in the UK.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (26 July 2011)

One of my colleagues wrote to Badminton to ask for accurate, up-to-date figures on spectator numbers.




			We have no restriction on spectator numbers for the Cross Country and usually have approximately 100,000 visitors.  Similarly, there is no restriction on admittance for the Dressage and Show Jumping days.  However, the Main Arena is limited to seating approximately 14,000 people and others can still come to the event and watch the Show Jumping on the Big Screen.  The seating numbers for Dressage are about the same but there would not be the same demand for Dressage seats. ...

not sure if we could admit 300,000 - there would be a point when we would run out of car parking - but to date (since 1949) this has never happened!
		
Click to expand...

So there you have it.  If the proposed temporary stadium (capacity 23,000) were erected at Badminton instead of at Greenwich, and if - say - a shuttlebus service were laid on from the nearest railway station(s), 200,000 more people could have tickets to the cross-country.  More money for LOCOG, smaller exposure to risk for the poor taxpayer.  Plus legacy - upgraded facilities - for the UK equestrian sport.

To those who think that it will be easy to use public transport to get to/from Greenwich Park events in 2012, think again.  Transport for London's own crowd-modelling exercise revealed - to everyone's horror, I think - that it could take up to TWO HOURS for everyone to leave the Park at the end of the day and go to the nearest railway station.  That's TWO HOURS to accomplish what is usually a five minute walk.  The worst case scenario was eight hours.  Then you have the rest of your journey home, starting by crossing London in Olympic season, with the disruption expected to be caused by the implementation of the "Olympic lanes".


----------



## Wishful (26 July 2011)

It's taken 3-4 hours to leave Badminton (i.e. get off the carparks on the queues in the roads) in the past - of course it's going to take hours to get out of Greenwich, it's going to take hours to get out of the Olympic stadium proper, the swimming centre and all the rest of the games. It takes forever to get out of concerts - it is pretty well to be expected.  It's even taken me the best part of an hour to get out of a point to point.

Yes, the Olympics is going to be inconvenient - sort of comes with the lots of spectators, athletes thing involved...

Badminton with its normal number of spectators is "just" acceptable, if you don't mind waiting for 2 horses to go past a jump before you can actually wriggle to the front to see the jump.  More, and I would stop going, as you see far less than you do on the TV...  Putting 200k spectators into Badminton would not encourage me to go - you'd barely see a horse go past - that's about 10,000 people per fence and about the only place that is possible, even with mini stands, is the lake.


----------



## teapot (26 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			I think - that it could take up to TWO HOURS for everyone to leave the Park at the end of the day and go to the nearest railway station.  That's TWO HOURS to accomplish what is usually a five minute walk..
		
Click to expand...

It can take up to 2hrs to leave Badminton after the show jumping has finished and that's in a car, let alone on foot. This is mainly because they only open certain car parks on the final day which all share the same entrance/exit. Same for Hickstead on Derby day. It actually took me close to an hour to get onto a train at Wembley post a Take That concert the other week.

Same issues, different venues.


Interesting with regards to the team member's opinion. Wonder whether different voices would be being raised if the Brits weren't so high up the medal contender list...


----------



## cefyl (26 July 2011)

Can those of you pushing Badminton tell me why you favour it over say a site with more of the basic infrastructure inplace such as an international all weather arena, more stabling, indoor arenas for working in, the facility for an on site vet clinic, and so on such as one of our good equine colleges?  At Badminton their still would be no lasting legacy for the equine "public" as it is privately owned, yet a college would benefit all.


----------



## Sleighfarer (26 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			One of my colleagues wrote to Badminton to ask for accurate, up-to-date figures on spectator numbers.



So there you have it.  If the proposed temporary stadium (capacity 23,000) were erected at Badminton instead of at Greenwich, and if - say - a shuttlebus service were laid on from the nearest railway station(s), 200,000 more people could have tickets to the cross-country.  More money for LOCOG, smaller exposure to risk for the poor taxpayer.  Plus legacy - upgraded facilities - for the UK equestrian sport.

To those who think that it will be easy to use public transport to get to/from Greenwich Park events in 2012, think again.  Transport for London's own crowd-modelling exercise revealed - to everyone's horror, I think - that it could take up to TWO HOURS for everyone to leave the Park at the end of the day and go to the nearest railway station.  That's TWO HOURS to accomplish what is usually a five minute walk.  The worst case scenario was eight hours.  Then you have the rest of your journey home, starting by crossing London in Olympic season, with the disruption expected to be caused by the implementation of the "Olympic lanes".
		
Click to expand...

Did your colleague ask the Duke of Beaufort if he would like to host the Olympic event? It is a private estate, not a public park.


----------



## Wishful (26 July 2011)

I'm sure that the XC at Greenwich will be testing - suits us far better than a dressage competition - also much easier to select horses that do well at twisty, hilly CICs as we know now that's what we need.  Home field advantage is good.

Having been to Hartbury, it's FAR worse to get to than Badminton or Burghley and why should the taxpayer fund a private, feepaying college over all it's competitors, unless Hartpury (or other college) fancied paying for the legacy facilities.

Can anyone suggest an existing equestrian facility which is hilly, close (5 miles or so) to a train station on a main line, has substantial parking available not within the course area, an international size and standard arena, warm ups and is close to the major road network, but has 3 or 4 different routes to parking areas???  In the UK? I certainly can't think of one...


----------



## Zebedee (26 July 2011)

Seafarer said:



			Did your colleague ask the Duke of Beaufort if he would like to host the Olympic event? It is a private estate, not a public park.
		
Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out. All major equestrian venues are privately owned (including Windsor Park). There would never be any legacy if the events were held at private venues as it would be seen as investing in an individual property, increasing its value etc.
At least this way Ebony is getting some well needed & deserved support.

I gather also that the main concern of the majority of Greenwich residents (when questioned door to door by a local councillor) was whether or not their bins would still be emptied on time during the Olympic events.


----------



## teapot (26 July 2011)

I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (26 July 2011)

Zebedee said:



			At least this way Ebony is getting some well needed & deserved support.
		
Click to expand...

Mudchute - in an Olympic borough - isn't getting any support, despite needing it and being just as deserving.  The decision to support Ebony is purely political.



Zebedee said:



			I gather also that the main concern of the majority of Greenwich residents (when questioned door to door by a local councillor) was whether or not their bins would still be emptied on time during the Olympic events.
		
Click to expand...

I think that you must have made that one up.  I have never ever heard that "concern" mentioned before.  And our councillors are not known for going door to door, even when there is a council election in the offing.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (26 July 2011)

teapot said:



			I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.
		
Click to expand...

Well, whereas Windsor and Badminton are established equestrian venues, in Greenwich Park riding horses is illegal.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (26 July 2011)

teapot said:



			It can take up to 2hrs to leave Badminton after the show jumping has finished and that's in a car, let alone on foot.
		
Click to expand...

In Greenwich, you won't have the option of arriving or leaving by car.  You will have to be on foot, using public transport.  Whatever the weather.  And in the "last mile" - the bit between the railway station and the Park - people will be very vulnerable to terrorist attack.  All crowded places will be prime terrorist targets in the summer of 2012.


----------



## teapot (26 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Well, whereas Windsor and Badminton are established equestrian venues, in Greenwich Park riding horses is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

You MUST have a permit to ride in Windsor Great Park, it is not open access. And only the sand based arena is permanent at Windsor, nothing else and it's not Olympic sized by any means. The ground for any form of xc course is shockingly bad too, even where the old 3* course used to be. 

Badminton - the only things permanent are the ditches and the stables. The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough. Also, Badminton isn't open to the general public to ride in, and given it's private land, it would be illegal to do so without prior permission from the Duke. 

Windsor, Badminton, Burghley, Gatcombe etc etc are established but only in name alone, none of the event related things are permanent. If you want permanent, you would have to go down the equine college route.


----------



## Zebedee (26 July 2011)

teapot said:



			I pointed it out ages ago but no-one seemed to notice! And Windsor has double the issues - both a private park AND a public Royal landscape. Oh and the ground's shocking everywhere bar the polo pitches.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - this has dragged on for so long I've forgotten who's already said what - I tend just to dip in from time to time, more in amazement that it's still going than anything else 

As for the making things up (as suggested by RM) - nope sorry, not the case.


----------



## teapot (26 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			In Greenwich, you won't have the option of arriving or leaving by car.  You will have to be on foot, using public transport.  Whatever the weather.  And in the "last mile" - the bit between the railway station and the Park - people will be very vulnerable to terrorist attack.  All crowded places will be prime terrorist targets in the summer of 2012.
		
Click to expand...

All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times. The UK level of security will go up next summer without a doubt (it's only just gone down from the highest level anyway) but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.


----------



## Zebedee (26 July 2011)

teapot said:



			All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times. The UK level of security will go up next summer without a doubt (it's only just gone down from the highest level anyway) but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.
		
Click to expand...


Stop being so logical in the face of such desperate straw clutching


----------



## teapot (26 July 2011)

Zebedee said:



			Stop being so logical in the face of such desperate straw clutching 

Click to expand...

Sorry


----------



## Orwell (27 July 2011)

teapot said:



			... in Windsor Great Park The ground for any form of xc course is shockingly bad too, even where the old 3* course used to be. 
Badminton ... The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough.
		
Click to expand...

They would have a year to prepare a course. If this can be done at Greenwich, surely it can be done elsewhere? Remember also that the hills in Greenwich Park make it unsuitable; especially when wet. On one slope they have had to resort to a "sandpaper" strip (a 10-15 foot strip of gravel and small stones) to try to ensure that the horses don't slip. 



teapot said:



			Also, Badminton isn't open to the general public to ride in, and given it's private land, it would be illegal to do so without prior permission from the Duke.
		
Click to expand...

If the BEF asked for his help at a time of crisis, do you think that he would refuse?


----------



## Orwell (27 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Badminton - the only things permanent are the ditches and the stables. The ground again, outside of the 4* track isn't good enough.
		
Click to expand...

As you say, it would depend on the Duke, but the legacy could be a much better ground, improved car parking, etc. There could also be a "mobile legacy"; that is, equipment and temporary structures that could be used at any venue (such as display screens, public address systems, and stands).

There would also be the human legacy of, at least, 50,000 more spectators. Many young people who are keen on eventing could be there on the big day. 

Then there might be the Olympic legacy. As I have argued before, the best way to keep eventing as an Olympic sport is to show that it can be staged cheaply and that it has a large following. A traditional venue would also offer far more scope to address the universality question; that is, to make it possible for weaker nations to compete credibly. 

Again, as I have argued before, Greenwich would fail badly on all of these criteria. It would be (as has already been established) hugely expensive, perceived of as being exclusive, hugely disruptive, destructive, the course would be potentially dangerous and it would be too difficult for emerging equestrian nations. The "victory" of going to Greenwich could result in disaster and would most probably result in eventing being dropped as an Olympic sport. 

(I have enjoyed the discussion. Unfortunately I will be unable to respond for a few days.)


----------



## Wishful (27 July 2011)

Why would Badminton need improved ground off the 4* track?  

Greenwich would have the same mobile legacy...

I also don't see how Badminton could be a softer track than Greenwich - it's probably the toughest of the 4*s globally.  If Greenwich's terrain is tougher, the fences can be softer but still be a 3.5-4* test.  With flat terrain (quite apart from the viewing being worse) the fences have to be tougher to maintain the test.

Burghley's terrain is tougher, but it is seen as more suitable for a first 4* than Badminton.


----------



## Sleighfarer (27 July 2011)

I think Rachel makes many valid points but the transport argument just doesn't wash. *Everybody* who is travelling in or to London is going to be inconvenienced by the Olympics: there will be VIP-only lanes of traffic in the centre of the city!

London hosts any number of events that involve huge numbers of people trying to get about: football matches (80,000 in the Emirates stadium; even Charlton FC manages to pack in 27,000 people every fortnight); concerts (90,000 at Wembley); political demos (god knows how many). 

When the London bombings happened (the day after the successful Olympic bid was announced) I managed to get to work in the morning (the tube bombs went off while I was on my way) and I managed to get home in the evening. That was with the *entire* tube network closed down. 

The only time I have felt seriously inconvenienced by anything (and a little frightened too) was when somebody decided it would be a good idea to drive Formula One cars round central London in the late afternoon on a weekday without publicising it properly or providing enough police to manage the crowds. Getting out of Oxford Circus tube station (which should have been closed) was not fun.


----------



## teapot (27 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			Why would Badminton need improved ground off the 4* track?
		
Click to expand...

Outside of the Badminton course (which is now pretty much exactly the same blades of grass each year) the ground is rubbish, well maybe not rubbish but the difference is pretty huge. Now they either have the Olympic course exactly on the Badminton course (or vice versa in terms of what would follow what next year) in which you could run the risk of the course not recovering in time post 80 horses on Badminton xc day if the weather was bad or marking out another track around the park. 
Preparing a track from scratch in less than a year is a tall order. It's partly why the Grassroutes share most of the same ground, as the going elsewhere is pants. 


Think Wishful's right about course standards though, Badminton's seen as the best of the best.


----------



## Wishful (27 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Outside of the Badminton course (which is now pretty much exactly the same blades of grass each year) the ground is rubbish, well maybe not rubbish but the difference is pretty huge. Now they either have the Olympic course exactly on the Badminton course (or vice versa in terms of what would follow what next year) in which you could run the risk of the course not recovering in time post 80 horses on Badminton xc day if the weather was bad or marking out another track around the park. 
Preparing a track from scratch in less than a year is a tall order. It's partly why the Grassroutes share most of the same ground, as the going elsewhere is pants. 


Think Wishful's right about course standards though, Badminton's seen as the best of the best.
		
Click to expand...

I guess I was wondering why a second track would be a useful legacy- Badminton is hardly going to be able to run a separate event and keeping the deer and the hunt of the other track would probably cause more hassle - so just unsure why having a new track at Badminton would be any more of a legacy than using Greenwich.


----------



## teapot (27 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			I guess I was wondering why a second track would be a useful legacy- Badminton is hardly going to be able to run a separate event and keeping the deer and the hunt of the other track would probably cause more hassle - so just unsure why having a new track at Badminton would be any more of a legacy than using Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Haha yeah it's a good point! Same goes for Burghley, Chatsworth, Blenheim, Bramham...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (27 July 2011)

teapot said:



			All crowded places are prime terrorist targets at the best of times.
		
Click to expand...

No, that is not true.  The Olympic sites are, for obvious reasons, attractive - ie "prime" - targets for all terrorists: global tv coverage, maximum publicity for their cause, etc.



teapot said:



			but honestly, people will be at no higher risk at Greenwich than they will be sitting in the stadium at Stratford.
		
Click to expand...

I don't want to use this forum to suggest ideas to terrorists for how to blow up Greenwich.  But you are wrong.  There are zillions of opportunities for terrorists in Greenwich that have been DESIGNED OUT of the purpose-built stadia.  If you want to know more, you will have to send me a private message.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (27 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Size wise - Horsely Park/Sydney International Centre is only roughly 40 acres more than Greenwich in size, with Beas River being about 70 acres smaller than Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Re Beas River, here are two excerpts from a thread on this H&H forum of nearly three years ago:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=192491




			there is not enough room to house everything there [in Greenwich Park],(beas river 92 acres, park 180 ish but Hong Kong xc course only 8 minutes and NOTHING else was held there)
		
Click to expand...





			At Sha Tin Racecourse there was seating for 18,000 in the grandstands, 13 schooling arenas, gallops for fast work, state of the art stabling, and the racecourse veterinary hospital. Greenwich is starting from scratch and is expected to find room for everything: cross country course, main arena, schooling and warm-up areas, stabling for over 200 horses (based on this year's numbers), storage facilities for show jumps, tractors, levelling and raking equipment, media facilities, veterinary and first aid sites and a drainage system to be constructed. You only have to look at the Environmental Impact Assessment Report of 2005 put together for the Hong Kong Jockey Club to realise the enormity of the site at Sha Tin, which is far greater than was visible on television. I fail to understand how Greenwich can accommodate a fraction of this, and erase all trace of it afterwards.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (28 July 2011)

http://www.timeout.com/london/gallery/1310/seb-coe-on-the-2012-olympic-and-paralympic-games








Lord Coe omits to say that Greenwich Council set more than 42 planning conditions, that LOCOG are driving the proverbial coach-and-four through these conditions, that LOCOG found Thames Water's conditions "too complicated" to fulfil so tried a "creative" approach that resulted in their running out of water at the Test Event; and, last but not least, LOCOG organised a horse-riding event in Greenwich Park where horse-riding is a Prohibited Act (ie unlawful).

Note that his answer to the question about the legacy is not actually a response to the question.


----------



## LCH611 (28 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			No, that is not true.  The Olympic sites are, for obvious reasons, attractive - ie "prime" - targets for all terrorists: global tv coverage, maximum publicity for their cause, etc.



.
		
Click to expand...

So to that end it doesn't matter where the event is sited, it is still going to be a prime target?

I went to Greenwich for the test event & came away not completely convinced - but then I am not overjoyed that the Olympics are here anyway as I don't think that we can afford the massive debt that we will undoubtedly be left with. However, putting that to one side the reality is that we have got the Olympics in London so we might as well embrace the positives!

It was many pages back, but I entirely agree with whichever poster suggested that Rachel Mawhood had alienated potential support. I admire campaigning zeal but unfortunately the tone of the posts has rather rubbed me up the wrong way and I have therefore given more time to considering the opposing camp than I thought I would! Hosting the Olympics is going to cost an eye-watering amount of money (and I am sure that many disciplines are experiencing the same mounting costs) & I am not keen that even more is spent trying to fast-track a 4 year process i nto less than 12 months.

It isn't just Greenwich residents that are going to be inconvenienced by the Olympics - for example there is already a radio campaign advertising the disruption that will be caused by some test cycling event & preparations thereafter. To a greater or lesser extent everyone who lives and works in London is going to be inconvenienced at some point during the next 12 months, but ***** happens, the world won't stop turning, there will still be famine in the Africa & calamitous events closer to home.

As a UK resident aren't I also a stakeholder Greenwich Park? Why should it be purely up to local residents to have a view about what takes place there? Why is turf & wildlife in other parts of the country any less important than that of Greenwich? Presumably it would be subject to the same kind of negative impact, so isn't it pure NIMBYism to push it elsewhere? Isn't there also a view that environmental change fosters the evolution of species (am thinking back to O level days & that moth that cunningly adapted to deal firstly with pollution & then changed its colouring back again when its environs became less polluted)? Who knows what future generations may be looking at as a result of fundamental changes that will apparently be made to the habitat in Greenwich park. 

In short we can blather on all we like about what it should or shouldn't be at the Olympics, but the die is cast & those with campaigning energy to spare might like to put their efforts into other more worthy causes.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (28 July 2011)

LCH611 said:



			So to that end it doesn't matter where the event is sited, it is still going to be a prime target?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  Now ask yourself: is it responsible to site your prime terrorist target within a densely populated (residential) area.



LCH611 said:



			As a UK resident aren't I also a stakeholder Greenwich Park? Why should it be purely up to local residents to have a view about what takes place there?
		
Click to expand...

Are you a Park user?  Nope?  Is your buildings insurance going to go through the roof next year just because the Park has been turned into a prime terrorist target?  Nope.  There's your answer.



LCH611 said:



			Why is turf & wildlife in other parts of the country any less important than that of Greenwich?
		
Click to expand...

You are not paying attention - Greenwich Park is a Conservation Area of national importance.



LCH611 said:



			Presumably it would be subject to the same kind of negative impact, so isn't it pure NIMBYism to push it elsewhere?
		
Click to expand...

What - NIMBYism to push it to a venue that is not a Conservation Area, a World Heritage Site, and where there would some chance of leaving a legacy for UK equestrian sport out of that £60 million and counting?



LCH611 said:



			Isn't there also a view that environmental change fosters the evolution of species
		
Click to expand...

Not if those species are dead, no.



LCH611 said:



			(am thinking back to O level days & that moth that cunningly adapted to deal firstly with pollution & then changed its colouring back again when its environs became less polluted)?
		
Click to expand...

That was adaptation to gradual change.



LCH611 said:



			Who knows what future generations may be looking at as a result of fundamental changes that will apparently be made to the habitat in Greenwich park.
		
Click to expand...

We already have a pretty clear idea of what the result of the fundamental changes will be.  Loss of rare acid grassland, loss of a "stronghold" of the stag beetle (a Protected species), and possibly loss of bats.  LOCOG's behaviour re the bats has been particularly repulsive.  Also, more than 10 per cent of the trees in Greenwich Park have had branches cut off that would not in normal circumstances have been cut off, just to accommodate LOCOG's construction vehicles.  Other trees have been severely damaged by the construction/course maintenance vehicles travelling too close.  Some trees don't survive that sort of treatment but LOCOG has no plans to replace any trees that die as a result of their "development".



LCH611 said:



			In short we can blather on all we like about what it should or shouldn't be at the Olympics, but the die is cast & those with campaigning energy to spare might like to put their efforts into other more worthy causes.
		
Click to expand...

The counsel of despair.  That's what LOCOG would love you to believe.  For us, at the moment, there is no more worthy local cause than expelling LOCOG from Greenwich Park.  They have no right to be there at all.


----------



## LCH611 (28 July 2011)

hmmm, that will be the patronising attitude that I mentioned earlier than Rachel!

The whole Olympic games will take place in a densely populated residental area - London. I can't see how it isn't NIMBYism to be trying to push the threat of terrorism (and if I recall from your numerous posts you think that an advantage of moving to an alternate site would be to enhance the visitor numbers and make the event more dense with people?), and the rise in insurance costs to an area that you don't happen to live in?

How on earth are you able to comment on whether I am a park user at present, or whether I may intend to become a park user in the future if I decide to come back post-Olympic games because I liked the venue so much? 

You don't seem to understand that Greenwich Park is not the only Conservation Area in the country & plenty of events take place in such places without all this bleating and hoo-haa. We have an annual world-class event that happens near us and conceivably could be viewed as a massive PITA for those that are trying to go about their business as the transport routes are woefully inadequate. Alternatively it can be viewed as a positive and an opportunity to see people enjoying themselves, benefitting the local economy and continuing our heritage and tradition.

It would be hard to imagine a use of a landscape that is more at odds with what usually happens there, then Glastonbury, but grass regrows (as it is wont to do), and animals continue to reproduce - especially when they have vigilant guardians that will do all they can to encourage optimum conditions to be reinstated - and life goes on. 

I find it extremely hard to believe that any species is going to die out as a result of the Olympic horse trials. Nor can I get overly excited about some judicious pruning of branches - I find it far sadder to see a magnificient old tree that has been struck by lightning, or simply lost a bough because it has become too heavy. Actually on that note I am sure that under H&S grounds given that it is a public space, there must be an ongoing programme of maintenance to ensure that heavy branches are lopped off before they fall on the heads of the many 1000s of people that use the park each day? Has the indigenous wildlife population suffered a terminal decline as a result, or has it managed to weather the storm has it has done for many 100s of years? My point about the moth is that it is wrong to assume that species aren't capable of adapting to change - even aggressive change.

I would be surprised if all park users were as attuned to the needs of the local wildlife as you are and conceivably a significant number of them also do damage/cause destruction by climbing trees, leaving litter and so on?

In my view your points about legacy are less convincing than those in the opposite camp (and that was previously my prime objection to using Greenwich).


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (28 July 2011)

You believe what you want, you are obviously going to, anyway.  There is too much speculation and false premise (eg about how the Park is managed) in your post for me to deal with all of it.

Park users climbing on trees?  Doesn't happen because if they did, they could be prosecuted.  The Met police the Park.

Heavy branches lopped off before they fall on people?  No, of course not.  Every tree is recorded on a tree schedule, with its state of health.  Many  trees can continue to carry their heavy branches safely for hundreds of years.  If LOCOG isn't around.

As for your comparing Greenwich Park with the fields in Glastonbury ...


----------



## bseage (28 July 2011)

I feel my previous comment of _*'So, for an ego trip for Coe who wants a spectacular in London, to ensure eventing remains an olympic event, to please the sponsors, and to give their riders a chance of a medal, horses will have to compete at a totally unsuitable venue from which there will be no lasting legacy for Greenwich or London' *_remains very relevant. 

The test event was not a success in that it failed on all counts to replicate the conditions that will prevail on the day.

The horses will have to complete a 'BMX' course of 5700 metres over 40 jumps and requiring 3 ascents and descents of Greenwich Hill which has a 20% gradient.  And if its a wet day it would be highly dangerous.

Event riders get killed depressingly frequently but they have the choice to compete or not. The horses often get damaged though fatalities are rare, but this unsuitable course on a wet day when the pressure from LOCOG and the sponsors is there to compete and win will greatly endanger the horses.

Who is representing them?


----------



## LCH611 (28 July 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Park users climbing on trees?  Doesn't happen because if they did, they could be prosecuted.  The Met police the Park.

Heavy branches lopped off before they fall on people?  No, of course not.  Every tree is recorded on a tree schedule, with its state of health.  Many  trees can continue to carry their heavy branches safely for hundreds of years.  If LOCOG isn't around.

As for your comparing Greenwich Park with the fields in Glastonbury ...
		
Click to expand...

Please don't tell me that every small boy shimmying up a tree is prosecuted! And of course the threat of prosecution is absolutely enough to deter it from happening..........What kind of heritage is that for our children to enjoy? Or is our countryside in your view something to be looked at rather than to interact with? I would far rather that the Met Police were out dealing with the heavy terrorist threat than prosecuting those deprived inner-city children that rely on the park for their access to the countryside, because they are climbing trees.

I am aware of how tree schedules operate, and if there is a dangerous branch in a public place you would have no otion but to lop it off. Of course trees are capable of supporting heavy branches, but frequently those heavy branches become dangerous - which is a problem in a public place. Unless there is somehow a dispensation because the life of a tree is more precious than anyone who may be passing underneath it at the wrong moment? I am sure that the tree schedule will provide an accurate record of all tree surgery that has been carried out in the park and with the detailed information that you have about the wildlife species you will presumably be able to track the impact that it has had?

The Glastonbury reference was to set your mind at rest about the ability of nature to regenerate even in adverse conditions.


----------



## bseage (28 July 2011)

Glastonbury is a farm and Greenwich is a Royal Park.  It is one of very few green open spaces accessible to the public in London.  It has huge historic significance.  And it is illegal for LOCOG to do what it is doing in closing the park and allowing the riding of horses in the park.  At Glastonbury, the farmer will easily roll and reseed any damaged pasture and it will be back to normal in a matter of months.  This would not be the case at Greenwich as it is not ordinary farm land.

But all this is immaterial compared to the dangers posed to event horses by the course and even more so if its a wet day as LOCOG would not allow it to be cancelled, would they?

So who speaks for the horses?


----------



## Wishful (28 July 2011)

Think there were contingency plans for Hong Kong (wet aka monsoon/tropical storms).

But, how exactly will it be "dangerous" if it gets a bit wet...  Full on drenchings are not particularly common on London - most of the rain hits the rest of the country first.

Point to points and eventing both seem to me to have more serious accidents in "perfect" conditions than in major mudfests.  Riders tend to notice the mud and ride more carefully, but will be more gung ho on perfect going.  Horse events tend to cancel due to mud due to the emergency vehicles being unable to get around rather than the going being unsafe for the horses.

I'm also pretty certain of seeing videos of eventers coping with steep hills in the past (steeper than Greenwich).

As for terrorism concerns, a largely car free event will be far safer than one where cars need to be brought on site.  It's a lot easier to check people than cars, and cynically you can't carry anywhere near as much explosive on your person as in a car...


----------



## teapot (28 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			I'm also pretty certain of seeing videos of eventers coping with steep hills in the past (steeper than Greenwich)..
		
Click to expand...

Jerez, Sydney are two that spring to mind...


----------



## bseage (28 July 2011)

Its speed that kills and usually in eventing horses are going relatively slowly. Not so when an Olympic medal is at stake. 

If the going is bad at any horse event be it a PTP or a 3 Day Event can be cancelled or postponed as was the case at Long Leat a few weeks back.  But with the pressure of LOCOG, the desire of Coe to have his spectacular, the drive of the riders to get a medal and the investment by the sponsors at stake would this apply to an Olympic 3 day Event?

I don't think so.  Fox Pitt described it as a BMX course in the dry, over just 19 fences and with just 1 ascent and descent of Greenwich hill.  

Not fair on the horses when its 5700 metres, 40 fences and 3 times up and down the hill. For the smaller countries with less well prepared horses and less experienced riders it will be more dangerous.


----------



## LCH611 (28 July 2011)

bseage said:



			Its speed that kills and usually in eventing horses are going relatively slowly. Not so when an Olympic medal is at stake. 

If the going is bad at any horse event be it a PTP or a 3 Day Event can be cancelled or postponed as was the case at Long Leat a few weeks back.  But with the pressure of LOCOG, the desire of Coe to have his spectacular, the drive of the riders to get a medal and the investment by the sponsors at stake would this apply to an Olympic 3 day Event?

I don't think so.  Fox Pitt described it as a BMX course in the dry, over just 19 fences and with just 1 ascent and descent of Greenwich hill.  

Not fair on the horses when its 5700 metres, 40 fences and 3 times up and down the hill. For the smaller countries with less well prepared horses and less experienced riders it will be more dangerous.
		
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't speed that kills, it is rotational falls and speed is not always a determining factor in those - as evidenced at a recent local PC show where a competitor had a ghastly rotational and ended up in critical care jumping a very small plastic show jump.
 Horse trials are cancelled when the going is deemed to be unsafe and it is not possible to get paramedic & emergency cover to every fence. It is hard to believe that there won't be contingencies in place to ensure that emergency care can be provided instantly.

I think you would be well advised to go and watch hunting folk coping with all manner of muddy conditions & hills perfectly happily, and there is no reason to suppose  that we will have those muddy conditions in London, in July. Yes, horses will need to be fit to do the best possible job, but equally racehorses, hunters & riding school horses also need to be fit to do the job that is required of them, so I simply don't see what all the drama is about!

Is Rachel going to come back on under her original identity & deal with my points about trees and enjoyment of the countryside ?

I am sure that Michael Eavis puts in plenty of effort to reinstate his land, but I can assure you that my paddocks that get trashed in really bad weather, receive minimal care & come back to produce sufficient grass for a hay crop.


I also think that London is comparatively well served by Royal Parks & open green spaces


----------



## bseage (29 July 2011)

Well, LCH611, I rarely defend my comments but:

I am not in the least concerned about the safety of riders, though I have huge sympathy for those who get injured and the families of those who get injured or killed in any equine sport.  After all, the rider has the choice to compete or not and having decided to compete accepts the objective dangers that decision implies.  Horses have no voice in the decision and fortunately, though quite a few are injured in eventing, few have been killed.  My concern is that horses should compete on a suitable and appropriately testing course.  That is not Greenwich.

My horse competed in BE100 at Longleat on Friday 17 June, which was a drizzly sort of day with slowly deteriorating going.  It was fun, testing, presented some challenging obstacles and the horse coped well.  There was a bit more rain overnight resulting in the novice and intermediate classes on Saturday being cancelled because of the going, but as it dried out the CIC continued on the Sunday.  Cancelling the novice and intermediate had nothing to do with the problems of getting medical cover to the fences.  4X4 ambulances and if necessary the air ambulance were available.  The organisers were concerned about the safety of the horses when they made that decision. Horse safety is correctly a major concern.  Longleat is a much smoother and rounder course and less steep than that planned for Greenwich.  In the dry Greenwich will be a BMX course and in the wet it would be lethal.

Far from watching hunting folk, I am one and have hunted since 1963 and with the Brecon, The Border, The Fife, The Western, The Dartmoor, Bolventor Harriers, Spooners & West to name just a few of the 40 odd hunts I've subscribed to or have had bye days with.  I have owned 3 pointers, been a PtP rider for a couple of seasons and have had event horses for the past 30 years.  I'm not precious about horses, but I do believe that a competition must be fair to the horses taking part in it.  For the fit, experienced event horses with experienced riders Greenwich will be a difficult challenge in the dry.  But it will be well beyond the competence of horses from the lesser and emerging eventing countries.

Paddocks, yours, mine or those at Glastonbury are not Greenwich Park.  Greenwich Park is a historically important international heritage site with a need to be protected. Closing the Park to the public and riding horses there are actually forbidden expressly by an Act of Parliament which is being ignored by LOCOG.

By the way, using your own hay from your paddocks for your own horses is very poor horse management.  Would you munch your way through cornflakes produced from cereals from ground fertilised by your droppings?  So sell off your hay and buy in hay from a nearby farmer who has mixed grazing on his fields. *( Just thought you may appreciate a bitchy, irritating, patronising but in this instance totally accurate comment!)*

I lived at Greenwich for a year in the mid 70's.  A fantastic place and I was fortunate that summer to be able to run around Greenwich Park and Blackheath.  I was training for the London Marathon.  Greenwich hill is a super heart and lungs work out, but I never saw it as a possible 3 day event venue.  It was brilliant to see how much it is used evenings and weekends by people longing for a green haven in a busy city.

Greenwich is not a suitable or safe venue and is only being used because Coe wants a London spectacular that track and field, swimming etc will never provide.  The decision on Greenwich and to stick with it despite a very inconclusive test event on which the negative comments were not fully reported, is driven by Coe and the sponsors.  Would they cancel it on a wet day if the going was deteriorating?  I don't think so.  That there will be no legacy for Greenwich, London or eventing and that so few people will be able to see it live are also considerations but unimportant when compared with horse safety and providing a fair challenge.

So LCH611 who is speaking for the horses?


----------



## LCH611 (29 July 2011)

I can assure you that getting paramedic cover round the course is one of the prime considerations (and I know that for a fact because I run a BE event) as taking the cavalier attitude of not being "the least concerned about the safety of riders" is not one that is universally shared! 

You are quite correct that horse safety is an important priority and those same expert opinions will be applied to Greenwich. You may think that they won't make changes/pull fences if the going becomes dangerous but that is a huge gamble & given that you make the case that it is all to do with profile, it is hard to believe that the powers that be would not do so in the face of a potentially cataclysmic accident that could have been prevented.

I also think it is very arrogant to assume that emerging nations will have horses that are completely underprepared - some of those nations have riders that are already on the circuit here and I am sure that they won't thank you for being so condescending about their ability to get a horse fit. Perhaps you have already seen the cross country course plans? Or are you just making an assumption that the course will run vertically up & down the hill as opposed to across the face of it?

Thank you for your top tip about making hay........ but I am happy to report that my horses & ponies all thrive on the hay I provide them with & in fact eat in in preference to hay that either my farmer or local hay supplier provides. (I wonder by the way how you have managed to conclude that I don't have mixed grazing, or is it just a general tendency to seize upon a comment and extrapolate it to the nth degree so that you can pronounce upon it with great authority?) In your view Greenwich is not a suitable or safe view and I can see that you believe that passionately, but unfortunately just because you believe it does not make it incontrovertible fact.


----------



## bseage (29 July 2011)

But, the riders decide to take part and so accept the objective dangers of so doing and thus the possibility of being injured.  The horses cannot decide and so riders have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger them.  Accepting Greenwich, which is 'not the terrain I would choose' to quote a 6 times Australian Olympian who took part in the test event, endangers the horses.

As you will know, there is always pressure to not cancel an event, no matter what the conditions.  Will the organisers really face up to LOCOG and the Sponsors if the going gets even marginal?  I'm not convinced that they would.

Greenwich Hill has a 20% gradient in the area between the National Maritime Museum and the crest of the ridge at the Observatory.  Much of the face of the hill is crossed with drives and paths that run parallel to the meridian.  This will make crossing the face of the hill difficult.  Look at your own BE Course, and envisage galloping across the face of a 20% gradient on a wet day with all the pressure olympic competition implies.

LCH611, how did you surmise that I had not hunted?  Jumping to conclusions is not your sole preserve.  My point being that we need reasoned arguments here and not patronising comments.

However, I feel you also are very concerned about the safety of the horses, so do take a trip to Greenwich, walk the ground and consider if a 5700 metre course with 40 obstacles and three trips up and down the hill would be fair to the horses, and what it may be like in wet or marginal conditions.  And particularly when there are many suitable venues in England and not that far from London.  

Best wishes and happy hunting  bseage


----------



## LCH611 (29 July 2011)

bseage said:



			But, the riders decide to take part and so accept the objective dangers of so doing and thus the possibility of being injured.  The horses cannot decide and so riders have a duty to not unnecessarily endanger them.  Accepting Greenwich, which is 'not the terrain I would choose' to quote a 6 times Australian Olympian who took part in the test event, endangers the horses.

As you will know, there is always pressure to not cancel an event, no matter what the conditions.  Will the organisers really face up to LOCOG and the Sponsors if the going gets even marginal?  I'm not convinced that they would.

Greenwich Hill has a 20% gradient in the area between the National Maritime Museum and the crest of the ridge at the Observatory.  Much of the face of the hill is crossed with drives and paths that run parallel to the meridian.  This will make crossing the face of the hill difficult.  Look at your own BE Course, and envisage galloping across the face of a 20% gradient on a wet day with all the pressure olympic competition implies.

LCH611, how did you surmise that I had not hunted?  Jumping to conclusions is not your sole preserve.  My point being that we need reasoned arguments here and not patronising comments.

However, I feel you also are very concerned about the safety of the horses, so do take a trip to Greenwich, walk the ground and consider if a 5700 metre course with 40 obstacles and three trips up and down the hill would be fair to the horses, and what it may be like in wet or marginal conditions.  And particularly when there are many suitable venues in England and not that far from London.  

Best wishes and happy hunting  bseage
		
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see whether that same Olympian decides to withdraw himself from selection, or whether with a vast fund of experience to call upon he decides it isn't "unsafe & unsuitable"............

I do believe that the team responsible will make the right decision if the ground gets dangerous - if only because it is a far worse option to be the team responsible for making a decision that results in a fatality/critical injury that it is to be responsible for the disappointment & controversy that goes with cancelling an event.

I jumped to the conclusion that you did not hunt as you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on steep hills & wet conditions underfoot and the fact that is a "lethal" combination. I would have thought that with your hunting experience you would have seen that people do seem to manage to gallop and jump perfectly happily in those conditions and the vast majority of people doing so have far less impressive horsepower and riding skill than the eventers that will be tackling this course. Riding is a high risk sport and it is a calculated risk. You are absolutely right that horses don't get a chance to decide not to event, PTP or whatever else they are expected to do, but by and large top event horses have a pretty happy life and there are plenty of horses and ponies that are expected to endure far more testing conditions/miserable lives.

A local BE course has an especially steep hill to navigate down, up and back down again and its Spring event can be subject to dreadfully wet conditions, and yet I am not aware that there have every been any "nasties" nor does it put people off as it is always very full.

I have been to Greenwich, I was there for the test event. If I had the choice of anywhere in the UK to stage an event it wouldn't be my first choice, but given the compelling reasons listed by others on this thread in favour of holding the event there, I simply don't see that it is the disaster you are making it out to be.

Happy hunting to you too


----------



## Orwell (29 July 2011)

LCH611 said:



			It was many pages back, but I entirely agree with whichever poster suggested that Rachel Mawhood had alienated potential support. I admire campaigning zeal but unfortunately the tone of the posts has rather rubbed me up the wrong way and I have therefore given more time to considering the opposing camp than I thought I would!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that being upset by Rachel's forthrightness and zeal is a good reason to support holding the events in Greenwich Park. What matters is not personalities, but getting the right venue. In particular, what matters is that we get the reasons for and against holding the events in Greenwich Park clear.



LCH611 said:



			As a UK resident aren't I also a stakeholder Greenwich Park? Why should it be purely up to local residents to have a view about what takes place there?
		
Click to expand...

Greenwich Park is a national treasure, the greatest Baroque landscape in Britain (until Locog got hold of it), a landscape that has been enclosed for six hundred years, an archeological time capsule, etc. At this level you do have a stake in the Park _and_ you have a duty to protect it which you seem careless of.  

Greenwich Park is also  part of a World Heritage Site; along with the Old Royal Naval College (designed by Wren) and the Queen's House (designed by Inigo Jones). The World's prime meridian runs through the Park and millions of visitors from all over the world come visit the site each year. At this level the Park belongs to the World. We all have a duty to ensure that visitors see it at its best. This year they have been badly abused. For example, about 1 million visitors to the National Maritime Museum will have have gone on to the Observatory this summer. In doing so they will have had to make a long and unpleasant detour around the Competition Area (in place for three months), and everywhere their view of the World Heritage Site has has been obstructed by miles of ugly fencing. They came to enjoy a beautiful spectacle and we have treated them to a building site. We should all feel ashamed of this. Worse still, next year Locog plans to close the whole Park for four weeks. 

Greenwich Park is also an important local Park (for Greenwich residents and those who regularly visit from all over south east London). Some of them can go elsewhere. Others will find it difficult. This would be apparent to you if you walked in the Park regularly. Think of mothers with babies and small children living in small flats with no access to gardens, think old-age pensioners going for a stroll or sitting on a bench in the sunshine, think of dog walkers, think of joggers, think of school visits, think of sunbathers, etc. At this level you have no stake in the Park, but if you have a social conscience, then you should care about the terrible impact on all of these people of sweeping them into a small part of their park, or closing it for four weeks at the height of summer largely so that XC riders can ride around it once.


----------



## Orwell (29 July 2011)

LCH611 said:



			I think you would be well advised to go and watch hunting folk coping with all manner of muddy conditions & hills perfectly happily, and there is no reason to suppose  that we will have those muddy conditions in London, in July.
		
Click to expand...

It is perfectly possible that there will be prolonged and torrential rain in Greenwich Park next year. There was this year, beginning just a couple of days after the Test Event. 

Heavy rain would eliminate the much-vaunted views and would make the course dangerous: the steep slopes are bad enough when dry and they become slippery when wet. 

It seems to me that there is an admission of this in the case of the "Canary Wharf" jump (the jump that stood/will stand on the lawn next to the Observatory). The course then continues straight down the hill through an area covered by trees. The course designers have had to lay a special "sandpaper" surface here consisting of compacted gravel and large stone chips in order to give the horses sufficient footing. But a horse falling on this surface would be badly hurt, as would a rider.


----------



## teapot (29 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			This year they have been badly abused. For example, about 1 million visitors to the National Maritime Museum will have have gone on to the Observatory this summer. In doing so they will have had to make a long and unpleasant detour around the Competition Area (in place for three months)
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I was in Greenwich the weekend after the test event, and actually walked up from Maritime Museum to the Observatory and then back down to the old college. Ok, so the walk was a little longer than it would normally have taken but I didn't find it unpleasant. The park was busy (was a beautiful sunny warm saturday) and friend and I sat along the way in many of the places located near to the fenced off areas and we didn't hear ONE word of complaint from passers by who were obviously heading to the blocked off routes. Instead it was 'ohh we'll just go this way instead' or quite a bit of 'ohh so this is where it's going to be, can't believe it's next year' and went on their merry way. You can't tell me that everyone we saw walking in the park were ignorant tourists who didn't know any better, there was many many mums out together with little kids who one assumes were local. One person I spoke to who was a local was more concerned about the logistics behind lorries and getting horses in and out. She had had no idea the test event had been and gone by the Saturday, and whilst surprised how much was fenced off, didn't say or seem inconvenienced in anyway. She was far more interested in the actual event.

Ok yeah, the view from the top of hill overlooking the city was partly inconvenienced by the fencing but I got over that, as the location and view is still fantastic. 

I've walked through Windsor Great Park when parts have been blocked off. In fact it happens at least once every year at Smiths Lawn for the BE event as the course runs up to around and onwards from the Obelisk. There's a playground about 3 steps from that monument which they shut during the BE event, and I highly doubt the residents of Windsor, Staines, Egham and Sunningdale moan about the inconvenience. And trust me, there are very few green safe areas in that part of Surrey, away from the park, or in walking distance.


----------



## Orwell (29 July 2011)

teapot said:



			Sorry but I was in Greenwich the weekend after the test event, and actually walked up from Maritime Museum to the Observatory and then back down to the old college. Ok, so the walk was a little longer than it would normally have taken but I didn't find it unpleasant.
		
Click to expand...

As I walk in the park regularly I can report many who have found the detour unpleasant or too long to bother with. Do you know what the Park is like without the Competition Area? Visitors can walk along a tree-lined avenue directly to the foot of the Observatory hill, while enjoying the wonderful views across the laws and the tranquility of the Park.



teapot said:



			One person I spoke to who was a local was more concerned about the logistics behind lorries and getting horses in and out. She had had no idea the test event had been and gone by the Saturday, and whilst surprised how much was fenced off, didn't say or seem inconvenienced in anyway. She was far more interested in the actual event.
		
Click to expand...

If she had no idea that the test event had been and gone, I suggest that she was not a regular park user. 



teapot said:



			Ok yeah, the view from the top of hill overlooking the city was partly inconvenienced by the fencing but I got over that, as the location and view is still fantastic.
		
Click to expand...

Do you remember the fencing all of the way up the hill, making the narrow congested path into a tunnel? Presumably that was there for security reasons. But it destroyed the view for months. Do you know that there are other paths up the hill which visitors often choose but couldn't because either they were closed or they were hidden behind miles of ugly fencing; again _for months_.



teapot said:



			I've walked through Windsor Great Park when parts have been blocked off.
		
Click to expand...

As I have said before when talking about the London Marathon, it is a matter of appropriateness. Closing part of the Part for half a day with two weeks of disturbance is perfectly acceptable. The closure of large parts of the Park for prolonged periods this year and next are not an appropriate use of any public park, let alone a special one like Greenwich Park.

There is no need to use the Park for the equestrian events, and no possible justification for doing so. It might have seemed like a "neat" idea to hold an essentially rural event in the middle of a city. But it should quickly have become apparent that it is a bad idea. To persist with it regardless of reason is a form of madness. 

In a letter to a local paper,  Janet Sweet of Blackheath says:



			The Test Events catered for less than one-tenth of the spectators and fewer competitors than are proposed for next year and it is to be hoped that LOCOG now see how unsuitable Greenwich Park and Blackheath are for a large-scale equestrian event. There is no shame in a change of mind.

GT (Greenwich Time), July 26 2011, p.4.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## LCH611 (29 July 2011)

Orwell said:



			Think of mothers with babies and small children living in small flats with no access to gardens, think old-age pensioners going for a stroll or sitting on a bench in the sunshine, think of dog walkers, think of joggers, think of school visits, think of sunbathers, etc. At this level you have no stake in the Park, but if you have a social conscience, then you should care about the terrible impact on all of these people of sweeping them into a small part of their park, or closing it for four weeks at the height of summer largely so that XC riders can ride around it once.
		
Click to expand...

Gosh Orwell, you do sound strikingly like Rachel Mawhead when you post!

I think those demographic groups that you are referring to are exactly the sort of people that deserve to have a chance to see the excitement of horse trials - especially as they are unlikely to have witnessed any such thing before. The BEST thing about the test event in my view was the enthusiasm of the local schoolchildren who seemed to LOVE it.

In terms of social conscience I'm afraid that mine is rather more occupied by the famine in Africa and the dreadful plight of mothers having to choose to leave their babies behind to die as they trudge off to try & find food, as opposed to people who may have to take a bit of a detour, but will get to see some interesting sights along the way.


----------



## badattitude (29 July 2011)

Wishful said:



			Full on drenchings are not particularly common on London - most of the rain hits the rest of the country first.
...
		
Click to expand...

Until this point I thought your arguments, although somewhat naive, were well argued but sadly you have displayed ignorance here. Full on drenchings are as common in London as in many other parts of the south east and to make the park a bog will only require a week or two of steady rain. Luckily recent summers have not been so wet but that may or may not continue. 
   If there is  a wet summer, the park will be irreversibly damaged because it has been an enclosed more or less protected space for 600 years. A someone said, 'a time capsule'. If the park is really to expect 50'000 people on xc day the damage to plants, grass and wildlife may never be rectified. And please do not quote Beas River or other event/festival sites because non of them has been relatively undisturbed for 600 years. The organisers are most likely quite sincere in their promises to make the park as it was but they do not actually know if they can becaue the circumstances cannot be replicated to test. That should be obvious to anyone if they actually think about it.


----------



## Wishful (29 July 2011)

badattitude said:



			Until this point I thought your arguments, although somewhat naive, were well argued but sadly you have displayed ignorance here. Full on drenchings are as common in London as in many other parts of the south east and to make the park a bog will only require a week or two of steady rain. Luckily recent summers have not been so wet but that may or may not continue.
		
Click to expand...

I will admit that I used to think that London got pretty wet, compared with East Anglian mizzle, then I moved to the west country and encountered rain that can take ground from "good" to "bog" in 35 minutes, which I never came across in London.  Most of the coats that were perfectly serviceable in London have been retired due to not actually keeping the Devon rain out on at least 1 occasion...

I accept that a few wet weeks will make the ground wet (but this won't be a sudden problem and contingency plans are far easier to make with a bit of warning) but the ridiculous, can't see with wipers on full at 20mph type thing is much rarer the further East you go.


----------



## henryhorn (30 July 2011)

bseage I have only skimmed through this post but feel I must take you to task re your hay comments, it's pefectly possible to make good hay off fields you also graze, we rest ours from October or November until after the haylage is cut in July, how you can claim that would make the hay ground horsesick is beyond me ! 
I do feel Greenwich is a totally unsuitable venue for many reasons, most of which others have said previously. 
If they can hold the sailing in Weymouth why on earth couldn't they hold the equestrian events out of London? 
I am particularly disappointed in Mr Coe (no he doesn't deserve Lord) because unless my memory is playing tricks hasn't he been married to a top event rider and will have inside knowledge of what is required to stage a 4 * competition?
If he displayed so little interest or understanding in the equestrian interests of his former wife during their marriage no wonder it went t***s up...


----------



## Orwell (30 July 2011)

LCH611 said:



			Gosh Orwell, you do sound strikingly like Rachel Mawhead when you post!
		
Click to expand...

I take that as a compliment, but I can assure you that I am not Rachel Mawhood. If we sound the same at times it's probably because we are talking about the same realities.



LCH611 said:



			I think those demographic groups that you are referring to are exactly the sort of people that deserve to have a chance to see the excitement of horse trials - especially as they are unlikely to have witnessed any such thing before. The BEST thing about the test event in my view was the enthusiasm of the local schoolchildren who seemed to LOVE it.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that the schoolchildren did have a good day out. But they usually do when the come to Greenwich Park. They usually have sports days and picnics on the Main Lawns and play in the valley between the Observatory and One tree Hill. They have been unable to do this this year and will be unable to do so next year also if the events are not moved. Moreover, the children who were admitted to the Test Events could easily have been taken on coaches to Windsor, or somewhere similar, to witness horse trials. This would have avoided months of disruption and the waste of tens of millions of pounds. 

The people who I observed watching the Test Events through the fences seemed to show no more than a passing interest.  Most watched one or two riders pass and then continued about their business. And, of course, very few of the tickets to the Olympic events will go to local people. 



LCH611 said:



			In terms of social conscience I'm afraid that mine is rather more occupied by the famine in Africa and the dreadful plight of mothers having to choose to leave their babies behind to die as they trudge off to try & find food as opposed to people who may have to take a bit of a detour, but will get to see some interesting sights along the way.
		
Click to expand...

Well it is possible to be concerned about both a famine in Africa and the abuse of a public park in this country. On Monday I saw an old man driving one of those disabled carts around the Competition Area. He and his elderly wife did not seem pleased by the "interesting sights" that it offered. 

Public parks are an essential part of urban life. Greenwich Park has been open to the public, all year round, since 1820. It should remain so.


----------



## cefyl (30 July 2011)

henryhorn said:



			I do feel Greenwich is a totally unsuitable venue for many reasons, most of which others have said previously. 
If they can hold the sailing in Weymouth why on earth couldn't they hold the equestrian events out of London? 
I am particularly disappointed in Mr Coe (no he doesn't deserve Lord) because unless my memory is playing tricks hasn't he been married to a top event rider and will have inside knowledge of what is required to stage a 4 * competition?
If he displayed so little interest or understanding in the equestrian interests of his former wife during their marriage no wonder it went t***s up...
		
Click to expand...

I made the point about Weymouth a few pages ago.  And of course the traffic problems are creating already a huge problem there for residents, one road in and one road out through a heavily poulated area, no near motorway network.  Of course Coe has made much of it "leaving a legacy" in Weymouth, as he has about other facilities being created in London.  What happend to the equestrian legacy which has one of the biggest budgets for a single sport of the whole games, the budget that will run way over the top, and leave NO LEGACY AT ALL.


----------



## bseage (31 July 2011)

C'mon guys don't give LCH611 such a hard time.  

He (She) is a BE Event Official, attended the test event and is pushing the party line that despite it being totally unsuitable, will be a BMX jump off course, allows precious little spectator involvement, will disrupt life in Greenwich for months next year, close the Park and probably damage it, is in contravention of an act of parliament and with a cost of at least £64 million produces no legacy whatsoever for eventing or Greenwich, *it will in their view fix Eventing in the Olympic Programme for the future.  *

So, surely we can all get around and support LCH611 in valiantly supporting BE?  Seb Coe is a gold medal winning olympian and must know a bit about eventing.  Why else would he agree to Greenwich? And the sponsors are only in it for the good of their souls and because they love horses aren't they?

So lets forget our reservations about Greenwich, swallow the propaganda from LOCOG, BE, BEF and Horse & Hound and support the marvellous event at Greenwich next year!


----------



## watertray53 (31 July 2011)

^^^^
Great tongue in cheek post bseage...... well said!


----------



## LCH611 (31 July 2011)

bseage said:



			So lets forget our reservations about Greenwich, swallow the propaganda from LOCOG, BE, BEF and Horse & Hound and support the marvellous event at Greenwich next year!
		
Click to expand...

That's the spirit Bseage, move forward in a positive & open minded manner!

BTW in order to set your mind at rest about the suitability of the venue you might like to look at the interviews on Horse & Country TV as riders finished the cross country. If someone with the knowledge & experience of Mark Todd is happy to endorse it, then I am happy to bow to their superior knowledge. Which means that if you discount your camp's argument about the fact that it would be lethal, then we are back to the fact that the primary objection seems to be that local residents are miffed because of the inconvenience and don't seem to have taken on board that having the Olympics in London will be inconvenient for many people and it is isn't clear how many disciplines will have legacy left in the guise of permanent infrastructure - as that seems to be the only way you think it can be measured?

I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.


----------



## millimoo (31 July 2011)

LCH611... You took the words right out of my mouth. I've resisted typing anything in the hope that the repetitive posts (which are becoming quite tedious) disappear from the front page of the forum.
Can't think there's much else to say, especially as the venue is chosen and will not move - I can't wait for the Dressage, especially seeing the beautiful test Carl Hester has just done with Uthopia


----------



## Orwell (1 August 2011)

LCH611 said:



			in order to set your mind at rest about the suitability of the venue you might like to look at the interviews on Horse & Country TV as riders finished the cross country. If someone with the knowledge & experience of Mark Todd is happy to endorse it, then I am happy to bow to their superior knowledge.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reference, the interviews are interesting. The riders keep referring to the steep slopes and tight turns. William Fox-Pitt (Episode 16) says that the slope beneath the "Canary Wharf" jump (Fence 5) was a "bit mean" and that the course was very demanding. Mary King (Episode 11) talks of the course being incredibly steep both down and up, of the course being very tiring for horses, and of the special training that she is doing on steep Devon hills. I wonder what they would have said about the full course, especially if it had been wet and they had been competing in earnest. There is no getting away from the fact that the course would never have been chosen for a championship event if Greenwich had not been close to Stratford. But an obsession with "compactness", or perhaps the desire to produce "spectacular" television pictures of horses jumping against a backdrop of office buildings, is not a good basis for choosing an Olympic XC course. 



LCH611 said:



			... we are back to the fact that the primary objection seems to be that local residents are miffed because of the inconvenience and don't seem to have taken on board that having the Olympics in London will be inconvenient for many people
		
Click to expand...

There is no need to hold the equestrian events in Greenwich Park, and so there is no justification for doing so. The Test Events have caused serious disruption to locals and visitors. The Olympic events would cause much worse disruption. See, for example, my post no. 341.



LCH611 said:



			... it ... isn't clear how many disciplines will have legacy left in the guise of permanent infrastructure - as that seems to be the only way you think it can be measured?
		
Click to expand...

In an earlier post I suggested that, if the events were held at a traditional venue, there could be a "human legacy": 50,000-100,000 more spectators could be admitted.



LCH611 said:



			I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.
		
Click to expand...

This is where I came in. In post no. 272 I gave reasons for thinking that:



			If the BEF persist with Greenwich Park, they are likely to demonstrate conclusively (to many they have done so already) that the equestrian events cannot be held in an urban park, that they really do cost a fortune, and that they are essentially the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful. 

That is, in choosing Greenwich Park and persisting with it, the BEF are likely to prove the very opposite of what Wishful thinks they are trying to prove.
		
Click to expand...

In post no. 286 I added



			It looks very much as if the BEF want the rest of the world to see a "typically English" event: restricted to the Establishment, hugely expensive, and held in an urban public park which has been "privatised" for four weeks for the purpose. And this feudal throwback is supposed to convince the IOC that eventing should be retained at the expense of Golf or Rugby Sevens?
		
Click to expand...

So it would be interesting to hear your "strong argument" which suggests that holding the equestrian events in London may be the _best possible_ chance of keeping Eventing in the Olympic programme. How, in particular, is it better than showing that the events can  be staged cheaply in the countryside (in an country estate, on a ranch, on a a golf course, ...) and that they can attract a large following (around 200,000 spectators for the XC)?


----------



## cefyl (1 August 2011)

LCH611 said:



			That's the spirit Bseage, move forward in a positive & open minded manner!

I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.

Curious why Lee Valley Country Park was not considered as Dane Rawlins in an old H&H article had mentioned it being an infinately more suitable and logical venue than Greenwich.  Don't know the area just wondering why.


----------



## Orwell (1 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Royal? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed,  Olympic standards are being compromised, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy the Princess Royal?

This sort of thing happened in the days of the Roman Empire and in pre-revolutionary France. But surely you are not suggesting that it is happening in 21st Century Britain?


----------



## cefyl (1 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Royal? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed,  Olympic standards are being compromised, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy the Princess Royal?

This sort of thing happened in the days of the Roman Empire and in pre-revolutionary France. But surely you are not suggesting that it is happening in 21st Century Britain?
		
Click to expand...

Err - who mentioned the Princess Royal???  Not me or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Sleighfarer (1 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			I thought that Princess Haya was the one who implied the Greenwich would "fix eventing in the Olympic programme" along with her the UK equine community had to like it or lump it statement that it was being held at Greenwich because she wanted it there full stop.

Curious why Lee Valley Country Park was not considered as Dane Rawlins in an old H&H article had mentioned it being an infinately more suitable and logical venue than Greenwich.  Don't know the area just wondering why.
		
Click to expand...

Lee Valley is not easy to get to on public transport.


----------



## cefyl (1 August 2011)

Seafarer said:



			Lee Valley is not easy to get to on public transport.
		
Click to expand...

And that was the only reason???


----------



## Orwell (1 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			Err - who mentioned the Princess Royal???  Not me or anyone else for that matter.
		
Click to expand...

Forgive me I thought that 'Princess Haya' was an irreverent reference to the Princess Royal. A Google search reveals that Princess Haya is the wife of the Prime Minister of the UAE, Ruler of Dubai, and daughter of the late King of Jordan. She has also been the President of the FEI since 2006. With this major correction, and my apologies to the Princess Royal, I repeat the questions of my last post. 

Are you seriously suggesting that the Olympic equestrian events are being held in Greenwich Park by Command of the Princess Haya? That the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed, Olympic standards are being compromised, horses and riders put at risk, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy Princess Haya?


----------



## cefyl (1 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			the Public are being cleared from their Park for two summers, a World Heritage Site is being abused, our national heritage is being destroyed, Olympic standards are being compromised, horses and riders put at risk, the idea of an "open Olympics" has been squashed, and a £60m windfall will be squandered, and all in order to satisfy Princess Haya?
		
Click to expand...

Don't you remember an article in H&H back around 2008 when the debate was getting heated about Greenwich and Princess H was recorded as saying "it will be at Greenwich like it or not".


----------



## Orwell (1 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			Don't you remember an article in H&H back around 2008 when the debate was getting heated about Greenwich and Princess H was recorded as saying "it will be at Greenwich like it or not".
		
Click to expand...

Thanks cefyl. I missed the article. If anyone has a detailed reference to it and can give the printed quotation from Princess Haya, it would be worthwhile posting here.

LCH611 said:


LCH611 said:



			I am not clear about who you think has said that holding it in London will "fix Eventing in the Olympic programme for the future"? I don't think anyone has said that will definitely happen, although I can see that there is a strong argument to suggest that holding it in London may be the best possible chance of doing so.
		
Click to expand...

Does LCH611 mean that the BEF supports the use of Greenwich Park, despite all the reasons for not doing so and the evidence against it provided by the Test Event, because Princess Haya ordered them to do so? Surely the BEF should be able to challenge the IEF? Surely what matters is not what the IEF say but how the IOC will judge next year's Olympic events?


----------



## bseage (1 August 2011)

LCH611 is just pushing the views of BE, BEF and H&H.  To quote H&H of 14 July 2011:

* 'If the only legacy of 2012 is nailing down equestrianism's place in the Olympic pantheon then it will have achieved something momentous' H&H.* Eventing Correspondent of H&H.

They miss the point.  Sailing is at Portland because they need SEA.  So logically eventing should be in the country because to be successful it needs COUNTRY.

Now how difficult is it to get your head around that?

On! On!


----------



## cefyl (1 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			Thanks cefyl. I missed the article. If anyone has a detailed reference to it and can give the printed quotation from Princess Haya, it would be worthwhile posting here.

QUOTE]

I can find the online short version but the full version was in print.  I don't keep back numbers anymore.  Maybe H&H would put the full version up?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## badattitude (1 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			Curious why Lee Valley Country Park was not considered as Dane Rawlins in an old H&H article had mentioned it being an infinately more suitable and logical venue than Greenwich.  Don't know the area just wondering why.
		
Click to expand...

Lee Bridge is no harder to get to than Greenwich in many ways abd already has an equestrian community. It was on one list of proposed sites but I believe it was discarded when they decided to have the BMX biking there, later moved elsewhere or something like that. It has much better road links being within minutes of the motorway, is closer to the Olympic Park  and adjacent to waste ground which no doubt could have been made use of to expand the site. I do not think the organisers even really considered the site to be honest.


----------



## LCH611 (1 August 2011)

bseage said:



			LCH611 is just pushing the views of BE, BEF and H&H.  To quote H&H of 14 July 2011:

!
		
Click to expand...

To be clear I am speaking only about my own views as thankfully I am able to draw my own conclusions from all the information available to me as opposed to merely considering the argument that suits me best, snatching at half truths and pronouncing them to be fact.

That is the first time I have seen that particular quote from the Eventing correspondent of H&H but as ever she seems to me to be well-informed.

I am however going to bow out of this debate as I am beginning to feel guilty that I am feeding the trolls!


----------



## bseage (2 August 2011)

Sorry to lose you LCH611 and a shame that you bow out on such a broad brush unfounded personal comment on those who disagree with your views.  

Hopefully, you will reflect on the views of those who like me support eventing every day of our lives (writing this before I go out and muck out my BE100 eventer) and just want to see a successful Olympic Event at a suitably challenging venue that also allows a high degree of audience participation and produces some sort of legacy in return for the £64million that will be spent.

That venue is not Greenwich.

All the best.  On! On!


----------



## bseage (2 August 2011)

Cefyl..the article was in H&H 29 August 2008

THE president of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) has warned that the status of equestrian sports within the Olympic movement is precarious. 
Princess Haya told H&H that despite the undoubtedly great sport and brilliant organisation of Hong Kong, there is no guarantee that horse sports can survive in the Olympics beyond 2012 &#8212; or even get that far &#8212; and could follow sports such as cricket and polo out of the Olympic door. 
"The FEI has a huge fight to even get to 2012," explained Princess Haya, who is also a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the FEI's first elected president. 
"The IOC have heard from our stakeholders and wrote to us about the set-up and presentation of dressage. 
"The popularity of dressage is abnormally low and there are complaints about judging and the make up of judging panels and committees," she said. "Anyone who thinks equestrian sports are secure for London is mistaken." 
"The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety and the way the dressage committee is working. 
"It could also be the end of show jumping as an Olympic sport, too, as they are unlikely to leave it on its own." 
The controversy at the Olympics last week, when four show jumping riders were suspended following positive dope tests on their horses, will not have helped boost the sport's image. 
Alluding to the eventing, Princess Haya said Mark Todd's comeback, the spirit shown by Mary King, the proliferation of new names and Mike Etherington-Smith's "super" course, were high points of the competition. 
"The amazing standard of dressage on the first day was great for the sport. And we have roped in a whole new audience from outside. 
"But walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough." 
The princess also urged the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games &#8212; and to be more welcoming. 
"I don't think any city has looked forward to a Games more than London. Everyone knows the sport is going to get the best possible platform. We [the FEI] see Greenwich as an equestrian Games," she said. "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see." 

The Princess regards herself as the FEI and in the same year forced the resignation of the full FEI Dressage Committee.  I get the impression that its Haya's way or no way.

On! On!


----------



## badattitude (2 August 2011)

And did I mention that the Lee Valley Park Authority is already hosting the canoeing and that in total they have 10'000 acres of land to choose from stretching from essex to central London........ compared to the paltry 145 acres of usable space in Greenwich. And horses already there to benefit from the legacy.  it even has the iconic view in some places but i suppose Princess Haya didn't fancy it!


----------



## Orwell (2 August 2011)

Thanks bseage for posting (no. 369) the extract from the article from H&H 29 August 2008. 

Princes Haya was, it seems, talking just after the Beijing Olympic equestrian events; which were held between 9-21 August, according to Wikipedia. 

She says that there were problems with the dressage committee, and concerns about the safety of the XC: "The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety ... walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough." 

She also _urged_ the British equestrian community to back Greenwich as the venue for the equestrian competition at the London 2012 Games &#8212; and to be more welcoming. ... "But the message we are hearing all over the world is that Britain doesn't want it, and the discord is sad to see." 

It seems me that  urging, even by the President of the IEF _and_ a member of the IOC, does not amount to commanding. Combine this with her concerns for safety and there is no reason why the BEF should not insist on moving the venue. If this is correct, then I am still at a loss to understand why the BEF don't do so. 

One reason I have heard is that the BEF will not move the events because of inertia or loss of face: having spent a lot of money and insisted that Greenwich is a good venue, it would be difficult for those in authority to be seen to be changing their minds. Nevertheless, if the right thing to do is to move the events (and I think that it clearly is on grounds of safety, universality, spectators and legacy), then they should do so. 

The only other reason that has been suggested to me for sticking with Greenwich is that the television companies and the sponsors insist on it; they want pretty pictures and they don't care about safety, or spectators, or legacy, or the future of Eventing as an Olympic sport. I suspect that this, and  related corporate interests (e.g. companies selling expensive hospitality packages) are the real reason why the events have not (yet) been moved from Greenwich. 

I am interested in hearing what people think of this suggestion. What I am trying to do at this point is to establish what exaclty is the case _for_  holding the events at Greenwich. I am trying to do so in order to give the pro-Greenwich arguments a fair hearing. I believe that the anti-Greenwich arguments are overwhelming, but I don't want to be accused of setting up and then demolisihing a straw man.  My problem with this programme is that _there don't seem to be any good arguments for Greenwich_.


----------



## bseage (2 August 2011)

Orwell...I also want to support my sport at the 2012 Olympics but can see no persuasive arguments in favour of Greenwich as the venue for the equitation events.  Just about workable for Dressage and Show Jumping, but a long way from suitable for 3DE.

After the test Event, Haya is quoted as saying 'the IEF test event was a success,.  So imagine she sees it that way, as a IEF event and so beyond the real influence of BEF or BE.

Other than providing the spectacular that track and field, swimming etc cannot provide and giving the sponsors ( who also sponsor and pressurise the riders) maximum exposure there are no arguments in support of 3DE at Greenwich.

I feel it makes as much sense as doing the sailing events on the Thames.  Sailing needs water, but for a successful event you need SEA....Eventing needs ground, but for a successful event you need COUNTRY.  

Surely the arguments supporting sailing at Portland would be the same as those supporting eventing at a recognised international venue adjacent, in as far as that is possible, to London.  (Badminton is closer to London than Portland) 

The argument being that for the Olympics a compromise venue and one at £64 million with absolutely no legacy is just not good enough.


----------



## CarolineB1962 (2 August 2011)

Well said bseage.  It really is not good enough but what can be done?


----------



## Wishful (2 August 2011)

bseage said:



			Orwell...I also want to support my sport at the 2012 Olympics but can see no persuasive arguments in favour of Greenwich as the venue for the equitation events.  Just about workable for Dressage and Show Jumping, but a long way from suitable for 3DE.

After the test Event, Haya is quoted as saying 'the IEF test event was a success,.  So imagine she sees it that way, as a IEF event and so beyond the real influence of BEF or BE.

Other than providing the spectacular that track and field, swimming etc cannot provide and giving the sponsors ( who also sponsor and pressurise the riders) maximum exposure there are no arguments in support of 3DE at Greenwich.

I feel it makes as much sense as doing the sailing events on the Thames.  Sailing needs water, but for a successful event you need SEA....Eventing needs ground, but for a successful event you need COUNTRY.  

Surely the arguments supporting sailing at Portland would be the same as those supporting eventing at a recognised international venue adjacent, in as far as that is possible, to London.  (Badminton is closer to London than Portland) 

The argument being that for the Olympics a compromise venue and one at £64 million with absolutely no legacy is just not good enough.
		
Click to expand...

Where would you have put the Olympic equestrian events then?  Can't think where we'd put a Kentucky or Aachen style venue in this country...

I would imagine there was a requirement that the equestrian venues were not already privately owned - that is not a problem for the sea and shore, which is all crown property.

Badminton would be massively unsuitable - the vast majority of the parking is around the course, which would be a massive issue for security for the Olympics.  The queues in and out are fairly epic with tradestands available (highly unlikely at the Olympics) and there are no non-car options for getting there.   The railway line it is nearest to (First Great Western at Chippenham) is more or less at capacity so running more trains is not an option (FGW would LOVE to operate more trains at peak times on that line - the track capacity doesn't exist (rolling stock could be found)).   Assuming a full train takes 2000 (guesswork here) to accomodate 50k spectators you'd need 25 trains arriving and departing chippenham within a 3 hour window (much earlier wouldn't be practicable or popular with spectators) - not realistic or reliable.  Assuming coaches take 70 people (big coaches, therefore entertaining on access roads), each train would take 30 coach loads.  Probably a 30 minute drive from Chippenham to Badminton, so 1 hour round trip per coach = massive logistical nightmare!

Obviously driving and parking would be more popular, but you'd be pretty well limited to the car parks well away from the track, stables etc because of security concerns - think that's basically charcoal clump and ice house - which would be marginal on capacity.


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

Wishful said:



			Where would you have put the Olympic equestrian events then? ... Badminton would be massively unsuitable
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that a cross-country event has to be held in a small public park in the middle of London because there is nowhere in the countryside to hold it. I find this difficult to believe. 

Badminton regularly caters for 100,000. That is, already, 50,000 more than can be admitted to Greenwich Park. Badminton is also surrounded by fields. Surely some of these could be used as car parks? Doing so would have the advantage of freeing more space at Badminton for spectators. 

The aim would be to admit as many young people as possible. Could they not camp in nearby fields and _walk_ to the venue?


----------



## Wishful (3 August 2011)

Badminton runs over parkland, the course and existing car parks use the available parkland.  The remainder of the Badminton estate is farmed - the fields which aren't already used for the event are generally in use for farming - of the arable variety, which are generally unsuitable for the parking of cars and the pitching of tents.  At this time of year the vast majority of fields are either in use for hay, crops or grazing, and none of these activities are really compatible with camping and parking.

The normal Badminton campsite is within the confines of the event, so wouldn't be available for security and ticketing reasons.

The countryside isn't just pretty open space, it is a working environment.

Where would the much vaunted legacy be if Badminton was chosen?

Permanent grandstand?- unwanted by the owner
XC fences?  Got our own thanks, unsuitable for Olympics as a little on the tough side.
XC Track? Got one, don't need another one.

Add in massively annoyed tenant farmers who would be frustrated if the only good haymaking weather was disrupted by masses of traffic for the event.

No legacy I can see.


----------



## bseage (3 August 2011)

Looking back to H&H 23 June 2011, Mark Phillips is quoted:

*'Are we lagging behind?  When you look at how the Americans have upgraded their facilities in Kentucky and the French at Fontainebleau, not to mention the Germans at Aachen, you cannot help wondering if we are getting a little left behind here.

We are all excited about going to Greenwich for the test event in a few weeks time, but for the Brits it will be a little poignant as the post Olympic legacy will be nothing like the facilities we are seeing elsewhere'*

We all know that there will be no legacy in return for an estimated and rising spend of £64million on an unsuitable venue...Greenwich.

How far would £64 million get us towards a national centre to rival the Americans, French and Germans?  Mark seems to be indicating that it would go a long way.  Could that centre be at an established quality 3DE venue?

Reasonable questions when £64 million of taxpayers money is on the line.

Greenwich is an unsuitable compromise.


----------



## Wishful (3 August 2011)

Where would we put this venue?

Badminton and Burghley are both privately owned stately homes - their owners will NOT want a national equestrian centre in their back garden - it would get in the way of the hunting!


----------



## Sleighfarer (3 August 2011)

cefyl said:



			And that was the only reason???
		
Click to expand...

I was supplying you with information about the area, which you said you didn't know. That is all.


----------



## bseage (3 August 2011)

The sailing community will walk away from the Olympics with a superb national sailing centre at Portland.  Surely, with £64 million available expressions of interest should have been called for to provide a national equitation centre?  I cannot see an established 3DE venue turning up even a blue blooded nose at that sort of investment.

What do BE and BEF do, if they lack the vision to grab this opportunity with both hands rather than accept the LOCOG view that it has to be an unsuitable venue as long as its in London.

Its a mess.  The test event was a farce in that it in no way replicated the Olympic event.  Tickets are only available to a selected few, a very lucky minority and those who can afford to pay £2k to Thomas Cook for a package.  A much loved Royal Park will be closed for months and the park is highly likely to be damaged.  An international heritage site will be closed with loss of tourist revenue.  There will be no legacy from a spend of over £64 million.

How much worse could it be?


----------



## teapot (3 August 2011)

bseage said:



			Looking back to H&H 23 June 2011, Mark Phillips is quoted:

*'Are we lagging behind?  When you look at how the Americans have upgraded their facilities in Kentucky and the French at Fontainebleau, not to mention the Germans at Aachen, you cannot help wondering if we are getting a little left behind here.*

Click to expand...

*

What Mark fails to mention though is that having some of the best facilities in the world doesn't always help performance. I've made this point before but the US failed miserably at their home WEG with regards to the eventing. The French and German performance will be seen at the Euros, especially the Germans on home soil (and they've just lost one of their best xc horses to a US rider)...

I'm all for a legacy, I really am, but I wish people would maybe appreciate that a.) space is lacking in some ways in the UK (think anyone who's been to Kentucky is bowled over by its sheer scale), b.) BEF may well be far more concerned with keeping Equestrianism in the Olympics so have said 'ok fine, we'll show you it can be done in a small, perhaps unsuitable venue' in order to strengthen the future of the sport, which on some levels needs doing. Only having events in the back garden of some country estate doesn't really help the 'accessibility' clause does it? c.) location would divide the horsey world big time as someone somewhere would be inconvenienced by getting there, d.) the Brits may well have bigger problems than facilities, especially with regards to show jumping. The eventers and now the dressage team seem to be producing the results under the current system, so why change something that's working? e.) Britain's known for its individual events, we don't have an Aachen in any way, instead we having individual events catering for the best of the best - Hickstead for sj, Badminton/Burghley for eventing, loads of known dressage venues, Olympia, Hoys, Windsor... Be a shame to lose that in return for having everything at the same place.*


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

Wishful said:



			... the fields which aren't already used for the event are generally in use for farming - of the arable variety, which are generally unsuitable for the parking of cars and the pitching of tents.  At this time of year the vast majority of fields are either in use for hay, crops or grazing, and none of these activities are really compatible with camping and parking.  ... Add in massively annoyed tenant farmers who would be frustrated if the only good haymaking weather was disrupted by masses of traffic for the event.
		
Click to expand...

I was expecting a reply of this sort. I'm sure that with a bit of effort, appropriate fields could be found and measures could (if necessary) be taken to make them suitable for camping or parking. The disturbance to local tenant farmers should be compared with the disturbance to those who would otherwise use Greenwich Park next summer (at least one million people) and the disruption to  (hundreds of thousands?, millions?) of local residents (from Greenwich and surrounding areas) caused by the increased traffic, exceptional measures, etc. 



Wishful said:



			Where would the much vaunted legacy be if Badminton was chosen?
		
Click to expand...

I think that there could be a movable _infrastructure_ legacy which could be used at many venues (stands, PA systems, large viewing screens, etc.). More importantly, there would be a _human_ legacy. As I said, Badminton regularly caters for 100,000 spectators 50,000 more than Greenwich. Moving the parking and campsite to nearby fields would mean that even more spectators could be accommodated. Especially young, keen, eventers who won't be able to get into Greenwich. The future of the sport lies with these people, and the Olympic Games should include them. If not the young, then who are the Games _for_?

There may also be better venues than Badminton. 

It may be too late to propose a permanent equestrian centre, but this is what the BEF and BE should have done to start with, rather than going along with the foolish idea of holding the events in Greenwich Park and simply squandering the Olympic windfall.


----------



## teapot (3 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			I was expecting a reply of this sort. I'm sure that with a bit of effort, appropriate fields could be found and measures could (if necessary) be taken to make them suitable for camping or parking. The disturbance to local tenant farmers should be compared with the disturbance to those who would otherwise use Greenwich Park next summer (at least one million people) and the disruption to  (hundreds of thousands?, millions?) of local residents (from Greenwich and surrounding areas) caused by the increased traffic, exceptional measures, etc.
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing a farmer's livelihood and need to farm to survive to that of a local resident who might have to queue for the DLR for a little longer, or not go for a walk around the part of the park THEY want to for what, less than a week's worth of Olympic level competition?

Jesus.


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

teapot said:



			Are you seriously comparing a farmer's livelihood and need to farm to survive to that of a local resident who might have to queue for the DLR for a little longer, or not go for a walk around the part of the park THEY want to for what, less than a week's worth of Olympic level competition?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that any farmer's livelihood needs to be threatened. 

Also, you seriously underestimate the impact on Greenwich Park and the locality. 

This year, the Main Lawns of the Park have been closed for three months in midsummer so that the stadium can be used for two days, and half of the rest of the Park was closed for three weeks in midsummer so that the riders could ride around it once. The Main Lawns are so-called because they are the most heavily used part of the park, for recreation and as a set of footpaths connecting the areas outside the Park walls. The elderly and the disabled, who cannot get up the hills, have been particularly badly affected  by this. The area is _still_ enclosed and the lawns are destroyed. And next year, the disturbance would be much greater (as a stadium 10 times as big is proposed) and the whole Park would be closed for 4 weeks. These measures affect millions of people, merely so that an unnecessary sporting event can be held. As you say "Jesus!".

As for the locality, people still need to sleep, to have somewhere to exercise and relax, and to get to work. And the livelihoods of local traders will also be affected. I have heard that some of them will not be able to trade, that others will have to trade for restricted or unusual hours,  and that many are worried by a potential lack of regular customers who will not be able to get to their shops. In the near future I intend to investigate this more thoroughly.


----------



## teapot (3 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			I don't think that any farmer's livelihood needs to be threatened.
		
Click to expand...

By proposing that if Badminton was used as a venue, local farming land could be used for parking and camping, you are threatening livelihoods. That land would have be to left fallow for a number of weeks before the event, and I can't see anyone wanting to park or camp directly onto muddy fields anyway.

I just don't get the attitude of wanting somewhere else to be used, a park, a country estate, another RP an allowing that land to be damaged or destroyed, but not Greenwich. 

Surely any parkland, whether royal park or private estate should warrant the same care and attention. Or do Greenwich residents only care about 'their' park...


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

teapot said:



			By proposing that if Badminton was used as a venue, local farming land could be used for parking and camping, you are threatening livelihoods. That land would have be to left fallow for a number of weeks before the event, and I can't see anyone wanting to park or camp directly onto muddy fields anyway.
		
Click to expand...

The land would be rented from the farmers and they would be paid handsomely. The fields would be chosen for their suitability as car parks and campsites, and they could easily be prepared beforehand, e.g. by laying down grass on campsites. 



teapot said:



			I just don't get the attitude of wanting somewhere else to be used, a park, a country estate, another RP an allowing that land to be damaged or destroyed, but not Greenwich. Surely any parkland, whether royal park or private estate should warrant the same care and attention. Or do Greenwich residents only care about 'their' park...
		
Click to expand...

At the risk of being repetitive, Greenwich Park is a very special place. It is a public park, a World Heritage Site and a national treasure. Over 4 million people visit it every year (I have seen the figure of 6 million). The ancient acid grasslands on Croom's Hill have already been defaced, and it may well be the case that they can never be restored. 

My suggestion, of using fields as car parks and campsites, would actually protect the parkland on the Badminton estate. A few fields would be affected for a few months. But they would just be ordinary fields. There is no comparison between them and Greenwich Park.


----------



## teapot (3 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			But they would just be ordinary fields.
		
Click to expand...

Tell that to the farmers...


----------



## bseage (3 August 2011)

I'm involved in eventing and just cannot accept that eventers would disregard the views of anyone over whose land we plan to ride.  We, eventers, do not own Greenwich Park.  If anyone does then its the residents of Greenwich.

If the park was the only and perfect venue for the Olympic 3DE then even in those circumstances I would hesitate to enforce it on a reluctant community.  But it is not the best venue and there are better ones.

So lobby everyone we can to get it changed. No audience, no legacy, a farce of a test event.  Greenwich Park is just so wrong!


----------



## Wishful (3 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			The land would be rented from the farmers and they would be paid handsomely. The fields would be chosen for their suitability as car parks and campsites, and they could easily be prepared beforehand, e.g. by laying down grass on campsites. 


At the risk of being repetitive, Greenwich Park is a very special place. It is a public park, a World Heritage Site and a national treasure. Over 4 million people visit it every year (I have seen the figure of 6 million). The ancient acid grasslands on Croom's Hill have already been defaced, and it may well be the case that they can never be restored. 

My suggestion, of using fields as car parks and campsites, would actually protect the parkland on the Badminton estate. A few fields would be affected for a few months. But they would just be ordinary fields. There is no comparison between them and Greenwich Park.
		
Click to expand...

This seems to give away the lack of knowledge about country/farming stuff...  The only type of ground that will "do" for camping and parking is established grassland (aka pasture/ ground for making hay).  Ground that has been ploughed recently would be horrible to camp on, it is pretty rough.  Parking might be entertaining...  The chosen land would have needed to be seeded months ago to have a chance of being usable as parking or camping land.

The parkland on the Badminton estate copes quite nicely with the existing event, which allows cars to be parked all around the course and people to camp within the boundaries.  The Olympics' special security requirements are what means that the time honoured arrangements won't be permitted.

The fields might well be "Ordinary" fields, but each farmer own or rents specific fields.  They can't just go and grow food for their animals/cash crops somewhere else because there is no somewhere else that actually belongs to them.   Greenwich Park is a special park, but there are other public parks with grass for people to walk in and play on (assuming that is even allowed) in the general vicinity.

Glastonbury is a completely different kettle of fish - it trashes the grass belonging to the farmer who runs the thing - he gets £££££££££ directly from the attendees and it is his choice to do it.

Early July is peak hay harvesting season - it is massively weather dependent and a field that is out of action for the season will make a massive dent in the farmer's forage stores - probably would lose 2-3 crops of hay through an event in July.  April and September are far better times.  I wouldn't fancy camping (or trying to camp) on a field that was only recently a crop field - the tent pegs probably wouldn't stay in, and it would be rather lumpy...


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

teapot said:



			BEF may well be far more concerned with keeping Equestrianism in the Olympics so have said 'ok fine, we'll show you it can be done in a small, perhaps unsuitable venue' in order to strengthen the future of the sport, which on some levels needs doing. Only having events in the back garden of some country estate doesn't really help the 'accessibility' clause does it?
		
Click to expand...

If this is the reason for the BEF choosing Greenwich Park, then it seems to me that they are going to prove the very opposite of that they are trying to prove. Please see my replies: to Wishful (24/7, No. 272), toffeesmarty (24/7, No. 278), Wishful (25/7, No. 281), teapot (25/7, No. 286), Wishful (25/7 No. 290), and teapot (26/07, No. 295).

On the particular matter of safety, remember the quote from Princess Haya in H&H after the last Olympics (see bseage's post, 2 August, No. 371):



			The IOC has very reasonable and legitimate concerns about eventing safety ... walking away and saying 'thank God nobody died,' isn't good enough.
		
Click to expand...

In choosing Greenwich Park, which on a good day is challenging for the most experienced riders and the best horses, and which on a bad day is potentially a death-trap for less experienced riders and weaker horses, it seems to me that the Sport's organising bodies are being negligent in their duty, and sacrificing the safety of riders and horses for the possibility (if it is not raining) of "spectacular" television pictures.


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

Wishful said:



			This seems to give away the lack of knowledge about country/farming stuff...  The only type of ground that will "do" for camping and parking is established grassland (aka pasture/ ground for making hay).  Ground that has been ploughed recently would be horrible to camp on, it is pretty rough.  Parking might be entertaining...  The chosen land would have needed to be seeded months ago to have a chance of being usable as parking or camping land.
		
Click to expand...

I am happy to admit that I am not a farmer. But my father was a specialist in agriculture and I have lived on a farm for a year or so, so I am not an entirely ignorant townie. In post No. 382 I did talk of appropriate fields and measures to make them suitable for purpose. Grass turf can be laid very quickly for campsites and some sort of temporary protective surface could be put down for car parking. 

I would be very surprised if there was any shortage of farmers who would be willing to rent their fields out for the purpose, provided that the price was right. In my experience, farmers tend to be unsentimental businessmen. They also tend to be patriotic, interested in country sports,  and to have social consciences.


----------



## badattitude (3 August 2011)

I must admit I am finding many of the posts on here show a striking lack of facts and many are from those who have entirely swallowed the party line. 
   Teapot, in effect what the British are demonstrating to the rest of the Olmpic community is that the United Kingdom, one of the worlds formost equestrian nations, is runnning an equestrian event at an unsuitable venue because it has a nice view, and spending untold milions (at the lst count 60 million) with absolutely no legancy at all to show for it. Even if milions decide to learn to ride, not one penny has actually  been spnt to improve any of London's existing facilities for equestrians. In fact much sympathy for them will be lost when the Blackwall Tunnel is closed as i doubt people will remember this is also to facilitate the transortation of the shooters. 
   Wishful, there was a list of venues drawn up, but LOCOG did not even bother to visit half of them. As I said earlier both Richmond and Lee Bridge both well with in London and could easily have been used. Lee Bridge is closer to the Olympic Village than Greenwich ( and Great Leighs racecourse in only a step away via a perfectly good dual carriageway)  and is already hosting the canoeing. Richmond could easliy be accessed by the riders using the river, which is the method that will be used to take the sailors to Eton. There are other green spaces in Lodon that could have been utilised and have not been.
  I do not believe that the venue will be changed now but all this syncopatic argument in favour of a venue that will almost certainly spell the end for the Olympic three day event is sickening. Wake up, the other Olympic nations do not want horses there on the whole, the cost of getting them to the next games will be astronomical and i suspect by 2020 at least one of the disciplines will be gone if not all three of them. Rio is planning on having all three but one can be dropped before that when the IOC have their London debrief thing.


----------



## Orwell (3 August 2011)

badattitude said:



			I do not believe that the venue will be changed now
		
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, there is no good _logistical_ reason why the venue could be changed; the equestrian events are probably among the easiest to move. As I and others have repeatedly argued, moving the venue would be in the interests of British eventing and would be the best chance of keeping eventing as an Olympic sport. 

It seems to me that the only real obstacle is the egos of those who run the sport. Can they be persuaded to change their minds? Or will those who you refer to as "sycophants" (I prefer to think of them as loyal but misguided followers) support them to the bitter end?

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
 Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
 Rode the six hundred.

(_The Charge of the Light Brigade_, Alfred Lord Tennyson)

A Wikipedia article helpfully adds:



			The futility of the action and its reckless bravery prompted the French Marshal Pierre Bosquet to state "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." ("It is magnificent, but it is not war.") He continued, in a rarely quoted phrase: "C'est de la folie" &#8212; "it is madness."
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Orwell (4 August 2011)

A minor correction to my last post (No. 393). It should, of course, begin: 

As far as I can see, there is no good _logistical_ reason why the venue could _not_ be changed; ...


----------



## cefyl (4 August 2011)

Orwell said:



			A minor correction to my last post (No. 393). It should, of course, begin: 

As far as I can see, there is no good _logistical_ reason why the venue could _not_ be changed; ...
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely none.

How many have waited for so so long for a UK Olympics?  And now we are kept out of even having a choice of what we can apply to watch.  Unbeliveable, but very, very, very sad.  The UK has an incredibly loyal support network of Equine sport spectators.  We do not ever expect as riders, (or hope) to attain to the level of excellence of our adored field, be it eventing, show jumping, dressage, vaulting, etc.  BUT the once in a lifetime chance to see it live, in person, at OUR Olympics has been swept aside in one fell swoop by Lord Coe et al because basically the venue is just NOT SUITABLE, and by a long shot, (about as far as Mars), not nearly enough capacity.  Many, many people have waited for years for this chance, and since the announcement of LONDON 2012 getting the vote still held onto hope.  Well, excuse me, but bugger that.  Nope, limited tickets, and not even apply for what you want. Just a lucky dip of take what you get.  Tough if all you really, really wanted, and yearned for was the Kur and you got 1st round team SJ.  What a cock up.  What a way to repay the loyalty of the UK equine community by shutting us out of our Olympics.  Lord Coe you do so NOT deserve your Knighthood.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (5 August 2011)

However many millions spent, loss of public amenity for months, smashed trees (in an area where every tree has Protected status), and now this mess







just for three days of riding round in circles for you.

More photos here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/sets/72157627231838949/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/sets/72157627355795046/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/sets/72157627360524472/


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (5 August 2011)

No wonder we have heard so little about the "new" equestrian centre - they want to put it on Metropolitan Open Land - http://tinyurl.com/3b866e5




			&#8220;They&#8217;re applying to themselves for permission to build on a nature reserve.&#8221;
		
Click to expand...

That is, Greenwich Council applying to itself for planning permission.

This is such a scandal.


----------



## Orwell (5 August 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			just for three days of riding round in circles
		
Click to expand...

I walked around the affected area this morning and was seized by an almost uncontrollable rage when seeing the damage done and reflecting that the Main Lawns have been closed for nearly three months in midsummer just for three days of, poorly attended, sport. 

The Olympic equestrian events need not be held in Greenwich Park; indeed, it would be better for everyone if they were held at an established venue.  As there is no need to hold the events in the Park, there is absolutely no justification for doing so. It is an outrageous abuse of an urban public park, a national treasure, and a World Heritage Site.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (7 August 2011)

Just imagine having to tackle a fence here and then having to hurry down the wet slope when competing for an Olympic medal. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/5993807717/in/set-72157627205236097/


----------



## teapot (7 August 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			Just imagine having to tackle a fence here and then having to hurry down the wet slope when competing for an Olympic medal. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_greenwich_park/5993807717/in/set-72157627205236097/

Click to expand...

If you look at OS maps of Gatcombe and Greenwich and compare the change in heights, Gatcombe Park has steeper parts of the xc course which they were going hell for leather over today on slippy ground compared to that of Greenwich. 

And trust me, the Open class at Gatcombe has a massively competitive feel to it as it's a big thing to have on the competition record and is run in reverse order of merit. There was a time when it was shown on the bbc too


----------



## Orwell (9 August 2011)

teapot said:



			Gatcombe Park has steeper parts of the xc course which they were going hell for leather over today on slippy ground.
		
Click to expand...

The course shown on the Gatcombe Park video looks pretty tame in comparison with Greenwich:

http://www.gatcombe-horse.co.uk/media_gallery.php

Greenwich Park is small and has unavoidable steep escarpments, there is also little opportunity to gallop. So less experienced riders and weaker horses  would struggle. And if the course was wet it would be dangerous even for the most experienced riders and the best horses.

To make matters worse it seems to me that safety has been deliberately compromised in order to produce spectacular television pictures. Fence 5 is sited where it is in order to produce television pictures of horses jumping against the backdrop of Canary Wharf.  The course then heads straight down the escarpment. This is so steep that it was thought necessary to install a high-friction strip consisting of gravel and stone chips. It seems to me that this is an admission that the slope is too steep. It also introduces a new danger; a horse or rider falling on this surface would be badly injured. There is not really room to turn after the fence and it would be difficult to do so. Even then, a more gentle route down the slope would involve a considerable detour. 

Greenwich Park covers about 180 acres and much of it is reserved (occupied by buildings, features such as ponds and deer parks, protected areas, etc.). So it is impossible to design a satisfactory Olympic cross-country course for it; especially if you consider the criterion of Universality. An Olympic course should both challenge the best _and_ allow the rest to compete credibly. 

In contrast, it seems that it would be easy to design an Olympic course for Gatcombe Park. According to Wikipedia, 



			The Gatcombe Estate now covers around 730 acres (3.0 km2), of which 200 acres (0.81 km2) are woodland, and includes a lake containing brown trout. 
There are considerable stabling facilities, including a new stable block.
		
Click to expand...

According to the Gatcombe video they regularly cater for 40,000 spectators and, on the basis of the video, it seems that many more could easily be accommodated. The temporary  stadium proposed for Greenwich could equally be erected at Gatcombe. These considerations suggest that Gatcombe Park would make an excellent venue for the Olympic equestrian events. Perhaps it should be considered as a serious alternative to Badminton?


----------



## bseage (9 August 2011)

Rachel & Orwell  I feel angry and really ashamed that 'eventing' a sport I have been involved in for over 30 years has left Greenwich Royal park in such a disgusting and clearly damaged state.  I lived in Greenwich for a year in the mid 70's and just loved the park.  I have sent links to the very worrying photos you have posted to a member of the GB 3DE team and asked if they really are happy to be associated with this.  I await their reply.

Meanwhile, surely there is now evidence that NOGOE can use to get an injunction to stop this criminal damage at a site that is hugely important nationally and internationally and which is regarded by very many involved in 3DE as totally unsuitable for an Olympic 3DE.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 August 2011)

bseage said:



			Rachel & Orwell  I feel angry and really ashamed that 'eventing' a sport I have been involved in for over 30 years has left Greenwich Royal park in such a disgusting and clearly damaged state.  I lived in Greenwich for a year in the mid 70's and just loved the park.  I have sent links to the very worrying photos you have posted to a member of the GB 3DE team and asked if they really are happy to be associated with this.  I await their reply.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, bseage.  Apologies for the delay in responding - a bit preoccupied with the rioting and looting in London last week which came a bit close for comfort - the people looting the nearby retail park used our neighbourhood as an "over flow" car park.



bseage said:



			Meanwhile, surely there is now evidence that NOGOE can use to get an injunction to stop this criminal damage at a site that is hugely important nationally and internationally and which is regarded by very many involved in 3DE as totally unsuitable for an Olympic 3DE.
		
Click to expand...

I gather that the only legal option open to us is to apply for a judicial review, and although we have not ruled that out we would have to do some fund-raising first.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 August 2011)

In case anyone is interested, I have rounded up some links about the looting and fire-setting in the centre of Woolwich - Olympic shooting venue just up the hill - and Charlton (between Woolwich and Greenwich).

According to the Met police, 22 of London's 32 boroughs saw serious disorder on Monday night.  Woolwich was hit, too.  Last week, the devastation in the centre of Woolwich evoked parts of Baghdad in mid-2003.  Businesses destroyed, one building collapsed into the street after being set on fire, glass on the street, banks boarded up, burned out police car.  But the mainstream media have almost completely ignored Woolwich.

Here are some photos taken by the local councillor for Eltham:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54672273@N05/sets/72157627277638855/

and his account of the "hidden riot" (hidden by the media)

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/08/woolwich-the-hidden-riot.html

Another set of photos of the damage done last week in Woolwich

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39143991@N03/sets/72157627279431597/

Lastly, amateur film footage of the firing of the Great Harry pub by a handful of black and white youths, and a bit showing riot police being pushed back because there are not enough of them:

http://www.citizenside.com/embed.swf?file=v/287227.flv&autostart=true&skin=http://www.citizenside.com/skin.swf

(This was broadcast on Sky but wrongly captioned as, first, Liverpool, and then as Bristol.)

_Edited to add:_ Greenwich Park was flooded with police on Monday afternoon, after a tip off about trouble expected at 3.00pm to one of the local traders' associations, and others said that youths were gathering in the Park.  It might have been an innocent group of youths but, anyway, all but one or two businesses closed early, at 2.00pm that day, and that probably did save them from Woolwich's fate.  I am sure that LOCOG was desperate to ensure that there were no tv pictures of "hoodies" and violence in the very same venue from which pictures of equestrians were broadcast only a month ago.

Here is an eye-witness account of some of the looting by someone who lives about two hundred yards away from where I live.

http://charltonchampion.co.uk/2011/08/14/charlton%E2%80%99s-night-of-looting-confessions-of-a-curtain-twitcher/


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (14 August 2011)

Our local MP, in a letter to a constituent this past week, claims that the Olympics coming to Greenwich has resulted in a new gymnasium at the Thomas Tallis School 

This was a Building Schools for the Future project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Schools_for_the_Future
http://www.brogangroup.com/1/project/242/


----------



## Sleighfarer (15 August 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			In case anyone is interested, I have rounded up some links about the looting and fire-setting in the centre of Woolwich - Olympic shooting venue just up the hill - and Charlton (between Woolwich and Greenwich).

According to the Met police, 22 of London's 32 boroughs saw serious disorder on Monday night.  Woolwich was hit, too.  Last week, the devastation in the centre of Woolwich evoked parts of Baghdad in mid-2003.  Businesses destroyed, one building collapsed into the street after being set on fire, glass on the street, banks boarded up, burned out police car.  But the mainstream media have almost completely ignored Woolwich.

Here are some photos taken by the local councillor for Eltham:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54672273@N05/sets/72157627277638855/

and his account of the "hidden riot" (hidden by the media)

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/08/woolwich-the-hidden-riot.html

Another set of photos of the damage done last week in Woolwich

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39143991@N03/sets/72157627279431597/

Lastly, amateur film footage of the firing of the Great Harry pub by a handful of black and white youths, and a bit showing riot police being pushed back because there are not enough of them:

http://www.citizenside.com/embed.swf?file=v/287227.flv&autostart=true&skin=http://www.citizenside.com/skin.swf

(This was broadcast on Sky but wrongly captioned as, first, Liverpool, and then as Bristol.)

_Edited to add:_ Greenwich Park was flooded with police on Monday afternoon, after a tip off about trouble expected at 3.00pm to one of the local traders' associations, and others said that youths were gathering in the Park.  It might have been an innocent group of youths but, anyway, all but one or two businesses closed early, at 2.00pm that day, and that probably did save them from Woolwich's fate.  I am sure that LOCOG was desperate to ensure that there were no tv pictures of "hoodies" and violence in the very same venue from which pictures of equestrians were broadcast only a month ago.

Here is an eye-witness account of some of the looting by someone who lives about two hundred yards away from where I live.

http://charltonchampion.co.uk/2011/08/14/charlton%E2%80%99s-night-of-looting-confessions-of-a-curtain-twitcher/

Click to expand...

There were very few TV crews anywhere because it was far too dangerous for them. Both the BBC and Sky had to pull their reporters and cameramen out of Tottenham in the early hours of Sunday morning after they were threatened. Almost all the footage came from amateurs or CCTV, apart from Clapham where an actual Sky reporter happened to live and was on the scene. 

I saw Woolwich mentioned several times on the news; there were places that didn't make the list at all. A woman on the bus told me how frightened she'd been trying to get home to Catford on Monday after all the buses were stopped; she'd had to dodge flying missiles to get to her house. She also told me that Woolwich was completely trashed because she'd just come from there. 

I very much doubt anybody was giving much thought to how Greenwhich park would appear on TV.


----------



## cefyl (15 August 2011)

Maybe they need to rethink several of the Olympic locations in London folowing the fiasco surrounding the cycle test event.  If they think it caused chaos now during a "normal" weekend what the hell do the origanisers think it will be like actually in 2012!  

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/olympic-cycle-traffic-chaos-sparks-review-101650081.html


----------



## badattitude (15 August 2011)

One assumes that equestrians do not know that cycling will result in the closure of Richmond Park to the indigenous horse population for at least two days. The local stables do not all have access to arena space and rely totally on hacking in the park to excercise. No alternative has been ofered to them nor any compensation for the loss of business. One supposes the horses will have to stay in their stables if surrounding roads are also closed. 
  Also once again Rachel Marwood has made some accurate statements. The businesses around Greenwich including those in Trafagar Road and Romsey Road were indeed evacuated early one day due to advance notice of a riot. I know because I was in one at the time!


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (16 August 2011)

In a letter to one of his constituents, the MP for Greenwich and Woolwich has described £60 million for the equestrian events "value for money".

The Greenwich Park venue is the most expensive Olympic venue - and there will be nothing left to show for £60 million.  That is not value for money.  Very likely we will be looking at £100 million by next year.

There is no oversight.  How could £6 million (in the London Bid) grow to £60 million plus, and no one says: wait a minute, think what we could do with this amount of money at more suitable site?  Where's the oversight?  Where are the audits?


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (17 August 2011)

After _The Mercury_ (south London newspaper) printed an article about how Greenwich Council is, apparently, going to apply to itself for permission to build this equestrian centre at Shooters Hill, south-east London - being trumpeted as Olympic legacy - on a nature reserve and Metropolitan Land, the paper received masses of letters protesting against it.  A page of letters is printed in this week's (17 August 2011) Mercury, see page 11

(http://www.mercury-today.co.uk/www.mercury-today.co.uk 

click on the Greenwich Mercury in the carousel at the top of the home page and the current edition will come up.  You can spool through the pages, and also click on "archive" to get back editions.

I gather that there were so many letters that more of them will be published in next week's edition as well.  

The article that prompted the letters is here

http://www.mercury-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=28459&headline=Opposition%20to%20equestrian%20centre%20grows


----------



## badattitude (18 August 2011)

Rachel, I believe this is just another smoke and mirrors type stunt from LOCOG because it is not feasible for Olympic horses to use an arena there without a secure compound for them to be stabled. It is too far and too dangerous to hack there from either the main site or the overfill site on the Circus Field. I cannot believe that the goverment/local authority will not be challenged in court if they pursue this plan in the face of opposition and also the laws protecting the site and therefore the timeframe is heavily against them with the Games only a year away. The Shooters Hill centre has been much talked about but in order to run a business there, they will neeed more than an arena and also more changes in the local law to allow horses to hack on that part of the common. I do not believe this is a real plan, just something to dangle in front of the public who will be then told there is no legacy because the locals objected.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (18 August 2011)

badattitude said:



			Rachel, I believe this is just another smoke and mirrors type stunt from LOCOG because it is not feasible for Olympic horses to use an arena there without a secure compound for them to be stabled. It is too far and too dangerous to hack there from either the main site or the overfill site on the Circus Field.
		
Click to expand...

Somehow, I had missed that detail: viz that the proposed Shooters Hill equestrian centre was meant to provide facilities for the Olympics events in 2012.  I thought that LOCOG/Greenwich Council just wanted it built with Olympics money and called Olympics legacy.

You are right, too, about it being too far and too dangerous to hack to/from Greenwich Park/Circus Field to that bit of Shooters Hill.  It's blumming miles away.  It's quite a trek for a human being, on a bus (I sometimes visit the Thomson garden centre that is next door to the proposed equestrian centre site).



badattitude said:



			I do not believe this is a real plan, just something to dangle in front of the public who will be then told there is no legacy because the locals objected.
		
Click to expand...

The MP for Greenwich and Woolwich is still telling people (eg letter of 10 August 2011 to resident of Greenwich) that among the "tangible benefits the Olympics will bring ... a new equestrian centre for the borough, probably at Woodlands Farm in Shooters Hill".  Spin spin spin.


----------



## bseage (18 August 2011)

It is just a desperate attempt to either create some sort of post olympic legacy or to blame those who sensibly oppose it.  That would be the cynical position of Coe & co and they will have used their influence to get the local MP on side.  

I fear the 3DE world regards it as a done deal and there is no way back from Greenwich.  A Burghley 3DE fence judge stayed with us last week and I showed her the awful photos of the damage done during the test event and the clean up after.

She said....'But Burghley looks just as bad in wet weather'  ignoring totally that Greenwich is a Royal Park, a World Heritage Site, covered by an act of parliament that prohibits closing the park to the public and bans horse riding and is one of the few green spaces available to local people.  When I explained the situation she just said, ' well its too late to change it now'!

Greenwich is a totally unsuitable site for an olympic 3DE but the power lies with LOCOG and the sponsors who want a spectacular that track and field just does not provide.  So, if you are looking for donations for the judicial review fund let me know.

The campaign should go viral and have a page on UTube and FaceBook and a page on just giving for the donations.  Starting a charity called *Save Greenwich Royal Park *would take just a day and shorter if the word Royal is left out as one has to get permission to use it in the name of a charity, company etc..


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (23 August 2011)

Report on H&H web site posted today

New equestrian centre to form London's 2012 Olympic legacy
Greenwich Park, host of the London 2012 Equestrian events
Charlotte White, H&H acting news editor
23 August, 2011

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/309263.html




			The British Equestrian Federation (BEF) plans to invest £250,000 in a new training and rehabilitation centre in south-east London ... Greenwich Council has applied to build on council-owned land at Shooters Hill on the Greenwich and Bexley borough borders.
		
Click to expand...

Things to note:

1.  The site is Metropolitan Open Land, a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (SBINC), and an Area of Special Character of Metropolitan Importance.

2.  The proposed development is not appropriate, when assessed by the Council's own Unitary Development Plan - sections SO2 and SO4 - 




			SO2 To safeguard, improve and enhance the character of existing public and private open space (Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, Community Open Space, small open spaces) that fulfil a specific function for the local and wider community and encourage full use of their facilities. 

SO4 Open spaces of strategic importance (Metropolitan Open Land) will be maintained and their character safeguarded from built development and enhanced as appropriate.  The only uses considered to be generally appropriate within MOL are: 

  i. Public and private open space, sportsgrounds and playing fields. 
  ii. Agriculture, woodlands and orchards. 
  iii. Open water features. 
  iv Golf courses. 
  v. Allotments. 
  vi. Large grounds attached to educational facilities and institutions. 
  vii. Cemeteries and associated crematoria. 
  viii Nature conservation.
		
Click to expand...

4. The proposed development is much larger than what is built on the site at present ("a building used as a day centre for adults with learning difficulties") and therefore inappropriate, and there is already a High Court/Court of Appeal decision that a local authority had misapplied the Metropolitan Open Land policy which seems relevant to this planning application by Greenwich Council to itself (reference 11/1765/E):

_R (on the application of Heath and Hampstead Society) v Camden London Borough Council [2007] EWHC 977 (Admin)_

upheld by the Court of Appeal

_The Queen on the application of Heath & Hampstead Society and Alex & Thalis Vlachos and London Borough of Camden [2008] EWCA Civ 193. _

*     *     *  

There has been a huge public outcry against this proposal.  Letters were published in last week's _Mercury_, and more will be published in tomorrow's edition.

*     *     *

Lastly: this isn't about a legacy, it is about 2012.  If you look at the plans, you will find laboratories and isolation boxes, an equine swimming pool and on-site farrier (none of which an ordinary riding school would use).  LOCOG must be desperate, with less than a year to go, to build the quarantine station for horses from Africa and South America.

Legacy my foot.


----------



## watertray53 (23 August 2011)

Ok so who was watching BBC 2 this evening? The programme was 2012.....catch it on the
I player if you can, I think the writers could have got their material from this thread !


----------



## SusannaF (24 August 2011)

Appropos of nothing much, but it's now saying that I started this thread, which I didn't. Weird. Have two (neither of which I kicked off) been run together?


----------



## bseage (24 August 2011)

Read the article reviewed by Rachel ( H&H 18 August 2011 page 8) and just fell about laughing!  How can H&H regurgitate this rubbish.  If it wants to run advertising for LOCOG then I hope they charge them the going rate.  Its very second class journalism and unquestioningly follows the LOCOG party line.

It does sound like an isolation unit and how telling that *' The College was unable to comment on the plans', but LOCOG say 'It will be a brilliant facility' * Missed the BBC2 programme but just hope there was a balanced view of the situation at Greenwich and not more LOCOG propaganda.


----------



## bseage (24 August 2011)

Tony Ward!  Brilliant and a much more balanced view than that in the H&H.  We don't get the programme here in deepest Cornwall. Shame really.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (24 August 2011)

bseage said:



			Missed the BBC2 programme but just hope there was a balanced view of the situation at Greenwich and not more LOCOG propaganda.
		
Click to expand...

It is a repeat of episode 6 - the one that starts with a pile of horse manure being discovered on the pavement outside the offices - the filming of that first series predates this H&H forum thread by about a year.


----------



## Mithras (25 August 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			People who are directly affected - by massive lorries passing their front doors (the pavements are very narrow)...
Well, children would not have written.  People whose first language is not English would not have written (there are a lot of these in Greenwich, people from Somalia, Turkey, Bosnia, the Indian sub-continent)...
In Essex, Sally Gunnell's parents have just had to abandon their plans to have a caravan park on their farm near Chigwell - after only 600 letters were received by the local authority.  ...
Sounds as if democracy is alive and well in Essex.  Unlike Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmn.  Localisation of national issues, obsession, objectivism, bringing in all possible angles, however remotely connected, bit of name dropping.

I'm not that worked up either way.  But as a taxpayer in the UK, I do believe I have as much right to see the Olympics in my capital city and to Greenwich Park as does a tourist to come and crowd the streets of the city I live in for a festival each year, or clogging up my local roads, because I live in a tourist destination.  If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't live there.  In fact, if I couldn't cope with other people, I'd make damned well sure I lived in large country estate that I control to my exact demands.

In fact, if it bothered me as much as it does you, I would be buying up cheap properties at auction and combining their gardens so as to create my own park, or campaigning against the taking over by new build housing estates of virtually all building in this country, and the subsequent social problems that policy creates.

There comes a point when obsessive arguing against the national interest becomes sociopathic.


----------



## Mithras (25 August 2011)

teapot said:



			If you look at OS maps of Gatcombe and Greenwich and compare the change in heights, Gatcombe Park has steeper parts of the xc course which they were going hell for leather over today on slippy ground compared to that of Greenwich.
		
Click to expand...

And certainly at Blair.  God forbid that people, never mind the likes of our elite eventers still indulge in the old fashioned art of testing their riding skills in the Highlands of Scotland!

What a pity that so many people think that whinging and moaning and criticising is preferable to actually working to achieve something.  Yes, you can pick flaws in anything (multiple flaws if you are obsessed enough), yes, some things about the choice of Greenwich are not ideal.  But surely the whole idea of having it there is to site the equestrian sports right in the centre of things, and not out on a limb?  And wouldn't it be great if so many people who normally never experience such sports could widen their experience by this choice of venue?

Sadly, some people are never destined to get as much out of their lives as they could do with a slightly more open mind.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (25 August 2011)

Mithras said:



			Hmmn.  Localisation of national issues, obsession, objectivism, bringing in all possible angles, however remotely connected, bit of name dropping.
		
Click to expand...

You've never heard that all politics is local?  As for the rest of this paragraph - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.



Mithras said:



			I'm not that worked up either way.  But as a taxpayer in the UK, I do believe I have as much right to see the Olympics in my capital city
		
Click to expand...

And your rights count more than anyone else's rights?  I don't think so.



Mithras said:



			If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't live there.  In fact, if I couldn't cope with other people, I'd make damned well sure I lived in large country estate that I control to my exact demands.
		
Click to expand...

Are you for real?  I actually live half an hour's walk from Greenwich Park but life for everyone in Greenwich is going to be massively disrupted, and travelling pretty well insufferable, just for an event that does not have much to do now with sporting excellence.  As for recommending living in a large country estate: well, if you have a spare one about your person that you could let me have, that would be most acceptable.



Mithras said:



			In fact, if it bothered me as much as it does you, I would be buying up cheap properties at auction and combining their gardens so as to create my own park, or campaigning against the taking over by new build housing estates of virtually all building in this country, and the subsequent social problems that policy creates.
		
Click to expand...

What an incredibly dull and limited outlook you seem to have.



Mithras said:



			There comes a point when obsessive arguing against the national interest becomes sociopathic.
		
Click to expand...

It is not in the national interest to trash an ancient park, destroy rare habitat, threaten protected species, oppress local businesses, close a site that is one of the few places where young people can socialise safely, and deprive people who live in cramped flats of the green and open space.  Just so that a handful of people can ride round in circles for 17 days - when they can do that at a more appropriate venue.


----------



## Rachel Mawhood (25 August 2011)

Mithras said:



			surely the whole idea of having it there is to site the equestrian sports right in the centre of things, and not out on a limb?  And wouldn't it be great if so many people who normally never experience such sports could widen their experience by this choice of venue?
		
Click to expand...

Well, that's the British Equestrian Federation's view - they even portrayed the Park as twice as large as it actually is, in the London Bid, all to get it "in the centre of things".  Idiots.



Mithras said:



			Sadly, some people are never destined to get as much out of their lives as they could do with a slightly more open mind.
		
Click to expand...

You know nothing about me but, from what you have written here, your life and outlook sounds awfully circumscribed - and rather cruel towards others less fortunate than yourself.


----------



## Mithras (25 August 2011)

Rachel Mawhood said:



			You've never heard that all politics is local?  As for the rest of this paragraph - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And your rights count more than anyone else's rights?  I don't think so.

Are you for real?
		
Click to expand...

etc..  

To be honest, you are now beginning to sound like a child who is making up whatever story fits best.

I can't say your replies have convinced me of anything other than your possession of an unfortunate psychological condition.

I am not saying that people with views similar to your own have no credibility.  Just that with your obsessive approach, you are actually beginning to be detrimental to their credibility.


----------



## teapot (25 August 2011)

I had a Greenwich resident at work earlier this week and we got chatting (well I actually asked) about how she felt with regards to the use of the park, it being closed for so long, potential damage etc. 

She was very honest and open when she said that 'whilst the damage/potential damage must be contained & controlled in a detailed way, if it means Greenwich gets a lick of paint, some nice publicity on the news, the world's attention on the area then it's a very good thing'. She also went onto say that 'those small number who are determined with their 'NIMBY' approach to protest against the Olympics in the park are being incredibly short sighted'.

I thought it was a very interesting reply...


----------



## bseage (26 August 2011)

Surely it is not obsessive to consistently present valid reasons why Greenwich Royal Park is not a suitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.  Of course 3DE should be at the centre of the Olympics and being central would mean that it is welcomed by the residents of the area in which it takes place, would leave a lasting legacy for the estimated £64m it will cost, is accessible to a large number of 3DE supporters, does not damage the environment, and is  as safe as such a challenge can be for the horses.  

Greenwich meets none of these very reasonable requirements.  Sailing is at Portland because it needs sea and wind to be a success.  Some of the arguments deployed in favour of having 3DE at Greenwich would also, in terms of centrality, support having sailing in the Pool of London part of the Thames which has water and the occasional breeze. But just as sailing needs sea and wind and the sailors have not compromised on this, 3DE needs country and a tried and tested course, but BE, BEF and H&H have chosen to accept a venue that is a very unsatisfactory compromise.

As an owner of an event horse and past eventer, I support those who consistently and as is mainly the case, reasonably, point out that using Greenwich Royal Park for the Olympic 3DE is for many reasons a very bad compromise.


----------



## Mithras (26 August 2011)

bseage said:



			Surely it is not obsessive to consistently present valid reasons why Greenwich Royal Park is not a suitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.  Of course 3DE should be at the centre of the Olympics and being central would mean that it is welcomed by the residents of the area in which it takes place, would leave a lasting legacy for the estimated £64m it will cost, is accessible to a large number of 3DE supporters, does not damage the environment, and is  as safe as such a challenge can be for the horses.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the physical "legacy" is the only part of the legacy effect (itself only a small part of a greater whole) - the number of our Olympic hopefuls who testament to having been inspired to taking up their particular discipline by watching their fellow countrymen competing in person or by just seeing them on tv is huge.  I'm thinking of Jenny Meadows, Paula Radcliffe and Jess Ennis, but there are undoubetedly many more. 

Rather than being elitist in siting the event in Greenwich, it is surely the opposite.  Imagine if even one child watching the event is inspired to take up equestrian sport, even in a non-competitive capacity.  That to me, is worth far more than inconveniencing someone's drive to Waitrose.



bseage said:



			As an owner of an event horse and past eventer, I support those who consistently and as is mainly the case, reasonably, point out that using Greenwich Royal Park for the Olympic 3DE is for many reasons a very bad compromise.
		
Click to expand...

Any venue is going to be a compromise to some extent though.  If you site it somewhere like Badminton, it will be out on a limb and do you really think some of the Olympic nations are capable of going round Badminton safely?

My obsessive comment was directed specifically at Ms Mawhood.  I have to say there is something about her posts, and their scattergun, bring anything in, approach that speaks to me of a hatred and despising of anyone who disagrees with her.  She lost me early on in her argument in an academic sense when she complained, in one vein, of the elitist aspects of eventing, and in another used Sally Gunnell's parents' planning application refusal as an example of "lack of fair play" - as if the general readership, such as myself, will be swayed by a bit of name dropping, due to our lack of understanding of the subject.  I am sure plenty of Joe Bloggs have had their planning applications turned down, so why specifically mention Sally Gunnell's parents?

I actually think people like her are quite harmful for society.  She masks her dislike of anyone who disagrees with her opinions behind increasingly strong rhetoric, seemingly based on the notion that he who shouts the loudest wins.  I actually find it staringly obvious that she cares not one jot for most of the interests she brings in to support her cause, and I find her rather fake.  Her main interest is herself, her own inconvenience and how much she can impose her will on others.

Can I just point out that right now, Glasgow City Centre is closed for the filming of a Brad Pitt zombie film, and has been for the past week?  I have heard no adverse comments about it at all.  Likewise, Edinburgh City Centre is a nightmare for local residents for the month of August every year - but theres no movement to ban the Edinburgh Festival!

Go to France, The Netherlands, Belgium and you will find towns closed down for local festivals, cycling races, triathlons and so on.  It works because the community works together to appreciate the benefits that such minor inconveniences bring.  Greenwich doesn't have many of the events that rural life has to bring communities together, and I find it sad that it seems to be represented by people who put their own alleged "right" not to be mildly inconvenienced during a special national event before any national or community benefit.

Its also a very urban view, indicative of a greater loss of culture, that labels equestrian events wrong because they are elitist.  On that reckoning, any sporting event is elitist.  Yet the social benefits of sport and indeed involvement with animals for the underprivileged are immense.  I actually think it is elitist for some big mouthed NIMBY to try to stop it.

Anyway, she misunderstands our history and culture if you think Greenwich Park should be preserved as an environmental icon in its current state, free from any of the influences which shaped its current state over the last centuries.  This would be changing its historical function over the last 1200 years - it never has been a sterile, controlled environment, and if it were, dogs would be banned.  I'm not even 100% British, but even I am aware that its not a particularly British cultural trait to have sterile parks that never revert to anything but the most sedate, urban usages - we quite like our parks to be practical and useful.  Considering horses were used for transport in this country during the majority of its life as a royal park, plenty of horse poos will already have fallen upon it over the years!


----------



## bseage (26 August 2011)

Its a drenchingly wet day here in Cornwall and I seem to be welded to my computer when I should be outdoors!  

We all make our points in different ways and illustrating the absurd inequalities local government produces in its reactions to the views of its residents does tend to indicate that the views of some of the residents of Greenwich are being ignored.  I cannot see that there is anything in having the 3DE foisted on them that benefits the people of Greenwich.  There will be months of disruption as the course is built and the Park is closed.  Afterwards, if the test event is anything to go by, the Park will be left in a damaged state.

But apart from the damage and disruption on the 3 days, the spectators will arrive daily, stay on site, be catered for on site, shop on site and at the end of each day struggle away to their accommodation which is very unlikely to be in Greenwich.  I cannot see them putting much money behind the tills of any of the businesses in Greenwich.  How could they when they will be kept on site for security reasons and all their needs will be met on site.

The catering on site will be provided by the usual people who already do Badminton, Burghley etc.  The trade stands will be Rolex and Armani rather than Greenwich High Street.

I do not question the motives of those who contribute to this debate and as far as I can see, Rachel generally presents arguments supported by facts and the occasional colourful illustration, and why not.  I find her arguments supporting the view that Greenwich, for very many reasons, is an unacceptable venue for an Olympic 3DE compelling and will continue to support that view.

What worries me is that the debate is narrowing and all of my eventing chums just accept that Greenwich *( BMX Course, Not the terrain I'd choose, to quote just two of the riders at the test event)* is a done deal.  That the total lack of legacy, the views of the people of Greenwich, the scope for damage to the park are being ignored by FEI, BE, BEF and H&H is just plain wrong and will in the longer term damage the reputation of Eventing.

So, rock on Rachel.  I agree that Greenwich is an unsuitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.


----------



## watertray53 (26 August 2011)

What worries me is that the debate is narrowing and all of my eventing chums just accept that Greenwich ( BMX Course, Not the terrain I'd choose, to quote just two of the riders at the test event) is a done deal. That the total lack of legacy, the views of the people of Greenwich, the scope for damage to the park are being ignored by FEI, BE, BEF and H&H is just plain wrong and will in the longer term damage the reputation of Eventing.

So, rock on Rachel. I agree that Greenwich is an unsuitable venue for an Olympic 3 Day Event.

Bravo bseage! Well said!


----------



## Rambo (26 August 2011)

What you all seem to be forgetting is that Greenwich is host to ALL the equestrian disciplines....Dressage, Eventing, Showjumping and Modern Pentathlon. All the arguments above seem to concern the 3DE. What you seem to ignore is that the Showjumping (and therefore Modern Pentathlon) and Dressage are completely transportable! The Global Champions Tour moves from major city to major city every couple of weeks. It fits in anywhere. The cross-country phase of the 3DE is a relatively minor


----------



## Rambo (26 August 2011)

Part of the whole show.

Get over it, the grass will recover, you will get 'your' park back. Someone, somewhere, with greater vision than you has decided that Greenwich is the right venue for the games. Make the most of the opportunity that you have been gifted.


----------



## bseage (27 August 2011)

Good old RAMBO.  6700 posts, thats around 3 a day since 2005 and I hope they are all as perceptive, understanding and well informed as the last one.

3DE is not a show, its regarded widely as the toughest, comprehensive test of the horse and horsemanship, combining as it does the three disciplines of Dressage, XC and SJ.  Sadly, you may be right in that XC is being downgraded by making it shorter and possibly more technical, so that horses that are primarily dressage specialists can do better.  But thats a matter for BE.

There is ample evidence ( read back through the many well informed previous posts as I'll not go over lack of legacy, lack of spectator capacity, damage to the Park etc) that Greenwich is totally unsuitable as a venue for Olympic 3DE.  Given that there are numerous suitable and tested venues and not that far from London, why accept an unsuitable venue?  The answer lies in pressure from FEI, LOCOG and the sponsors who want a spectacular that track and field will never provide.

That anyone should accept a flawed decision with a gallic shrug, no matter how broad the vision of the person making it, is laughable and has to be questioned.  

Its also very uncharacteristic of people who own horses to enforce their presence anywhere where they are unwelcome, even if by a small minority, and where their horses are very likely to cause damage.

Greenwich is a very poor and unsuitable venue for the Olympic 3DE.  There is time to change the decision.


----------



## Mithras (27 August 2011)

bseage said:



			That anyone should accept a flawed decision with a gallic shrug, no matter how broad the vision of the person making it, is laughable and has to be questioned.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a meaningless comment.  You haven't established to any acceptable standard that it is a flawed decision.  Certainly you haven't established that legally.

Anyone can claim that anything is unsatisfactory and has problems if they try hard enough.



bseage said:



			Greenwich is a very poor and unsuitable venue for the Olympic 3DE.  There is time to change the decision.
		
Click to expand...

Again, you simply haven't proved this.  Its just your individual viewpoint.

All I've gathered from reading the anti Greenwich comments on here is that it would be even more elitist to hold it somewhere like Badminton and a greater understanding of why Greenwich has been chosen, despite some issues which have been highlighted.

I also don't want to see taxpayer's money being wasted on changing the venue at such a late date and I think it would be inspiring to bring 3 day eventing to the capital city of London.  According to you though, my views are worthless and/or misguided, simply because they do not accord with yours.

Good job I'm in the majority then.  Note that that would be a relatively silent majority, mainly comprised of people who prefer to spend their lives enjoying and enabling, rather than being negative and thinking up problems.

Rachel Mawhood is proud of using her own name as her username, which makes me wonder if she is using this "cause" partly as a means of making a name for herself.  She only posts during working hours, and does so extensively, which makes me wonder whether this forms part of her occupation.  Certainly from what I can review of the decisions of the Lands Tribunal, she appears to be one of those people who think they know better than those actually qualified in the particular field and indeed of overstating the severity of alleged problems, but has a history of being overruled when it comes before an independent legally constituted tribunal.


----------



## bseage (27 August 2011)

Well Mithras what would you call a decision that required expenditure of £64m but produces little in the way of spectator participation, leaves no meaningful legacy, has the capacity to damage the venue, is regarded as less than ideal by some of those who took part in the test event, will do nothing for the economy of Greenwich and will deprive its people of one of their few recreational green spaces, other than FLAWED?

Initially, I felt your input was balanced and informed, but as we go on, you seem to be happy to denigrate the views of others rather than countering with reasoned and balanced argument.  Some of us do not feel compelled to accept wrong decisions just because there is pressure to support the Olympic cause.  Swallow the FEI, LOCOG, BE & BEF propaganda if you wish, but don't just try to shout down those of us who think the thing through and have valid reasons for claiming that Greenwich is unsuitable as a venue for the Olympic 3DE.

If you can show that the 3DE at Greenwich will have a lasting legacy, will provide massive spectator participation, will be good for businesses in Greenwich and will not damage the Park then do so and convince me.


----------

