# The Canadians



## Judgemental (5 August 2012)

Could somebody shed some light on the position of Canadian team.

There seems to be an unusual number of issues?


----------



## xxlindeyxx (5 August 2012)

Judgemental said:



			Could somebody shed some light on the position of Canadian team.

There seems to be an unusual number of issues?
		
Click to expand...

Their rider Tiffany Foster was eliminated because of hypersenstivity .


----------



## cold_feet (5 August 2012)

Hypersensitivity? What does that mean?


----------



## christine48 (5 August 2012)

Suspected substance on horses legs to make them more careful.


----------



## xxlindeyxx (5 August 2012)

christine48 said:



			Suspected substance on horses legs to make them more careful.
		
Click to expand...

No hypersenstivity is an increased sensitivty in the horses leg. it makes it so sensitive that the horse would jump more carefull so it is seen as an advantage aswell as dangerousfor the horse.
Hypersentitisation is foul play ( banned substance )


----------



## cold_feet (5 August 2012)

Thank yOu.


----------



## xxlindeyxx (5 August 2012)

cold_feet said:



			Thank yOu.
		
Click to expand...

your welcome


----------



## Judgemental (5 August 2012)

Interesting, because I felt their XC performance was somewhat lack lustre.

Reliable sources have said, that the right people were not included in the team and one wonders why. 

Perhaps the right people refused to use these 'hypersensitive' substances.

Normally the Canadians put on a very polished Olympic performance.


----------



## cold_feet (5 August 2012)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...lified-team-questions-decision-172221661.html

Sounds a tough decision.   But have to admit I know nothing about this.


----------



## stroppymare153 (5 August 2012)

OP, you chose your username well, didn't you??!! 

*The official FEI statement said:* The Veterinary Commission have stated that the horse has an area of inflammation and sensitivity on the left forelimb just above the hoof. *There is no accusation of malpractice*, but the horse has been deemed unfit to compete by the Ground Jury.



The Canadians have filed a protest, but a decision by the Ground Jury on hypersensitivity is not appealable.



Canadian team manager Terrance Torchy Millar said: We are very unhappy about this. It is a decision that lacks any common sense. It is just blind application of a rule. It lacks judgement and horsemanship. *The horse has one small nick on one coronet band*. He could have got it anywhere. The horse is sound.


----------



## oldvic (5 August 2012)

There were no substances used and no implications of foul play. The horse sustained a small cut just above the coronet and, although sound, was slightly sensitive to touch. The Canadians have had a torrid time at these games with all 3 of their equine teams. I really hope their luck changes this week and the knives don't come out for them - they don't deserve it.


----------



## Judgemental (5 August 2012)

stroppymare153 said:



			OP, you chose your username well, didn't you??!! 

*The official FEI statement said:* The Veterinary Commission have stated that the horse has an area of inflammation and sensitivity on the left forelimb just above the hoof. *There is no accusation of malpractice*, but the horse has been deemed unfit to compete by the Ground Jury.

The Canadians have filed a protest, but a decision by the Ground Jury on hypersensitivity is not appealable.

Canadian team manager Terrance Torchy Millar said: We are very unhappy about this. It is a decision that lacks any common sense. It is just blind application of a rule. It lacks judgement and horsemanship. *The horse has one small nick on one coronet band*. He could have got it anywhere. The horse is sound.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, thank you. 

_All I said, was "Could somebody shed some light on the position of Canadian team.

There seems to be an unusual number of issues?"_

Failure is failure for whatever reason and I find a simple nick above the coronet as the reason to disqualify 'unusual'.

Frankly and to use the Canadian vernacular it looks as if a *SNOW JOB *is being spun on the issue.

The XC and Dressage teams were comprehensively disqualified.

Taking the excellent historical track record of Canadian Equestrian teams, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong.

Especially I have been personally told there were much better and potential accomplished team members that were unfairly excluded.   

In those circumstances you can bet there will be much discussion and conjecture.

Perhaps I might consider changing my user name to Snow Job! LOL


----------



## oldvic (5 August 2012)

I didn't see anyone at their final trial that looked especially hard done by. There was one that looked good XC but was quite slow so I'm not sure that your informant is correct. Things can go wrong - they have for GB in the past.


----------



## TarrSteps (6 August 2012)

Judgemental said:



			Indeed, thank you. 

_All I said, was "Could somebody shed some light on the position of Canadian team.

There seems to be an unusual number of issues?"_

Failure is failure for whatever reason and I find a simple nick above the coronet as the reason to disqualify 'unusual'.

Frankly and to use the Canadian vernacular it looks as if a *SNOW JOB *is being spun on the issue.

The XC and Dressage teams were comprehensively disqualified.

Taking the excellent historical track record of Canadian Equestrian teams, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong.

Especially I have been personally told there were much better and potential accomplished team members that were unfairly excluded.   

In those circumstances you can bet there will be much discussion and conjecture.

Perhaps I might consider changing my user name to Snow Job! LOL

Click to expand...

You seem to have all the insider information going so why are you asking anyone else?  

I'm curious to know who these accomplished and qualified riders were who were not included?  Could you name names please.  Or direct your concerns to EC.

As has already been explained there has been NO suggestion that anyone did anything against the rules re the excluded show jumper.  No one is going to be tried or disciplined.  It is an unfortunate injury and while it does not affect the horse's well being, the rules say it affects the horse's suitability to continue.  The fuss is because there is some anger over the way the examination was done and, I hate to say, because people are frustrated and upset that a situation NO ONE thinks involves the welfare of the horse has been so publicly turned over.  You are right, it is unusual.  Rather like the Saudis sponsoring the Nations Cup League. 

As to the "historical track record" . . .that would be spotty at best!   We have some great riders and lovely horses but as a country, we do not traditionally spend a lot of money on sport and riding is down the list a way.  Add in a tiny population, vast distances and an inhospitable climate, which means people have to spend money travelling not only to Trials but to the US, and the problem is, alas, depth.  If you have no depth and the dice don't roll your way, it's not going to go well.  It's happened before and it will probably happen again.  

If it's any consolation to you, you can rest assured the luck of this week will make funding very hard to come by in this next cycle.  

Glad to see you're staying true to form, Judgemental.  Can I ask what it is to you how the Canadians deal with the events of the week?  I'm sure your connections will get plenty of opportunities to prove that the wrong choices were made in regular competition.  It's not long to Florida!


----------



## TarrSteps (6 August 2012)

Oh, I've just realised!!!  Things have been going very well at Greenwich, predicted concerns have either failed to materialise or been addressed, and people seem to be happy with the choice now it's underway.

That must be very upsetting for you!  Ah, I get it.


----------



## TarrSteps (7 August 2012)

I was actually genuinely confused by some of the points on this post so I dug up a few facts.  First, to the idea that this was an uncharacteristic performance . . . .historical showjumping results:

Canada at the 1968 Olympic Games, Mexico City
Team	Best Individual
Gold medal	6th, Jim Elder on The Immigrant

Canada at the 1972 Olympics, Munich
Team	Best Individual
6th	4th Tie, Jim Day on Steelmaster

Canada at the 1976 Olympic Games, Montreal
Team	Best Individual
5th	Silver medal, Michel Vaillancourt on Branch County

Canada at the 1984 Olympics, Los Angeles
Team	Best Individual
4th	4th, Mario Deslauriers on Aramis

Canada at the 1988 Olympics, Seoul
Team	Best Individual
4th	15th, Ian Millar on Big Ben

Canada at the 1992 Olympics, Barcelona
Team	Best Individual
9th	26th, Jay Hayes on Zucarlos

Canada at the 1996 Olympic Games, Atlanta
Team	Best Individual
16th	47th Tie, Ian Millar on Play it Again

Canada at the 2000 Olympic Games, Sydney
Team	Best Individual
9th	13th, Ian Millar on Dorincord

Canada at the 2004 Olympic Games, Athens
Team	Best Individual
DNC	24th, Ian Millar on Promise Me

Canada at the 2008 Olympic Games, Beijing/Hong Kong
Team	Best Individual
Silver medal	Gold medal, Eric Lamaze on Hickstead

So, with the exception of what could really be seen as an Eric-driven blip last time around, pretty much par for the course.  If you add in a few countries now sending competitive teams that haven't in the past, that makes it a pretty decent result thus far.

Re the eventers, stats for team results are harder to come but we certainly haven't troubled any medal contenders for a few years.  The WEG result proves that the performances are there but a slip or a lame horse and, as with any team, and it's gone.  As to the assertion that qualified people were left off the Team, I can't see anyone with CCI3* QRs that was left off the short list and, of the combinations on that list, the ones that did not make the Team were left off because of a specific problem or concern.  Again, unlike some countries, Canada struggles to field a whole Team of qualified riders, let alone having a pool to draw from!  So even more confused . . .

As far as dressage, the highest ranked Canadian rider by far is on the Team and has produced the best performance thus far. Both riders with scores are along the lines of their usual results.  As to David's horse . . .no one could have expected that!  As we all know, horses are great levellers! 

So hopefully that goes some way to answering the original question about the "unexpected" results.  Alas, not so unexpected! . To imply that this Team has done a relatively bad job is to be almost cruelly unfair.



Btw, unrelated question but do riders in the UK have to do their own fundraising?  In the lead up to the Games I didn't see any mention of riders having to hold their own fundraising events but perhaps I'm just not in the loop?


----------



## kerilli (7 August 2012)

Judgemental, I think they have just been really horribly unlucky. I was at Greenwich and met some of the Canadian team and supporters a couple of days before the XC. They are all absolutely dedicated and totally determined. The Canadian and U.S. teams had even eschewed the Athlete's Village (a huge deal imho) and hired somewhere in Greenwich to stay so they were closer to the horses, could ride twice a day if they wanted to, didn't have to worry about travel times etc. Total dedication.
I think they did everything they could to make it work and it just didn't come together. That happens sometimes. Look at the Aussies in the Eventing - they looked fantastic on paper, really should have been right up there in the medals, etc.  
I would have bet the house on Gin and Juice and Hawley steaming clear round the xc. There was tough luck for the Canadian team and also for other teams. That's xc. The dressage rider was SO unlucky... with the weather (some horses cope, some less so) and the sudden extreme spooking.  Poor guy.
The situation with the SJer sounds as if it was handled very oddly, to say the least, but there was NO suggestion of foul play on the rider's part, or using any substances etc. 
Why not pick on a different team? I mean, Team U.S.A. must be tearing their hair out at the moment. The Japanese eventers promised so much then the wheels fell off. Australia... throughout the games... don't even go there. 
Horses are great levellers, we all know that. Would ANYONE have suspected that Germany wouldn't even make the 2nd round of the SJ Team comp?!?!?!


----------

