Will Coleman originally posted this on his personal blog, and he graciously gave EN permission to reprint it here. EN is committed to creating a forum for discussing how eventing can grow and progress as a sport in the U.S. Many thanks to Will for allowing us to run his blog, and please feel free to discuss his ideas in the comments. Go eventing.
_______
Will Coleman and Obos O'Reilly at Bromont. Photo by Jenni Autry.
Even for a hard-headed guy like me, with a crippling perfectionist streak and a penchant for dissatisfaction, it was impossible for me not to be pleased with my horse, OBOS O’Reilly, after winning the Bromont CCI3* last week. It was the second three-star this spring that the horse has won, having emerged the victor of the Fair Hill CIC3* in April, and to date, he is the only horse in America with two FEI victories at the 3* level and up. I’ve said it many times that he’s not a particularly talented horse, and I think his success is largely attributable to persistent training and a manageable fearlessness across the country.
These two events that he won were cross-country dominated events, where footing and the magnitude of the courses determined the way the event played out. I think events like this will be this horse’s calling going forward, though with continued improvement, who knows? I don’t think many of us would have guessed Jocko and Clifton Promise would be on top of the world after his first trip to Kentucky several years ago. If they can stay sound and healthy enough in our sport to be trained, and not miss big chunks of time due to injury, then good riding always rues the day. Eventing is a game of horsemanship, a “wise man’s game” as my buddy Boydo says.
Normally, the advantage when it comes to competition surfaces, ground, and keeping horses well is undoubtedly in favor of riders based in the UK. It is no secret that footing in England is second to none, not only at competitions, but with access to pristine turf and all-weather gallops, for the fittening work as well. However, on that note, I think I have to applaud our country. This may have been the best season of ground I have experienced in America. In our constant struggle to improve our events, I hope we are not overlooking some of the multi-year efforts that have been made to better the going at certain events.
Red Hills, Jersey Fresh, The Fork, Fair Hill CIC, Chattahoochee CIC, Bromont, and many others, are shining examples of this determination to give our top horses the best going possible, and let’s hope it continues. We were blessed with good weather this year. Let’s remain proactive in making sure that even with drought or prolonged periods of dryness, we can still manage acceptable footing. Richland Park and the Kentucky Horse Park are probably leading the pack when it comes to that. Others should follow.
I enjoyed and also applauded Jimmy Wofford’s comments regarding the FEI qualifications debacle and some of the absurd things it forced horses and riders to do in order to qualify for events. I am glad that I wasn’t forced into doing anything like that with any of my horses, but how an organization like the FEI can pretend to be unequivocally “pro-horse” and allow this mess is beyond me. It seems that in the case of many of the horse/rider combinations battling these qualification issues, their national federation and team representatives should be able to approve their ability to compete at a certain level, so long as they meet national qualification requirements. Asking horses to compete at multiple CIC and CCI level events in a single season is an appalling result of this misguided FEI policy.
A less thrilling observation from Jersey Fresh and Bromont was the utter lack of quality horses in the field, at either 2* or 3* level. Much has been made of the money raised through the Giltedge Challenge to fund overseas trips for our High Performance riders, and it is without a doubt wonderful for our sport that so many people have given so generously. But, when you look at the dearth of horseflesh underneath our best riders, it’s puzzling that while we can seemingly raise hundreds of thousands or a million dollars at the drop of a hat, many of us are struggling to build a string. I fear that we are entering an era where our best supporters may choose to simply give money to the USET Foundation or towards some other eventing-based endeavor rather than own a horse or a part of a horse. That is worrisome, and is indicative of a more general crisis within American horse sports: the vanishing American owner.
As it pertains to our eventing constituency, I think the primary cause of this dilemma is simple, and purely economic. Very simply, owners hate the bills. Costs associated with a competitive event horse have skyrocketed in the last ten years. My guess is they have, at least, doubled. I think owning an Advanced horse for $25k a year was probably average ten years ago. It’s twice that now. Costs of competing, entry fees, vets, farriers, diesel, even average truck and trailer price have all appreciated significantly, while factors contributing to wealth and disposable income frankly have not. The stock market is basically right where it was in 2007, and not far from where it was in 2000. Real estate assets are likely worth no more than what they were purchased for, if not less. And you cannot ignore the fact that recent tax increases for the wealthy will discourage luxury spending, and we are in the luxury item game, believe me!
All that said, the USET Foundation has had little trouble raising money, well on their way to meeting their desired goal of $35,000,000. That was not a typo. Thirty-five million dollars! I can’t help but wonder how many of these donors own top-level horses for an American rider. Certainly, many do. But probably not as many as you would think. And in many cases, the ones that do support top horses do it for a rider that shares the same last name. I hope none of what I am writing offends, but I am just asking questions and making observations. The reality is we are short-horsed, and worse, we are apparently short owners.
But, very clearly, we are not short money being pumped into the sport. How can those two realities not be reconciled, when they are so clearly in the same arena with the same motivations? Despite recent strides forward, there are still many cracks in American eventing, but this one is a San Andreas fault-line. It’s great to have all this money to spend on trips and the like, but without your best riders on good horses, it’s tantamount to giving guns, supplies, and planes to a country with no army. I wonder what kind of an effect it would have if more support was given to owners and riders at the top-end? What if some of these millions guaranteed no vet-work or entry fees for a nationally listed horse? There’s a plethora of ways you can incentivize ownership. We have explored none, other than you can take a vacation with us to a foreign event for $60k a year. No offense, but we gotta do better than that.
A second cause of our horse-depth deficiency does fall on the riders and those being supported. We gotta be smarter. The collective pool of money, on a national scale, that is directed towards event horse ownership has to be treated like a reservoir. It’s supply is finite. If it is gorged upon in huge chunks, without any notion towards replenishment or longer-term success, then we are doomed. I find it interesting how many top riders have a string of upper-level horses, but the cupboards are surprisingly bare at the 4, 5, and 6 year old level. Perhaps this gets back to cost-control. What’s the point owning young horses when you can own an upper-level horse? After you’ve bought it, it seems that you spend less money to get to the top. Unfortunately, that may be true. But is it proving successful? Are we being beaten by horses bought similarly at, or near, the top level of the sport? In most cases, no.
Jocko’s weren’t bought. Nicholson’s aren’t bought. Michael Jung’s aren’t bought. They are made. I think we have to get back to that. And riders are going to have to be willing and able to get creative with the billing to encourage it. All event horses shouldn’t cost X, regardless of age. Maybe a four-year old cost X, a five-year old Y, and so on and so forth until the horse reaches its max potential. Again, this is just commentary. Everybody has their own way of doing it. I think I see merits in this kind of approach, relative to what I’m seeing otherwise. But that’s me. No doubt, it would help if our Federation saw things a bit more this way, allocating more funds to directly support rider programs, rather than simply funding trips full-stop with an entourage of people wearing USA jackets.
There are many positives in our sport at the moment. A new generation of riders is emerging, arguably our most talented ever, in my opinion. We will face these issues head-on, and need to find our own solutions. Organizations such as PRO and the Event Owners Task Force are helping make ownership more fun and welcoming. We have needed that for some time now, and should all thank those involved for bringing it to fruition. Syndication undoubtedly helps to address some of these issues, but the reality is that it is complicated, time-consuming, and slow to set up. It’s only one part of the answer. Cost control, direct financial support, and a more layered approach to supporting top riders and owning horses is a more complete answer, in my opinion. And it will be difficult to accomplish, but accomplish it we must.
