speaking as a selector

["John & Sue Greenall" <greenall@vermontel.net>]

I think that comments on the list lately have been excellent and 
have thrown light on just how difficult the selection process is.
As Valerie pointed out, most opinions come from those not involved 
with the process, and since I have been a PAC selector twice 
around and served as assistant chef d'equip at the 1999 PAC, I 
might be able to offer an "inside" view. 

I totally agree that the selection process needs some adjustment.

I do not agree that "politics" is the big evil, at least not at the PAC 
level.

I feel that the selection process over the past two PAC's was 
hampered by the method of supplying information to the selectors, 
ie, the nomination forms and evaluation forms.  It was hard enough 
to plow through 18 copies let alone the number we are facing now.  
I would suggest focusing on what we feel are the important pieces 
of data and streamlining the forms so that this information is right 
up front.  It is here that a horse's record, rider's record and team 
record are very important, especially in picking the long list.  In all 
honesty, this was not very hard.  In 1998, I believe 24 riders 
nominated and those that did not make the long list had minimal 
records.  Even some of the 18 had minimal records.  2000 will be 
an exception due to the extra number of horses allowed, so 
spending a great deal of time worrying about who will make the 
long list is not as important this time (I think that Teddy stated that 
just about anyone who meets requirements will make the long list), 
but should be considered for other years.

PAC selection will be forever changed due to doubling the size of 
the squad.  We were not prepared for this in 1998 and it caught us 
short as we could only send 11 horses, not 12.  Many people told 
me that had they known that the squad was to be 12 that they 
would have nominated, but they did not, we stuck to our rules and 
did the best we could. 

Sending twice the number of horses as before gives the chef 
d'equip a big advantage in picking the team of four at the ride as he 
has 12, rather than 6, to choose from (and this year we will have 
18!).  This alone makes for a HUGE difference between the PAC 
and the WEC.  It also allows for more use of team work between 
the alternates and the squad, a strategy we hopefully will keep in 
mind during this process.  We cannot think in terms of the past as 
the game has changed and we must change with it.

Due to the increased number of horses USAEast will send to the 
PAC from now on, our selection process needs to adapt.  The past 
process is too slow and cumbersome as it stands.  Streamlining it 
by using some of the figures that have been suggested on this list 
might be a solution.  Whatever, the paperwork has to be cut down ! 
 I would advocate reviewing the forms and getting data on two or 
three sheets and by using a check list system at demo rides.  

I support the idea of using BC forms for evaluating horses during 
the demo period, a process we have used in past, but due to 
slowness in mailing forms, etc, data was often not available to the 
selectors.  

 I still feel a team of selectors should choose the short list of riders. 
 They can factor in all of the many circumstances and "what if's") 
that effect our sport that have been mentioned during this 
discussion in a way that a subjective point system cannot.  I can 
still remember that "Gem Twist" did not get to compete at the 
Olympics because of a point system glitch.  

And, when all the dust settles, the four riders who will ride 
representing USAEast will be chosen not by points, not by 
records, but by the chef d'equip's opinion of who will be the best 
possibles the day of the ride.  Connie Walker, who had a minimal 
record compared to many, was one of those chosen this way.  I 
know why she was chosen over others and it had nothing to do 
with points or BC's or weight or any other of the factors that we 
have been discussing as selection criteria.  It was something that 
we cannot measure and that is why I think that we should not 
eliminate the objective part of selection.


John and Sue Greenall
mailto:greenall@vermontel.net
http://www.vermontel.com/~greenall