I. History of Agendas Set from Prior Forums.

II. Brief Outline of Points of Contention Today.

I. History of Past Forums:

• 1. Punchestown European Championship Distance
• 2. Future Championship Distances
• 3. Accountability of the FEI to its Endurance Members
• 4. Course Problems & Design in Jerez
• 5. Consistency of Officials & Judging
• 6. Conflicts of Interest

• 1. Championship Distances
• 2. Course Design & TD Responsibilities
• 3. Judging: Electronic Vetting vs. Objective Vetting
• 4. Consistency of Officials & Judging
• 5. Timing of Publishing FEI Event Schedules
• 6. Hold Times & Stages/Loop Length
• 7. Comment Period & Interim Amendment of Rule Changes
• 8. Certificates of Capability

II. Points of Contention TODAY:

Going back nearly 150 years in North America alone, the US Cavalry Manual set out 100 miles as ONE of its competition “tests" of a trooper’s ability as a Horseman and to manage themselves over challenging terrain and climate. The biggest difference now is, of course, the crewing “rally" which dominates these events on the world stage. Additional considerations in both Jerez and Paris (’03) included: rules enforcement in alternate formats, fair play in multi-day alternatives, and horse welfare issues simply being traded in for a short sprint. The US and Canada believe nearly unanimously in 160km as the true test. However, approximately 50% of that number in the US understood the need to consider alternatives in certain circumstances (perhaps like Malaysia), but did not like it and felt it created a different discipline. Please remember that in 2003 at Paris, those attending opined the Championship should not be awarded to places like Malaysia if horse welfare due to climate made 160km impossible or unsafe.

Lastly, this is not simply a matter of tradition. It is also a matter of horse welfare, and needs to be studied before it is changed "ad hoc". There is a real question about that, and about whether anything less is a sufficient or legitimate true test.

The problem is this. Completing 50 or 60 or 70 or even 80 miles is the easy part of Endurance. (Even "I" could do it back in the day.) That is "why" 100 miles/160km is important. We need to quit looking at trying to find a single solution to the problems we face, and look for how combined but smaller solutions will gradually bring us the appropriate result.

The continuous focus to find one large sweeping change to improve Endurance or fix its very real problems will simply create a different sport. This idea ignores the failure-rate issue which plagues the discipline, by trying to define it away. This does NOT serve Horse Welfare. It only pretends to do so. It essentially codifies racing to a quick finish or a quick pull, not horsemanship.

However, IF considered, some changes and limits would need to be implemented. Scoring would need to change as a start. IF a Team could "qualify" for classification with NASCAR/Formula One-style results, cumulative ride time will not be comparable from Team to Team. We question whether or IF it can be done fairly. Also, there would have to be some limit, such as: a nation would still be required to "complete" 2 riders under this plan to be classified as a Team.

If a cut-off is advanced from 13:20 hours, it should still be at least 2 hours following the winning time or include the Top 20 finishers, whichever is longer.

This also has come up before. Our position remains that it is a good idea.

However, attaching it to the individual results from the World Wide Ranking list is not appropriate. That is an individual list, and those riders are not necessarily the choices an NF would pick to send to a World Championship. Those results are not relevant, and even might be considered as contrary indicators of the type of success we seek, since they rely on number of results, not effectiveness of attempts.

We continue to maintain a better choice would be to look at Regional and World Championship results from the past decade (for the 2008 WEC, the period from 1998-2007), and IF a Nation finished a Team 5th or higher in a World Championship or 3rd or higher in a Regional Championship, that Nation would qualify. IF that seems too narrow, then add those Nations from the World Championships within the past decade that finished a minimum of 2 of its riders within the Top Twenty.

• · Calibration between Labs so we know what we are managing.
• · Continue to believe in "zero-tolerance", but we need to decide what that means and straighten out inconsistencies.
• · We also question enforcement despite the high number of FEI Endurance positives (tip of iceberg).
• · Need for better education/information, including requiring CdE’s/TeamVets with rated Judges/Vets/Officials at Forums like this. Familiarity will lead to cooperation and trust, as well as assistance in managing legitimate medication uses. It will also flush out those who are not cooperative.
• · We believe this is more than just a Rider Responsibility, and suggest being creative in applying sanctions beyond Riders.
• · Additionally, limiting crew access and crewing, generally, would help control and allow better policing of potential abuse.
• · We believe in Due Process rights of individuals over results, which means the FEI needs to ensure true autonomy of the collection program and integrity and privacy of process. In 2008 and 2010, MCP Teams should be sent independently by the FEI, not the OCs.

• · Perception remains that there is a double standard.
• · Original reason to set rules in stone remains: Changes generally accommodate influence.
• · Officiating needs better international rotation, continent to continent. However, question over how to fund remains.
• · At present, this feels like a struggle for the soul of the discipline.

• · Horse Welfare remains our poison pill, and the agenda floated in preparation for this forum does not present solutions to that problem.
• · Numbers of Rides & Schedule: There is a disparity between the Middle East/Europe and North America-Australia-New Zealand. Perhaps the way to use the available resources we have is to consider a true League on each continent, or within each Group, to "qualify" for individual and/or team World Championships.
• · As well, the impact of geographic differences for scheduling continental or regional championships like the Pan Ams, makes it unlikely that the Pan Ams will return to North America again without regard for the differences between places like North and South America in national geography and boundaries. (The "Zone" plan did work, and alternating the Pan Am from North to South or Central should allow its continuation until it becomes clear the Central and South American nations will show up in sufficient numbers.)
• · Olympic Dreams: They are the ultimate stage, but we are not ready, and need to decide and make changes to focus on the Human athlete. Until we figure that out, we are more likely an "X"-Game event, at best. Problems related to drug use and rumor, horse fatalities and completion rates need to be solved before we look further to that goal. We believe it can happen, but not following the current path. Tough decisions must be made, and many will likely be unhappy as a result. But tough decisions, supported by the FEI, will provide the best chance to accomplish what should be our ultimate goal, healthy and old horses. The rest will follow naturally.

IN CONCLUSION:

Noble Act or Splendid Gesture is the most common English interpretation of the term Beau Geste. But we need more than gestures and lip-service to the soul of this discipline, to the fundamental responsibilities of our sport. So, we seize the definition: "Noble Act".

A Noble Act requires us, as the actors, to sacrifice our own personal goals for the larger responsibilities of this thing of ours. That means considering alternatives, but thinking them through and applying them within the fundamentals and traditions of Endurance.

IF we can do that, then Endurance may have a true place with the classic Olympic disciplines. As one of the original cavalry tests of the human partnership with a horse, it deserves to be. The bigger question is whether "we" are deserving. Continuing down the current path will lead to 2 separate disciplines, one traditional and one convenient.

Four years ago, the points we raised in our presentation ("Go, Tell the Spartans") remain valid. The problems remain as well, all too familiar. It makes us think of the poem about the path not taken. We ask all of you to think back to that presentation, compare it to the discussions today, and choose that path today.

We stand with the soul of our sport and ask you to stand with us. Doing what is right is hardly ever easy, but it is what we must do. Some may say that we, as a world endurance community, need to redefine our discipline to make it easier or more watchable. To the extent we can do so and remain "true", we should. However, substantive changes based upon misperception or expediency generally lead to poor results.

On behalf of Group IV, Canada and the USA, we continue to believe: The Horse Comes First.

Thank-You.

A. Priesz, Jr., Esq.