HADDAD’S RESPONSE TO THE “RUCKUS” 
Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You.
Ask What Your Horse Can Do For Your Country.

Something is wrong here. Just because experienced people are spending many hours on plans for Selection, it doesn't mean that their conclusions are always correct. (Let's not diverge on a tangent, but Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld brought between them over 60 years of experience to the White House.  Look where that got us.)  

Yes, flying East/West, West/East, West/East and then East/West is possible with my horse(s).  That doesn't make it right.  Just because a horse is capable of withstanding that kind of stress, it doesn't mean that he should be subjected to it.

Our horses do not strive to be Olympians.  We riders do.  If we choose to use our equine friends to achieve our personal goals, we must take serious responsibility for their health and happiness.  This is why I won’t just let go of this issue.  I--not my sponsors, my trainer, the Federation or the vets—I am ultimately responsible for what happens to these horses because I control their lives.

You cannot argue that performance will be enhanced by the current plan for travel, selection and preparation leading up to the Olympics--which is what Selection Criteria should be all about.

David O'Connor writes about being fair to the largest number of competitors. Have a look at the USEF ranking list.

Europe 3
Midwest 1-2
East Coast 3-4
West Coast 3-4

A "fair" location is Gladstone or Florida.

I’m also skeptical about the whole argument against westerly travel.  The Team flew to Sydney along a westerly route in 2000 with one stopover.  European competitors flew to Las Vegas last year with one stopover (unplanned—resulting in 20 hours on the plane--don’t get me started on that.) There are also direct flights from LAX to Hong Kong.  So if none of the westerly options checked out last summer, why did our experienced horsemen opt for California as a location for the Trials?

Furthermore, I am a sponsored rider who has REPEATEDLY expressed my desire to compete in the Selection Trails in the US.  I want to go.  I want to compete for a spot on the team.  The financial costs have to be considered but wouldn’t keep me from flying my horses to the States. Stress on my horse due to an impossible timetable would.  I asked the USEF to make it logistically possible, and therefore humanely practical for my horse.  Simple solutions could have been found.
 
Now ask yourself, "why?"  Here is a rider who expresses the desire to contend for the Team.  She has a chance, not with one horse but with two.  She has financial backing and has proven her technical skill and steady nerves again and again over the last two years.  She respects her horses.  She manages them well.  Why does the "Federation" make the path for this rider the most difficult?  Why would the "Federation" make such a rider CHOOSE between the welfare of her horse and making the team?  

Maximus starts “aqua training” tomorrow to improve fitness.  Both horses are vaccinated for US diseases.  I’m running again… Preparation for the Olympics has begun in my stable even if we are only getting fit for a summer on the beach.  (Also an option!)

As for my colleagues who would criticize me because they believe that public controversy is not good for the sponsorship we need in our sport, I respond with: Quatsch! How many of you have complained to me that your horses were too weary after repeated international trips to give their best performances?  A responsible horseman seeks change after this type of experience.  He does not respond with the attitude of “My horse had to do it, now it’s your turn.”

We have fantastic venue and private sponsors in the States. They are all smart, financially capable, generous people who love this sport.  But without our top horses, we have no sport to sponsor!  If everyone spoke out about the LONG TERM management of our top sporthorses, I can’t think of a sponsor who would object to positive change for their benefit.

Finally, my biggest problem with this whole discussion is this:  Nobody is interested in DIALOGUE.  I wrote letters to the HPC with some very real concerns.  They responded with a dismissal although my arguments where logical and practical.  This is what I call "no response."  Is it so incredibly difficult to pick up the phone and call?  "Hey Catherine, can you think of a compromise that might work?  How much ‘let down’ time do your horses need if you fly to California?  Or could you show at Wiesbaden CDI5* and Balve CDI4* (German Selections) so we can compare your rides to the ones in California?"

Why is this sort of dialogue out of the question? Why would I hire a lawyer as some people have suggested to be HEARD by my own Federation? I pay my dues.

We are Americans.  Some people think I speak out because of some vague "euro" effect. I speak out because I was born in a country where public discussion leads to progress and change.  In opposition to Mr. O'Connor's statement that I do a "disservice" to the experienced people who spent many long hours writing the Selection Criteria, I would simply remind him that these experienced people have put logistics on paper that are possible, but not practical for maintaining the health and fitness of all our horses. 

How difficult is it to make the selection process humanely correct for all the equine contenders?  This is the sort of progress I seek.

Go ahead and hang me out to dry for expressing my opinions.  But leave my horses out of this battle.  Help me keep them fit, safe, sound, happy and ready to do their jobs, especially if they are called upon to do something extraordinary for me and my country.

All the best, Catherine

Earlier articles:
The Hong Kong Conundrum - One American High Performance Rider Speaks Out

USEF President David O'Connor Responds to Article Circulated by Dressage Rider Catherine Haddad