Oh my goodness I’ve been receiving a LOT of messages asking for clarification on what the Olympic qualifying criteria are and how Canada’s team gets selected. For an in-depth review, I recommend looking back through Liz Steacie’s Facebook posts, as she covered this topic in great detail earlier in the year. However in the interests of expediency, I’ll provide a brief summary here, with some examples that will hopefully clear up some of the confusion.

​The qualifying criteria are publicly available on the Equestrian Canada website here. If you’re too busy or too lazy to download and read the 23-page document, below are a few of the details about which I get asked most frequently.

FEI Minimum Eligibility Requirements (MER): The FEI requires that all horse / rider combinations achieve a minimum score of 67% from both an L4 judge and as an average from the judging panel in at least two different competitions at the CDI3* level or above, during the period January 1, 2023 - June 24, 2024. The L4 judge must not represent the same nationality as the rider.

Equestrian Canada’s qualification period: January 1 - June 9, 2024. Athletes must compete in at least 3 Grand Prix and 3 Special classes at the CDI3* level or higher during the qualifying period. One GP or GPS score may be dropped, however at least one score used to calculate the average (ie not dropped) from each of the GP and GPS must have been earned after April 1.

​Deciding factors: The average of all an athlete’s GP scores (minus the drop score if applicable) counts for 80% of the total ranking score. The average of all an athlete’s GPS scores (minus the drop score if applicable) counts for 20% of the total ranking score. The horse / rider combo with the highest ranking score at the end of the qualifying period is nominated to the team. Final ranking scores are usually used to determine the other two riders plus alternates, however the HPAG does have the discretion to consider other factors such as scoring trends, horse health and soundness, previous international performance, etc. This year the criteria also included the option to not nominate a team at all if a final ranking average of 70% for the team was not achieved.

​Nomination panel: Equestrian Canada’s High Performance Advisory Group is responsible for nominating the 2024 Olympic team riders and alternates. Panel members are listed on the Equestrian Canada dressage main page (scroll to the bottom of the page.) The criteria document also clearly outlines how real and / or perceived conflicts of interest are to be dealt with.

What about the scores?
​I believe there would be far less confusion and controversy if an unofficial leaderboard had been posted and updated throughout the qualifying period by Equestrian Canada. Even though it would not necessarily reflect the final rankings before drop scores are calculated, it would give the public insight into where each combination stands and whether scores are trending up or down. I do believe (hope?) that EC will release the final rankings when they officially announce the team this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

Because I’m a dressage geek, I kept an informal log of 2024 Grand Prix scores, just to see how things were shaping up. I’ve included screenshots below for reference only. This is not a complete list of GP scores. These are NOT the final rankings used by the nomination panel. They don’t factor in whether the MERs were achieved, or even if every horse was declared, so some of the combinations listed may not even be eligible. Nor do they include any Grand Prix Special scores. What the example does illustrate well is just how close all the riders in contention are to one another.

‘‘Twas the night before the Canadian Olympic dressage team was announced and not a creature knew what was happening, not even a mouse. Why? Because unlike other countries who name a short list of riders and then have them all compete together at selected test events, Equestrian Canada apparently prefers to keep dressage fans here in the dark about the selection process until the last possible moment. So while our American counterparts are already in Europe, gaining invaluable competition experience as a team and prepping for the games, we’re in “wait and see” mode.

Of course we could make spreadsheets of everyone’s 2024 CDI scores at Grand Prix, drop the lowest one and see which three riders have the highest averages (and I have); in theory they will be the same riders announced tomorrow, right? Not necessarily. The calculations are more complicated than that, and include some scores from 2023. Also, EC has considerable leeway to select the team based on additional factors, not just scores alone. Lastly, since none of our declared riders met EC’s threshold of average scores over 70, they have the option of not sending a team at all.

​Should they stay or should they go?
​I’ve seen a fair amount of discussion online regarding whether Canada should send a dressage team, given analysts’ predictions they would finish in last place. Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth:

The Olympics aren’t necessarily for the best athletes in the world. If that were the case, the Games would be very small indeed. Only a handful of countries would be represented in many sports, including dressage. The Olympics are meant to be for the best athletes from each country. Our top riders may not be competitive against the world’s best, but they are our best. They work hard every single day in pursuit of this goal and have earned the right to be there.

Looking beyond 2024, something has to change. With few exceptions, Canada’s riders have been stuck in the 68-70% range for as long as I can remember, while other countries have moved into the high 70s, 80s, and even low 90s. If we keep doing the same things we will have the same result.

I believe a team will be named, and that our riders will go to Paris. If not, I hope EC will take every cent that was budgeted and every dollar raised in support of a 2024 team and put it towards the immediate development of an actual national team program for dressage.

​Failure to plan is planning to fail
​What would it take to have a serious plan to develop a competitive dressage team in Canada (besides an enormous amount of money? While EC has named a national squad and development squad, that seems to be the extent of their commitment to long-term athlete development in this sport.

To my knowledge (and please correct me if I’m wrong) there is no national team trainer who works in close consultation with these riders’ own coaches, no quarterly (or even annual) camps where the squads come together for intensive training and planning sessions with the team trainer, guest clinicians, and sport science experts. There is no four-year plan to ensure the very talented horses and riders currently at small and medium tour develop into successful Grand Prix competitors who will be at peak performance for the 2028 games. There is no organized effort to identify talented juniors now, get experienced schoolmasters into their hands, and develop them into top YR, U25, and eventually national team riders at the senior level.

Canada has talented, hard working riders. We’re lacking the formal commitment and investment by our sport governing body in a plan to develop them into world-class riders and secure world-class horses for them to compete.

​Learning by example
From the outside, it seems this cycle repeats every 3-4 years: a sudden panic over funding and fielding a team for the Pan Am Games to secure Canada’s Olympic berth, followed by panic about funding and fielding a team for the Olympics, followed by handwringing and armchair quarterbacking about poor results and high costs. We need to take a much longer view. A solid plan, executed well, can take decades to pay off. But it does pay off, as a couple of examples clearly demonstrate, notably the program developed in the USA by Debbie MacDonald and Robert Dover.

Closer to home, at the riders who went through the intensive program developed by (I think) Albrecht Heidemann and Roz Farber. These kids ate, breathed, and lived dressage as teenagers. Their lives and school work revolved around training, riding, and learning. Some moved away from home in order to participate. They developed discipline, grit, resilience, and invaluable experience. And now, some 20 years later, we see several of them at the top of our sport in Canada.

i worked at Golf Canada for many years and have watched with interest as goals set back when I was there are being achieved now, some 20+ years later. The idea of long-term athlete development was fully embraced, as was a plan to increase the number of Canadians in the top 100 of the world golf rankings.

Programs to make golf more accessible to kids and to bring golf into schools were launched. National, junior and development squads were named, each with their own team coach. High performance training facilities were opened across the country. Team camps were held regularly and athletes were provided with fitness training, nutrition plans and access to sports psychologists. Team coaches worked with athletes’ individual coaches and university team coaches to develop competition schedules that ensured peak performance at key events. Athletes represented Canada at international events, gaining valuable experience.

Did it work? Have a look at the current status of Canadian golfers such as Brooke Henderson, Adam Hadwin, Nick Taylor, Mackenzie Hughes, Corey Conners, and Taylor Pendrith, to name a few. It worked. And is still working. I bet many of the 2024 squad members will be the leading Canadians on the PGA and LPGA Tours 20 years from now.

​What’s next?
​Whoever is named to the team deserves our support. Whatever the results in Paris, they deserve our support. And going forward, they deserve the support of our national governing body so that I’m not writing this exact same post again in 2028.



​