LET US STAY LOCAL
IN my first season as a British Eventing (BE) competitor, I was fortunate enough not to fall victim to the balloting system.
But now in my second – and with the cancellation of events due to Covid-19 – I have been balloted out of all my local events.
BE has done a wonderful job in making events possible at all and for that we are extremely grateful, but I do think a two-tier system should have been implemented during this pandemic.
Having been balloted out of local events, I now go further afield, travelling distances I’d not normally contemplate. So would it be more appropriate to allow all those with postcodes nearest to the event to be accepted into the event first, then implement the normal balloting system for riders based outside that perimeter?
I feel somewhat selfish even suggesting this when there is so much suffering and hardship at this time, but I think gallivanting across the country should be discouraged.
Genevieve Chapman Cowden, Kent
YOUR news item about investigations into a major event backer (24 September) sparked my interest. While the administrators of London Capital and Finance (LCF) continue to recover monies for the victims of LCF, should British Eventing (BE) be learning lessons around its choice of sponsors?
A basic level of due diligence would have revealed that the “mini bonds” being marketed by LCF were at best high-risk products and not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, despite claims to the contrary by LCF.
However, instead of vetting LCF’s sponsorship, it seems that LCF and those associated with it were welcomed into the eventing community with open arms, no doubt on the back of the sponsorship money and the wider investment that quickly followed.
This is all reminiscent of
Allen Stanford’s multi-millionpound series of matches with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). In 2008, he signed a deal with the ECB for a series of five games between England and a
Caribbean side. The winners of each of the games would collect US $20m (then £13.75m) and the losers would get nothing.
We now know that the
$20m originated from the $7bn (£5,417,300) Ponzi scheme orchestrated through Stanford International Bank in Antigua. So, perhaps lessons to be learnt, particularly when the culture and the values of organisations are rightly in the spotlight.
Andrew Witts
Tonbridge, Kent
A BE spokesperson replies:
“We are aware that some BE members were customers of LCF and that these members may be facing losses as a result of their investment, and we have sympathy with these members.
“This arrangement – as with the majority of sponsorship arrangements across the sport – was set up directly between organisers and LCF. BE was not involved in the sponsorship in any way and, while our rulebook contains a code of conduct, there has to be breach of these rules before BE can take any action.”