PDA

View Full Version : The entire USEF Proposal



yaya
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:04 AM
To prevent further misunderstanding or confusion, here is the entire proposal as handed out at the USDF Convention:

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PROPOSAL
Revised 8/3/07

After gathering comments and feedback for several years from officials and exhibitors, the USEF Dressage Committee would like to implement a system of rider qualification through the dressage levels called “Performance Standards”. This system, inspired by existing European models, would only apply for riders competing at Third Level and above beginning with the 2010 competition year. The mission of Performance Standards is to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the levels, while supporting the welfare of the horse.

The Levels will be named:
Training – Second: BASIC
Third/Fourth: MEDIUM
Prix St. Georges/Intermediare I: ADVANCED
Intermediare II/Grand Prix: INTERNATIONAL

An Asterisk (*) will be added to denote a foreign rider.

POINTS:
*There will be no negative points

60% - 62.99% One Point
63% - 65.99% Two Points
66% - 68.99% Three Points
69.00% & above Four Points

Points will be earned at USEF/USDF or FEI recognized competitions. Points can not be earned in dressage classes, sections or divisions in USEF Regular Competitions (restricted breed competitions). Freestyle scores and FEI Young Horse Tests do not count towards points. Any test of the level may be used to accumulate points. FEI tests (junior, young rider etc) can accumulate points as ‘equivalent’ national levels. Thes equivalent levels are shown on a chart in the USEF rule book DR 119.2. At least two rides must be of the highest test of the level. These points will track with the rider, not with the horse. Once the rider has earned a designation, it will be permanent. There will be no need to re-qualify.

This system does not apply to dressage classes, sections or divisions in regular competitions. (In other words there are no qualifying requirements to show at breed shows in dressage divisions).

Riders may enter any USEF Training, First or Second Level class at a recognized competition without any qualifying points. Riders may also ride the following FEI Tests at recognized competitions without any qualifying point: FEI Pony, USEF Four-Year-Old, FEI Five-Year-Old, and the FEI Six-Year-Old tests.

You may move up in the middle of the season, once the scores are verified by USDF. You may not move up in the middle of a show.

In order for qualifying points to be recorded, the rider must be a USDF Participating Member and a USEF Member at the time the points are earned. Membership blanks are available from USDF (location) and USEF (location). Verification of membership (membership numbers and cards) from USEF/USDF must be received by the rider before points may be accumulated.

If the rider has been ‘grandfathered’ into the system and plans to ride Third Level or above at a recognized show (USDF, USEF or FEI), they must be a USDF Participating Member and a USEF Member in order to compete at those levels.

The following system will apply for recognized competitions:

Training, First, Second Level: NO QUALIFYING NEEDED (BASIC LEVEL)

To move from Second Level to Third/Fourth Level: (MEDIUM LEVEL) A rider will need 20 points from three different USEF judges. A panel (of two or more) will count as ONE judge. There will be no limit on points a rider can receive from any panel of 2, 3 or 5 judges. At least two of the tests used for points must be from Second Level Test Four. The remainder of the points may be from any Second Level test.

To move from Third/Fourth Level to Prix St. Georges/Intermediaire I: (ADVANCED LEVEL) A rider will need 10 points from THREE different USEF judges. Same rule for panels as above. At least two of the tests used for points must be from Fourth Level Test Three. The remainder of the points may be from either Third or Fourth Level Tests.

To move from Prix St. Georges/Intermediare I to Intermediaire II/Grand Prix: (INTERNATIONAL LEVEL) A rider will need 8 points from THREE different USEF/FEI judges. Same rule for panels as above. At least two of the tests used for points must be from Intermediaire I. The remainder of the points may be from Prix St. Georges.
ONLY FEI Juniors, FEI Young Riders, Brentina Cup riders, and Developing Horse Riders who are entering U.S. National Championship or NAJYRC QUALIFYING shows are exempt from qualifying to compete.

FOREIGN RIDERS: May qualify using the USEF System as long as membership requirements are met. Or, the rider may prove competition ability with a letter from their National Federation. This proof must be submitted to Jennifer Keeler at USEF.

GRANDFATHERING:
1. If you have appeared on a long list form 1999-Nov. 30, 2009 with USET/USEF you will be allowed to compete at any level
2. If you have competed at the festival of Champions from 19856 to Nov. 30. 2009 you will be allowed to compete at any level
3. USDF Bronze Medal winners from 1974 to Nov. 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the MEDIUM level
4. USDF Silver Medal winners from 1974 to Nov. 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the ADVANCED level and below.
5. USDF Gold Medal winners from 1974 to Nov. 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the INTERNATIONAL level and below.
6. Active USEF judges (listed in the USEF judges roster as of Nov. 30, 2009) will be grandfathered as follows:
*”r” Dressage Judges may compete at the MEDIUM LEVEL
*”R” Dressage Judges may compete at the ADVANCED LEVEL
*”S” Dressage Judges may compete at the INTERNATIONAL LEVEL and below

NOTE: Grandfathering is a one-time exemption and will end Nov. 30, 2009

APPEALS PROCESS:
In the case of an eligibility dispute with a rider, a committee will be formed from the following committees: Three members of the USEF Technical Dressage Committee and Two members of the USEF High Performance Dressage Committee. The members of this committee shall be appointed by the respective Chairs of the two committees. There shall be two members (one from each committee) appointed as alternates in the case of a conflict of interest. These members shall meet when necessary via teleconference. A member of the USDF staff shall also be on the call. Paper proof of eligibility via records (copies of tests, medal certificates etc.) must be submitted from the rider to the committee.

USEF/USDF Membership cards will carry the rider’s designation. This designation will only be available on USDF/USEF websites.

TIMELINE:

*January 2008: Rule changes approved at USEF Annual Meeting

*February through April 2008: Development of USEF/USDF Business Plan and Grandfathering Process
1. USEF/USDF Business Plan is developed to identify and formalize the responsibilities of both organizations.
2. Grandfathered riders are flagged in the USDF database. Grandfathered list is received from USEF along with member numbers and a matching up of these riders and flagging in the USDF database is performed both electronically and manually, as necessary.

*May through September 2008: USDF Coding and Programming, Public Relations Campaign Development
1. Coding and programming for this project will take approximately 3-4 months based on current workload and projects. Since this will affect the USDF website, USEF data exchange, and USDF’s main working database, this will require on-going monitoring during the programming phase to ensure that normal services and functions are not affected by the additional programming.
2. Public relations and marketing strategies will have to be developed with USDF and USEF in order to ensure that all effected riders are aware of this requirement.

*October 2008: Begin implementation
1. Pilot run through, testing and debugging
2. Introduction of verification process of public and public relations plan implementation

*December 2008: Begin one year of “voluntary compliance”

*December 2009: Plan goes into effect at start of 2010 Competition Year

rebecca yount
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:26 AM
I have been an exhibitor for 22 years and I have never been asked for feedback (as stated in the above info--"After gathering comments and feedback for several years from officials and exhibitors") in any way, formal or informal, regarding this proposal except for the past several days after I emailed Janet and other members of the USEF Dressage Committee. Janet has been discussing it over email--I also did get short replies (e.g. "we'll talk about it at the USDF Convention") from Axel Steiner and Carol Lavell, also from the Region 1 rep Alison Head.

If you look at the Rule Change Proposal on the USEF website, you will see that the Proposal (general, not details) was submitted in August (I think August 3 or something like that). That was before that video was made at the ESDCTA Symposium in October 07, where Janet talks about it a little bit.

The membership of USEF and USDF have not been polled or questioned about this, as far as I know. Anyone else?

Refer to other thread about this issue--on this BB

suzy
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:33 AM
I have been a participating member for approximately 20 years and have never been asked for any feedback on rule changes or anything else.

I also noticed this, which I had missed when I first read the proposal last week:

"You may move up in the middle of the season, once the scores are verified by USDF. You may not move up in the middle of a show."

Considering that the closing dates are many weeks before a competition, this is what will happen... There either won't be any openings left in the classes you want to move up into and, even if there are, you will get hit with post-entry fees. Definitely a lose-lose situation. :(

AmericaRunsOnDunkin
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:36 AM
Thanks yaya. Can points be rolled over to the next year? What's your take?

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:45 AM
"After gathering comments and feedback for several years from officials and exhibitors, the USEF Dressage Committee would like to implement a system of rider qualification through the dressage levels called “Performance Standards”. " -- perhaps the Committee takes a poll in Wellington each year?

DontTellMama
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:57 AM
I dont' think that's fair.

Proposed rule changes are posted on the USEF website.

This proposed rule change has been discussed at the USDF Annual Convention each year. There is also a large USEF Proposed Rule Change Forum at the Convention each year, where ANYONE can voice their opinion directly to the USEF Dressage Committe, to help the committee decide where the USDF stands on various proposals.

If you cannot make it to the convention yourself, as a GM member, you are hopefully represented by your GMO delegates who vote at the BOG. If your GMO doesn't send a delegate, then either join one who does, or offer to represent your GMO yourself. And if you are a PM who doesn't belong to a GMO, you are hopefully electing PM delegates each year to voice your opinion for you. And you should certainly feel free to email your PM delegates and let them know your thoughts.

I believe, although I haven't looked, that much of what is discussed in the Convention is available through the USDF website. (At least I believe it should be as a non-profit.)

The information is there if you chose to look for it. however, the expense of contacting every member of these organizations personally, as well as tallying those responses would put the cost of your memberships through the roof.

If you truly want to do something about it, rather than just gripe on a web board about it, get active! (That's what I did!)

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 11:45 AM
I dont' think that's fair..............If you truly want to do something about it, rather than just gripe on a web board about it, get active! (That's what I did!)

like secretary of GMO?

like volunteer co-ordinator for regional champ. show?

like usef TD?


been there - done that - got the t-shirt

Janet
Dec. 6, 2007, 11:49 AM
This is going to be a MAJOR PROBLEM ( I am censoring myself) for eventers at, or moving up to, Advanced.

Eventers go to "straight" dressage shows to improve thier performance in the dressage phase of Eventing.

Since the Advanced Dressage Tests include flying changes, the only way (outside the event itself) to work on your dressage test UNDER TRUE COMPETITION CONDITIONS is to compete at Third Level.

In some parts of the country, you can do a Third Level test under a GOOD R or S judge at a schooling show. But in MOST of the country, the only way you are going to get such a judge at Third Level is at a recognized dressage show.

Many of the top Advanced horses in the country would have to stop evening entirely to get enough points to competer at Third.

They are not going to do that. The consequence will be that fewer upper level eventers will go to recognozed dressage shows.

This is NOT going to improve the quality of eventing dressage.

rebecca yount
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:02 PM
I DID call the president of my GMO after this all started coming out--on Sunday the 4th, the last day of the USDF convention. I asked why the representatives of my GMO (there were 5 of them) didn't poll or otherwise ask the GMO membership how they should vote or discuss in order to make the membership's wishes known concerning this issue. She told me that the GMO representatives hadn't heard about this before going to the convention, plus things come up at the convention that hadn't been anticipated before the representatives leave.

DontTellMama
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:05 PM
like secretary of GMO?

like volunteer co-ordinator for regional champ. show?

like usef TD?


been there - done that - got the t-shirt

Well, to suggest the committee "takes a poll in Wellington each year" is wrong, and statements like that are just spreading misinformation to people who don't know any better.

It's easy to throw up your hands, as working for something you believe in as a vounteer can be extremely frustrating.

But the Dressage Committee IS available, through email, or in person at the Convention.

DontTellMama
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:08 PM
I DID call the president of my GMO after this all started coming out--on Sunday the 4th, the last day of the USDF convention. I asked why the representatives of my GMO (there were 5 of them) didn't poll or otherwise ask the GMO membership how they should vote or discuss in order to make the membership's wishes known concerning this issue. She told me that the GMO representatives hadn't heard about this before going to the convention, plus things come up at the convention that hadn't been anticipated before the representatives leave.

This proposal was brought up last year at the Convention, as well as the year before. This proposal was also on the agenda I believe. This has not been held by any means as a secret.

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:10 PM
my wellington comment was a reference to the other thread on this subject wherein a BNjudge told poster "that if you can't meet the Wellington standards, don't show."

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:28 PM
I dont' think that's fair.

Proposed rule changes are posted on the USEF website.

This proposed rule change has been discussed at the USDF Annual Convention each year. There is also a large USEF Proposed Rule Change Forum at the Convention each year, where ANYONE can voice their opinion directly to the USEF Dressage Committe, to help the committee decide where the USDF stands on various proposals.

If you cannot make it to the convention yourself, as a GM member, you are hopefully represented by your GMO delegates who vote at the BOG. If your GMO doesn't send a delegate, then either join one who does, or offer to represent your GMO yourself. And if you are a PM who doesn't belong to a GMO, you are hopefully electing PM delegates each year to voice your opinion for you. And you should certainly feel free to email your PM delegates and let them know your thoughts.

I believe, although I haven't looked, that much of what is discussed in the Convention is available through the USDF website. (At least I believe it should be as a non-profit.)

The information is there if you chose to look for it. however, the expense of contacting every member of these organizations personally, as well as tallying those responses would put the cost of your memberships through the roof.

If you truly want to do something about it, rather than just gripe on a web board about it, get active! (That's what I did!)

This is posted on the USEF website? really. The only data I was able to find on the website was the proposal that there BE a system to require qualifications to move up, and the Dressage Committee will be providing the specifics. Nothing there about the specifics, I actually had been looking since the discussions regarding the proposal last month.

I am unable to attend the conventions since I am on a limited budget for all things horse. The trip would come out of my very small training budget, and I'm unwilling to make that sacrifice, same as I am unwilling to take money to attend Rolex out of my training budget.

Were the GMO's supplied a copy of this prior to showing up at the convention so they could discuss it with their members? I seroiusly doubt it.

flshgordon
Dec. 6, 2007, 12:39 PM
Please will someone "dumb-down" the process here for those of us who want to OPPOSE this completely absurd and assinine rule change proposal?

Who do I need to contact to tell them this is a crappy idea? How many times do I need to contact them? Should I call? write a letter? I have also been a member for quite a while and have never been asked for input.

It's like a bunch of top riders got together and said "hey let's make up this new rule....it won't effect us so who cares"

DontTellMama
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:09 PM
This is posted on the USEF website? really. The only data I was able to find on the website was the proposal that there BE a system to require qualifications to move up, and the Dressage Committee will be providing the specifics. Nothing there about the specifics, I actually had been looking since the discussions regarding the proposal last month.

I am unable to attend the conventions since I am on a limited budget for all things horse. The trip would come out of my very small training budget, and I'm unwilling to make that sacrifice, same as I am unwilling to take money to attend Rolex out of my training budget.

Were the GMO's supplied a copy of this prior to showing up at the convention so they could discuss it with their members? I seroiusly doubt it.

There are many of us on limited budgets. I will let you know there was also a discussion regarding stipends for PM delegates to attend, which would be nice. Just some of us feel strongly enough to make the sacrifice to be at the convention, so that our voices can be heard.

I don't know the details of who was provided what, but the GMO's that have attended the convention the past couple of years should have been aware of it, as it was made fairly public at that time during more than one forum.

The USDF can only do so much to hold people's hands. The GMO's, and the members themselves must take SOME responsibility for being a part of the community.

Janet
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:21 PM
I am on the BoD of a GMO, and I closely follow the rule change proposals. This is the first I have heard thye details.
I am in contact with the rest of the board to see if they knew but didn't share, but I doubt it.

suzy
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:22 PM
Just some of us feel strongly enough to make the sacrifice to be at the convention, so that our voices can be heard.


At the risk of sounding cantankerous, not everyone can make the sacrifice, and I mean that literally. Not only is there the travel, food, lodging expense, but (in many cases) people would have to take time off from their jobs and (if they have their horse(s) at home), they would have the added expense of finding a caretaker while away. If any of their income comes from teaching/training, there is another financial kick in the butt. Again, this is a terribly elitist attitude, which is what's getting people in such an uproar with this proposal to begin with. It has nothing to do with feeling strongly about something--clearly, many of us feel quite strongly about this issue. However, a lot of us don't have the means to attend these meetings, so the votes are being made by people who really do NOT represent the grassroots community (i.e. the foundation of dressage).

yaya
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:28 PM
This proposal was brought up last year at the Convention, as well as the year before. This proposal was also on the agenda I believe. This has not been held by any means as a secret.

Not true. Rumors and whisperings of some sort of qualifications for progressing have been around, but this is the first time they have actually presented something on paper as an actual proposal.

As for it being on the agenda, all that was listed was "USEF Dressage Committee open meeting", and that's on the agenda every year. The actual topic of the meeting is not posted ahead of time.

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:29 PM
You know the phrase "limited budget" has so many different meetings. There is a woman at our barn who spent more to ship her horses to the Morgan Horse Nationals last year than I spend on my entire show budget.

yaya
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:31 PM
There are many of us on limited budgets. I will let you know there was also a discussion regarding stipends for PM delegates to attend, which would be nice.

Our region DOES provide a small stipend for PM delegates, and has for several years.

DontTellMama
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:32 PM
At the risk of sounding cantankerous, not everyone can make the sacrifice, and I mean that literally. Not only is there the travel, food, lodging expense, but (in many cases) people would have to take time off from their jobs and (if they have their horse(s) at home), they would have the added expense of finding a caretaker while away. If any of their income comes from teaching/training, there is another financial kick in the butt. Again, this is a terribly elitist attitude, which is what's getting people in such an uproar with this proposal to begin with. It has nothing to do with feeling strongly about something--clearly, many of us feel quite strongly about this issue. However, a lot of us don't have the means to attend these meetings, so the votes are being made by people who really do NOT represent the grassroots community (i.e. the foundation of dressage).

Well, I had to take time off my job, uncompensated. I had to find someone to take care of my animals, a trainer to work my horse, fly, pay for my hotel room, etc. I dont' think I need to be lectured about what it cost, or called elitist. I plan to be there, and so I work towards it all year. But again, it's something I feel strongly about, so I make the sacrifice, as do MANY others, who I think are being treated very unfairly at the moment.

Why should those of us who make the sacrifice take the heat for those who are unwilling to partake in the process at all?

There are also grants available through various places like TDF. The Ruth Arvanette award is just one way people who can't afford it other wise get to make it there.

I further resent the fact that someone who DOESN'T attend the meetings says that the people who are there do not represent the grass roots.

If you want to object to the facts, then fine. But if you want to cast a subjective opinion over something that you have absolutely no data on, then you are very very wrong.

There were approximately 1000 people at the Convention this year. Only a very few were named Janet Brown, Axel Steiner, or George Williams. :winkgrin:

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:35 PM
"About USDF
Founded in 1973, the United States Dressage Federation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation that consists of more than 45,000 memberships, 33,000 members, and 129 affiliated organizations."

suzy
Dec. 6, 2007, 01:48 PM
Some of us don't have enough extra to make the sacrifice is the point I'm trying to make, and you are missing. Yes, you made a sacrifice, but clearly you could afford it. For some of us, sacrificing really cuts to the quick as opposed to foregoing a couple of luxuries here and there. I live in a very cold climate, so I am not going to forego heating oil to attend a USEF/USDF meeting. Fair enough?

Edited to say, the above was not meant as a whine, just a statement of facts. I am in much better financial shape than a lot of people, but when I have a $2,000 oil bill staring me in the face and the chance of going to the meeting, there's simply no contest as to which is going to be addressed. ;)

lorik
Dec. 6, 2007, 02:23 PM
I was there too, and between the open USEF Dressage Committee meeting and the Board of Governers' meeting. I can say that MOST of the concerns voiced on this BB were also voiced in Orlando.

Janet Brown-Foy gave out her email address (I didn't write it down) and encouraged the people there to write to her with their concerns. Maybe that's what everyone here should do. I got the feeling that she was open to suggestions on ways to make it better.

yaya
Dec. 6, 2007, 02:32 PM
Janet's email: dressagejanet@att.net

Sam Barish also suggested emailing Jennifer Keeler, USEF Director of Dressage, National Programs: jkeeler@usef.org

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 6, 2007, 02:36 PM
I emailed her, and she responded. I'm not so sure how open she was to suggestions though. Lowering the minimum score to get a point isn't going to help those that only show in 4-6 classes in a year on horses who get 6 or 7's on their gaits.

My solution will probably be to push my horse harder than I had intended, and hopefully get my bronze before dec 1 2009. I probably won't have him in the double though as I won't have had enough time to learn how to correctly use one by then. Then if I ever do show for her at 3rd level, i'll make sure I use one, and crank on the curb. <wink wink... just kidding, I wouldn't do that to my horse>

hoopoe
Dec. 6, 2007, 02:38 PM
Also as a member of the USEF you can go on line to the USEF rule changes section and file a comment on ANY proposed trule change

If you do not like that the full and final detail of this plan are not in place then file your NO opinion.

take a look at some of the other proposed rule changes and feel free to comment upon those as well

rebecca yount
Dec. 6, 2007, 02:54 PM
I have been contacting and talking to Dressage Committee members, my regional director, Sam Barish, judges, clinicians, and USEF on the website as well as others through email since I first heard about this in November.

Don't Tell Mama:

I am 53 years old and have been riding since I was 8. I have been active in the dressage community since 1981. I have been a USEF and USDF member since 1986, and all my horses are lifetime recorded. I think I've paid my dues (in money and as noted below) and I suspect others in on this discussion have, too.

In past years I have attended USDF conventions in Phoenix, Atlanta, Lake Tahoe, and Lincoln. I was a delegate for my GMO, (on whose board of directors I served for from 1991 through 1993) in 1990, 1991, and 1993. I have probably gone to others as well but I can't remember. I worked with George Williams on the FIRST footing booklet, "Underfoot". I have also served on other committees at the conventions and outside them. I KNEW Ruth Arvanette pretty well and spent many hours with her at conventions. My letter telling me I got my Bronze medal is signed by Ruth.

Even when I was not on the PVDA Board of Directors, I volunteered at countless shows doing everything from setting up and tearing down rings, scribing and computer scoring at World Cup qualifier, to serving food, serving as hospitality chair for judges, etc. I, along with one other PVDA member, organized and presented an exhibition of dressage at Gunston Hall in Virginia that Sam Barish called "the best thing PVDA has ever done". I have been a demo rider for musical freestyle clinics, L programs, new test clinics, and various other activities. I have organized hundreds of clinics, literally. I have appeared on television programs, in newspaper and other articles (including publishing articles in the old Dressage and CT and other publications) promoting dressage. I have presented an exhibition at Dressage at Devon including long-lining with a blind rider and helping a rider born with no arms ride my PSG schoolmaster in the Dixon Oval, after which Saunders Dixon came RUNNING over to me with arms outspread proclaiming his delight at such a thing (in 1996, before Paralympics was as active here as it is now).

I have also been a Pony Club mom and DC, run a therapeutic riding operating center for 7 years, and ridden/organized clinics with everyone from Axel Steiner to Jean Luc Cornille to Mary Wanless to Nico van Stigt to Charles de Kunffy. Many well-known international competitors and judges have graced my table with their presence. I rode with Oded Shimoni and Jim Koford before hardly anybody knew who they were. I have spent literally thousands of dollars of my own money to help support dressage, as I am sure others have, too. All this was while working, training one or two horses including my mare to Elite status and am starting another young horse now.

Now that I'm older, and my brilliant and lovely daughter (who just got into Vet School) attends Johns Hopkins to the tune of $40K per year (senior this year--only THREE more payments--YAY), I need to work more and play less. I still remain active (e.g. just today helped organize a larger location, and a significant saving, for an L program and am riding as a demo rider in the L program on Sunday). but might not be able to go to 10 or 20 shows and can't leave my work and livlihood for the time I previously could. Add in the increasing cost of diesel, hay (ouch), bedding, labor, and everything else--I feel like the little people are being squeezed out of being able to own and enjoy horses. Now this further restriction on showing feels just...BAD.

I personally am not probably going to be particularly horribly affected, since I have my Bronze medal and 18 or so "points" at 4th level if they keep the proposed system. But what about others coming up and what if I want to lie back and rest on my laurels and show at PSG when I feel like it? I would like to have others take over and represent me as well as I tried to represent them. Not everyone can go for various reasons--that's why we have delegates and have to communicate via email, polls, etc.

So I will appreciate not being lumped in with those who do not make the sacrifice. I have done plenty.

suzy
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:08 PM
Well said, Rebecca. Although I haven't contributed on the national level (or to the extent you have), I've done my best with my local GMO and have been involved for the same length of time as you, have my bronze medal, blah blah blah. And, being your age with a husband ready to retire any day, the disposable income is not as readily available. There are a lot of us who are very interested in this issue and are active competitors but don't have the resources (time, money, etc.) to attend these meetings. And, my GMO has not made any mention of this proposal in ANY of their newsletters, and I do read the newsletters cover to cover. So, either they don't know (highly likely) or they are keeping it a secret. ;)

lorik
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:17 PM
As a PM delegate, I wish I had been given the information about this program ahead of time. I knew about the rule change, but the fleshed out version was unavailable to me. The convention was the first I heard about it. It's pretty difficult to poll the membership on an issue that was not published. All any of us could do was to try to envision how it would affect everyone involved, and I think the delegates did an admirable job.

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:18 PM
Well, I just e-mailed a member of our gmo's dressage committee to get her thoughts on it. I am interested to see what she says.

rebecca yount
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:32 PM
Thank you, Lori K. That's what I was basically told by others who were there. No specific information was given ahead of time so delegates could not ask us, the unwashed masses, what we thought.

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:36 PM
Thank you, Lori K. That's what I was basically told by others who were there. No specific information was given ahead of time so delegates could not ask us, the unwashed masses, what we thought.

the great unwashed might have voted 33 to 1 against it

yaya
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:45 PM
Problem is, we don't really get a vote at USEF. Their governing board is very different from USDFs.

Can anyone even find a list of the 54 members of the USEF Board of Directors?

Elegante E
Dec. 6, 2007, 03:57 PM
This sucks. I've heard there would be changes and am not totally against the idea. BUT the 20 pts is heavy handed and apt to force people to over show their horses. This is bad for horses and riders and those who created it should be slapped.

Things I don't like:
1. 20 pts with individual points meted out like gruel to Tiny Tim.

2. Scored in the 70s equated with those in the 80s. If one gets a score above 80%, heck above 75% in my book, then that person has shown the ability to ride - or at least not get in the way of a beautifully trained horse. That deserves an automatic upgrade. I think if you get two rides above 70% at Second Level Test 4, then you should move up.

3. That one doesn't earn any points from First Level. If they're going to have such a high point standard, why not let people gain some from the two main levels before Third??? In the higher levels points are earned from more than one level, why make it different for Second Level?

4. The details were held back for so long. It was a subversive plot against the masses.

5. The total suckiness of this system when I'm finally ready to start moving up. What this means for my horse, unless I stay at Second Level for two years, is I have to show heavily for one summer. Realistically, I'm looking at six shows as there are always throwaway tests.

I reiterate, THIS SUCKS!

hluing
Dec. 6, 2007, 04:33 PM
I think it is a simply terrible and elitist proposal. Although I will not be effected too much personaly since I already have my bronze and silver and plan to show I-2 this year, I feel for all those coming up behind me. When I started riding dressage in 1999 I was a broke medical student. I rode anything I could lease and worked my way up through 3rd level on some less then stellar (although very special in my heart ) horses. You know, 6 movers on a good day. I would NEVER have been able to work my way to 3rd level with these rules...and I sure people with less talented horses, learning themselves and on limited budgets will really struggle with these rules. That makes me sad...because dressage should not be like that. Like we always say, any horse can benefit from dressage. All those tests I struggled my way through helped prepare me for when I did get a talented FEI horse. I have yet to hear a good explanation on why we need this new rule. Like others have said, we are not Europe. We are not eventing...no horse is going to be seriously hurt by doing a third level test without true collection. Come on!

I was at the USDF convention to get my silver medal. What struck me at the gala dinner was the wonderful, grass roots history of USDF. It made we wish I had been able to ride dressage back then. However, a rule like this shows that all that is left of that spirit in USDF is in awards and statues...not in the day to day rules that govern our dressage ruling body, imho. Very sad.

lorik
Dec. 6, 2007, 04:38 PM
I don't think there was any subversive plot. I think the committee was acting in (what they think) was the best interest of the horses and the sport. The problem is, like anything, each of us can only come at a problem from our own perspective and frame of reference.

Yes, USEF does make the rules, but where dressage is concerned they have had a close relationship with USDF. USDF has a whole lot of pull where dressage rules are concerned as is evidenced by the fact that they were asked to 'flesh out' the proposal.

I don't know how this will end up in January, but from the conversations at convention, it will not be exactly as it was when first proposed.

Janet
Dec. 6, 2007, 04:54 PM
Another uninneded side effect will be that the pool of people eleigible to compete at Third Level will decrease, and many of the smaller recognized shows will just stop offering third level and above.

SGray
Dec. 6, 2007, 05:03 PM
Another uninneded side effect will be that the pool of people eleigible to compete at Third Level will decrease, and many of the smaller recognized shows will just stop offering third level and above.

and then can save $ by hiring only "r" judges

rebecca yount
Dec. 6, 2007, 06:19 PM
If there MUST be a proficiency to move up rule, and the the issue is about rider proficiency (by the way, I am not sure everyone defines "the problem" the same way), why not just make the criteria that one has to have x number of tests at the highest test of the level on which the RIDER score is 6 or above? That takes the horse's gaits and talent out of it, lets the judges give 5s or 4s if they are appalled, is much simpler, and you could just copy your test and send it in with your entry for the next level. There is so much inconsistency with this criteria for medals and that criteria for qualifying for ABIG championships and those criteria for qualifying for BLM championships and now adding another set of DIFFERENT criteria in scores just seems cumbersome.

Of course some people might "cheat" by changing numbers and xeroxing, but if they are going to go to all that trouble let em do it.

And I also agree that judges should give 1,2,or 3 if things are so awful that they feel the horse needs to be protected.

lorik
Dec. 6, 2007, 06:30 PM
The subject of using just the rider score was interjected into the conversation at the convention. It would, indeed take the talent of the horse out of the equation. I think part of the problem is that it is only one mark as oposed to the conglomerate of all of the marks. Just my opinion. I have no invested interest in this since I spend so much time organizing shows, I probably will never again actually show a horse and will never get to third level.:no:

Grintle Sunshine
Dec. 6, 2007, 07:44 PM
"The mission of Performance Standards is to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the levels, while supporting the welfare of the horse."

This is the stated problem, but the solution does nothing to fix the issue above. The way I see it is that people that are hell-bent to show at third level or whatever, will just show the sh*t out of their horses at second until they get the number of points they need. The "good" riders will be able to do it faster, and will show less. The "bad" riders will take 20 shows to do it (or whatever). How is this protecting the horse and promoting a positive experience??

The goals of the "mission" need to be addressed through better education of the riders, trainers and teachers in this country. I believe some of the countries that have this type of performance criteria also have a very good system of training riders, teachers and trainers in place. This is what we need in the U.S.

I am against it because it is already hard enough to afford enough shows to qualify for regionals...I don't need to add any more just to qualify to move up a level!

Ghazzu
Dec. 6, 2007, 07:56 PM
Not that I'm in any danger of ever riding at a high enough level to worry about it, but...
why not count scores from a breed-restricted competition, so long as they are USEF/USDF recognized?
The judges are the same, the tests are the same. And it isn't placings, it's scores.

Ghazzu
Dec. 6, 2007, 08:04 PM
If the intent is to protect horses from being shown at a level they are not ready for, wouldn't encouraging the judges to award scores commesurate with the horse's performance when overfaced do this much more simply than this new proposed nonsense?
Surely someone who shows several times at 3rd and gets scores in the 30's and 40's might get the message, no?

Elegante E
Dec. 6, 2007, 08:26 PM
Like this suggestion. Makes a heck of a lot more sense.


If there MUST be a proficiency to move up rule, and the the issue is about rider proficiency (by the way, I am not sure everyone defines "the problem" the same way), why not just make the criteria that one has to have x number of tests at the highest test of the level on which the RIDER score is 6 or above? That takes the horse's gaits and talent out of it, lets the judges give 5s or 4s if they are appalled, is much simpler, and you could just copy your test and send it in with your entry for the next level. There is so much inconsistency with this criteria for medals and that criteria for qualifying for ABIG championships and those criteria for qualifying for BLM championships and now adding another set of DIFFERENT criteria in scores just seems cumbersome.

NoDQhere
Dec. 6, 2007, 08:44 PM
and then can save $ by hiring only "r" judges

Or just not have shows anymore :no: After all with fuel over $3.00 a gallon and no end in sight, we'll just have to drive further. Just another sacrifice:(

Touchstone Farm
Dec. 6, 2007, 10:48 PM
"The mission of Performance Standards is to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the levels, while supporting the welfare of the horse."

This is the stated problem, but the solution does nothing to fix the issue above. The way I see it is that people that are hell-bent to show at third level or whatever, will just show the sh*t out of their horses at second until they get the number of points they need. The "good" riders will be able to do it faster, and will show less. The "bad" riders will take 20 shows to do it (or whatever). How is this protecting the horse and promoting a positive experience??

The goals of the "mission" need to be addressed through better education of the riders, trainers and teachers in this country. I believe some of the countries that have this type of performance criteria also have a very good system of training riders, teachers and trainers in place. This is what we need in the U.S.

I am against it because it is already hard enough to afford enough shows to qualify for regionals...I don't need to add any more just to qualify to move up a level!

GS, this is what I think too. If the riding is not so great, I'd rather see the resources put toward educating riders and trainers. This proposal is all about shows, which are really "after-the fact." Wouldn't it be better to put the resources toward educating the riders BEFORE they go to shows?

And as far as time to digest this before the convention, having been a delegate for many years, you don't always get specific information before the convention so you can discuss with your GMO membership. Some things are rather sprung on you. :-) Then all you can do is make your best guess as to what decision best represents your membership. And of course, the delegates all have their "slants": some are AAs, some are show managers, some are professionals. One just hopes that collectively the "best" decision is made on behalf of the members they are representing. But it certainly would help to have more information before the convention, otherwise sometimes it feels a bit fruitless or like you can't make the best decision on behalf of your "constituents."

ltw
Dec. 7, 2007, 12:07 AM
Rebecca:

You stated all of your cases very well! Kudos to you for being persistent and vocal. No wonder we get along so well, our profiles are very similar.

I, just like Rebecca, have contributed, acting as a board member and clinic organizer for multiple years for a GMO. I continue to give back to my dressage community as a clinic organizer going on 4 years now. I also have contributed as a donor of money to dressage and breeding shows for many years.

But recently my life has changed too. I had to make many personal sacrafices in the last few years. My husband's company went bankrupt and he took a huge pay cut and lost much of his pension. Needless to say, it changed our lifestyle. I work about 60-70 hours at my corporate job a week , run a farm (with less horses now) and have a son (heading for college) to take care of. Every cent I make goes to take care of my son and to buy hay, feed, vet bills for my horses

I cannot except for local show 4-5 times a year. I cannot drive 3-4 hours every weekend for a clinic. I have to do my best getting help with what I have locally.

Horses are a very expensive sport for most people. In order to afford an upper level horse for normal people it may require to keep a superb older animal going longer with maintenance. 20 classes, 20 shows, 20 points is too much.

In my humble opinion this rule will cause people to override, overshow in a season to get their points. This rule will wear out horses and make them lame. It will have the opposite effect intended.

Despite best efforts, footing is still not very good at recognized shows. I cannot tell you how many times in the mid-atlantic region riders have had to scratch due to the following: too hard, too deep, too much water. We cannot control weather conditions and we have had nothing but extremes lately, and many show facilities do not have the $$ to keep their footing in top condition. As a result, horses are often lame when the leave a showgrounds.

Every year after the GAIGS or BLMS I talk to my friends that say " MY horse has been lame since the championships, the footing was terrible"..

All I can say is, this rule will have the opposite effect. People will push horses harder on mediocre to bad footing and there will be more lame horses. Schoolmasters will be used up faster, less people will compete.

Please tell me how that is in the best interest of the horse?

J-Lu
Dec. 7, 2007, 02:30 AM
"The mission of Performance Standards is to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the levels, while supporting the welfare of the horse."

This is the stated problem, but the solution does nothing to fix the issue above. The way I see it is that people that are hell-bent to show at third level or whatever, will just show the sh*t out of their horses at second until they get the number of points they need. The "good" riders will be able to do it faster, and will show less. The "bad" riders will take 20 shows to do it (or whatever). How is this protecting the horse and promoting a positive experience??

The goals of the "mission" need to be addressed through better education of the riders, trainers and teachers in this country. I believe some of the countries that have this type of performance criteria also have a very good system of training riders, teachers and trainers in place. This is what we need in the U.S.

I am against it because it is already hard enough to afford enough shows to qualify for regionals...I don't need to add any more just to qualify to move up a level!

I agree! Plus with Rebecca and suzy and Elegant E and TS, and everyone else of likemindedness. What you guys said.
J.

rebecca yount
Dec. 7, 2007, 07:34 AM
I will be seeing Jeff Moore this weekend at the L program. He's obviously very active in USDF and can get info to the right people. If anyone would like me to hand-deliver comments and statements, if you will email them to me (letter with real name, address, etc) at dryount@yahoo.com I will print whatever I get before Sunday and put them in an envelope and give it to him on Sunday.

If we want to be heard we have to say something. I would recommend trying to be strong and constructive in statements. Say what might work better. Say that according to the problem "definition", what would work and what wouldn't and why. You all know what I mean.

Anyway, send me those emails.

suzy
Dec. 7, 2007, 07:40 AM
I'm really impressed with two of the solutions offered--requiring the rider to receive several scores of 6 in order to move up and offering more in the way of education. There are many good and valid arguments against passing the proposal but, as always, solutions need to be offered as well instead of just complaints. Has anyone forwarded these ideas to Janet or any of the other USEF reps?

Rebecca, I'll be sending along some comments. Thanks for volunteering to do this.

rebecca yount
Dec. 7, 2007, 07:47 AM
Suzy, I just looked at your profile. Are you REALLY 12?????

suzy
Dec. 7, 2007, 07:56 AM
lol. No, I just act it. I hit your age yesterday. ;)

egontoast
Dec. 7, 2007, 08:56 AM
Excuse me because I am in a different country (maybe FRANCE ;)) and I haven't read all the replies-please don't shoot me for that but...

Why is this necessary? Isn't it enough if someone has the unmitigated gall or is that gaul, I forget, that they go for it and get a 53? Surely the marks accomplish enough shaming or deterence from moving up too fast.

I understand the reasoning for the rule change but SO WHAT if someone wants to try a higher level when they are not ready or if their horse has topped out at 1st level? They will find out. Let them try if they want to.

Life is short. If people want to try out these things, what exactly is the problem? You can't 'jump the queue' unless you are ready. If you want to try, so what?

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 7, 2007, 10:42 AM
Eggy, the judges are afraid to use 4's when appropraite, so they want to be able to continue to use 5's and 6's but still convey the message that the rider sucks and shouldn't be able to move up. jmo of course.

Grintle Sunshine
Dec. 7, 2007, 10:53 AM
JDD - so true!

Also, if they're going to have something like this, there should be a high enough score that if you earn it once (or twice, possibly), that you could automatically be bumped up. I don't think you should have to get 4 75%s at Second Level to prove you're ready for Third. If you get one or two, that should be sufficient.

If this is really such a problem, I think the approach should be the other way around: if you get two (arbritrary number there, could be anything) scores lower than X% (say 50%) you have to move down a level until you "requalify" for the original level you were showing at. Just an idea, not sure if it's a good one, but this would do more to fix the problem of people showing at an inappropriate level. It would avoid "punishing" people who are already doing things correctly.

I'm really hoping they don't do this, however...

Grintle Sunshine
Dec. 7, 2007, 11:00 AM
Another unintended result of this proposal would be that people are going to be placing a lot more emphasis on scores, and therefore judges better be ready to defend how they score tests! People will be splitting hairs over their scores if different numbers of points are earned between such narrow ranges.

Ja Da Dee
Dec. 7, 2007, 12:01 PM
JDD - so true!

. I don't think you should have to get 4 75%s at Second Level to prove you're ready for Third. If you get one or two, that should be sufficient.

...

Ok, you made me laugh. I think if I ever got a 75 on my horse, the first thing I would do once I recovered consciousness would be to check his microchip to make sure I had the right horse ... lol

poltroon
Dec. 7, 2007, 01:29 PM
The subject of using just the rider score was interjected into the conversation at the convention. It would, indeed take the talent of the horse out of the equation. I think part of the problem is that it is only one mark as oposed to the conglomerate of all of the marks. Just my opinion. I have no invested interest in this since I spend so much time organizing shows, I probably will never again actually show a horse and will never get to third level.:no:

I think the real problem is that the judges haven't necessarily been thinking of that mark as a qualification mark. I would hazard a guess that the majority of tests scoring in the 55-60% range have a 6 in the rider collective. Which of course, begs certain other questions. :)

mtngirl
Dec. 7, 2007, 11:25 PM
If I have read the proposal correctly, all points must be earned at USEF/USDF recognized shows, while being participating members in USDF and USEF. At the present time, you can show in a recognized show as a "non-member", get your scores etc, but they won't count toward qualifying/awards/championships. For those of us who use the shows as a test of our training, and aren't chasing awards/points etc, any scores we might earn as a "non-member" would not count towards trying to move up. In fact, as I read it, you could no longer enter a show as a "non-member"...or at least not above Second Level.

For a number of years I was quite active in my GMO...then like many, life changes, work schedules etc, forced me to step back (plus some major disagreements with the direction our GMO was heading). I've still tried to keep up with rule changes etc. And, since I am not currently a member, I suppose my "opinion" doesn't count. But for what it's worth, the proposal as it stands now, would seal my fate as to never being able to show Third or above. Even should I decide to renew memberships to USDF/USEF etc, my work schedule and budget are such that I simply would not be able attend the shows necessary to earn the points needed. :no:

I have mixed feelings about what I have been reading. Although I don't show in many recognized shows, I do go and watch and scribe. Perhaps it is just in the area where I am, but I truly don't see a huge problem here. While there are the occasional bad rides at Third or above, most of what I've seen do not seem to be from total rider incompetence. If this is truly about the horse's welfare and abusiveness, then the time to act is when the abuse is ocurring. I can guarantee you that some one who is eliminated and rung out of their test for abuse will set the show grounds abuzz...and peer pressure/embarrasment alone will go a long ways towards disuading that sort of behavior.

Honestly, perhaps I am totally missing the point, but I don't see that this is going to do much towards fixing the "problem". It's just going to eliminate more people from being able to show at recognized shows.

yaya
Dec. 8, 2007, 08:59 AM
In fact, as I read it, you could no longer enter a show as a "non-member"...or at least not above Second Level.


You read it correctly.

Hooey
Dec. 8, 2007, 12:12 PM
I wonder which professionals will now start a business leasing out more advanced horses to those riders who need the scores to move up? The proposal states that the rider doesn't need to qualify on the same horse.

So for those of us not in California, or Florida, or the dressage money mecca states will not have the opportunity to buy our way into the scores as easily.
But the folks that live in those states and train with the members of the "committee" sure will.

And you sure won't see those FEI level horses retired from showing and becoming stay at home schoolmasters either.Wonder how many of the dressage committee judges will have the guts to eliminate the guaranteed lame FEI horses during a test? We all know that this proposal will escalate the number of lame horses showing. mmmm, will shows and the USEF have the resources to do more drug testing now, to help ensure that there are not more drugged up dressage horses dragged out to a show to help a professional's client get their scores?

rebecca yount
Dec. 10, 2007, 07:47 AM
I gave all the emails to Jeff Moore yesterday when I was a demo rider for the "L" program.

Here's my prediction: The USEF rule change proposal might very well pass--it's only saying there WILL be a system, and that the USEF Dressage Committee will make up the specific criteria.

Then the USEF Dressage Committee (made up, of course, of all USDF people) gets to decide whatever it wants. Remember, the specifics that are being passed around are NOT exactly part of the rule change--they are just some version of what the USEF Dressage Committee wants to enact. There is no specification of what they can enact in the actual rule change.

Which is exactly why I don't think the rule change should pass--because it gives the Dressage Committee absolutely free rein to put in whatever they want without, if they don't feel like it, honoring what others want.

I'm having a lesson with Scott Hassler today, who is on the Dressage Committee. I will talk to him about it, too.

They should have made the rule change specify that when the specific criteria are looked at, that will entail another rule change--remember this one is only about a timeline (December 2009) for criteria to be put in place. But as it stands now, the only rule is about the time it takes place, NOT what the criteria will be.

SGray
Dec. 11, 2007, 10:20 AM
thank you for your efforts Rebecca

rebecca yount
Dec. 19, 2007, 06:38 AM
Just so everyone knows, after an initial few emails in reply to ones I sent, the responses from the USEF Dressage Committee seem to be tapering off. I know the members of the committee are busy and it IS the holiday season.

I encourage everyone who is interested to keep sending emails to all members of the committee, regularly, including links to all the threads on all bulletin boards regarding this subject. Paste comments from threads into the emails. It is probably important to let TPTB how the discussions are evolving and make them aware of new points (some very good ones, IMO) that are being raised. ry

sm
Dec. 19, 2007, 11:21 AM
This is going to be a MAJOR PROBLEM ( I am censoring myself) for eventers at, or moving up to, Advanced.

Eventers go to "straight" dressage shows to improve thier performance in the dressage phase of Eventing.

Since the Advanced Dressage Tests include flying changes, the only way (outside the event itself) to work on your dressage test UNDER TRUE COMPETITION CONDITIONS is to compete at Third Level.

In some parts of the country, you can do a Third Level test under a GOOD R or S judge at a schooling show. But in MOST of the country, the only way you are going to get such a judge at Third Level is at a recognized dressage show.

Many of the top Advanced horses in the country would have to stop evening entirely to get enough points to competer at Third.

They are not going to do that. The consequence will be that fewer upper level eventers will go to recognozed dressage shows.

This is NOT going to improve the quality of eventing dressage.

JANET, REBECCA AND LORIK: Let me understand this, excerpted from the OP Eighth Paragraph: "This system does not apply to dressage classes, sections or divisions in regular competitions. (In other words there are no qualifying requirements to show at breed shows in dressage divisions)."

So, if in a breed show, an eventer can take the test as before? Maybe something can be worked out for most eventers if this is the case.

I was working on a TB breed show anyway, maybe should include part-TBs. Would need a committee of very good people to look over this. And where USEA stands in support of this type of venture. Like I said, a good committee would be needed... for eventers only. PM me if interested.

STF
Dec. 19, 2007, 11:31 AM
I dont understand why everyone is so upset about having to prove their ability at a lower level?!!
If you already at 3rd, then it does not involve you. The ones it does involve need to have scores AT those basic levels anyway.
You not pounding your horses in the ground, unless YOU WANT TO becuase you needed to be able to ride the tests as the basic levels in the first place before moving up a level.
What is it said, each level is ridden approx a year? An average show rider shows 2-3 times at that level a year? I dont think that in any way is pounding the horses in the ground.
Now someone who wants to run from the rules of qulaifying, which seems silly, as they should be able to ride the lower levels fine if they are at 3rd level.......... will pound the horses, but there is really NOT a need to.

Its about the welfare of the horse and maybe, just maybe......getting more riders confirmed at the basics.

nature
Dec. 19, 2007, 01:21 PM
How can qualifying prevent abuse. It seems there is not an oylmpics that goes by, in any sport, where an olympic rider is not disqualified for drugging or some kind of abuse. I would think that "olympic riders" are qualified and still abuse.

What about ANKY and Rolkur? If she cannot ride, who can? Yet she used or uses Rolkur. I know. the FEI said it was ok so lets not change this to a rolkur thread.

Grand Prix jumper riders put metal shaving in their horses boots, Eventers do not know when to pull up.....it goes on and on..

Endurance is having its own set of problems....

Qualifying, certifying or what ever you call it, does not prevent abuse.

copper bay farm
Dec. 19, 2007, 02:01 PM
I dont understand why everyone is so upset about having to prove their ability at a lower level?!!
If you already at 3rd, then it does not involve you. The ones it does involve need to have scores AT those basic levels anyway.
You not pounding your horses in the ground, unless YOU WANT TO becuase you needed to be able to ride the tests as the basic levels in the first place before moving up a level.
What is it said, each level is ridden approx a year? An average show rider shows 2-3 times at that level a year? I dont think that in any way is pounding the horses in the ground.
Now someone who wants to run from the rules of qulaifying, which seems silly, as they should be able to ride the lower levels fine if they are at 3rd level.......... will pound the horses, but there is really NOT a need to.

Its about the welfare of the horse and maybe, just maybe......getting more riders confirmed at the basics.

It does affect people like myself who are not out there actively chasing points every year, but showing at 1-2-3 recognized shows/year. To earn the 20 points they are discussing at 2nd Level, I need to ride in about 6 more classes (3 shows) next year. That's as many as I usually can get to in one year, having obligations for family (twin 6yos) and business. My scores were 63-65% this year in the 4 Second Level classes I did show in. I just took 2 days of lessons with a top trainer I work with several times of the year and he commented that our 3rd level movements were all confirmed with 8's, save the changes which are a little bit of a work in progress and a little exuberant still. Whether I can put them all together in a test with that quality will remain to be seen.

It irks me to have to base the decision on what level to show this horse next year on this rule. Truthfully, I will probably bring him right out at 3rd regardless of the changes since I am likely to get at least one clean one and perhaps one late behind and try to get my 2 qualifying 60% scores for the bronze right away so I can be "grandfathered in".

Honestly, I think this might have a lot of people showing above their level. If for example, only scores from 4th Level are going to count towards your 20 points necessary to move up to PSG, how many people do you expect to spend the necessary time in 3rd when the scores won't advance them? Nope, it will be right off to 4th in hopes of getting a generous judge and eeking out a point at a time.

I wonder if anyone ever considered that? :no: I myself will just stay home until we can do 4th well enough.

sm
Dec. 19, 2007, 03:58 PM
Its about the welfare of the horse and maybe, just maybe......getting more riders confirmed at the basics.

It's not about the welfare of the horse. Reading some of your other posts, where you address waterskiiing and ripping at the horse, I believe people will still waterski and rip at their horses' mouths. Why? Because it's being rewarded by certian winning riders and the FEI says it's okay and they do not see abuse.

If you're interested in ending sloppy riding than change the points on the tests, stop rewarding extravagent gaits over correct riding and correct submission. By all means reward exuberant gaits BUT ONLY AFTER THE CORRECT BASICS ARE THERE. JMHO.