PDA

View Full Version : Memo from the Dressage Committee



Roberta
Jan. 5, 2008, 12:35 PM
I have been asked to post the following memo from the USEF Dressage Committee.

I hope that all of you who read it; read it in the manner and spirit in which it was written. I also hope that someone will post it on the other Bulletin Boards on which discussions have been taking place as I am not a member of those other boards.

Memo from the USEF Dressage Committee Concerning the Performance Standards Proposal

The members of the USEF Dressage Committee have received many e-mails from competitors and show organizers, and have, indeed, listened to you. We answered most of your communications individually. Letters that we did not answer often were of excessive length and, considering the workload of the Dressage Committee, difficult for a point-by-point response.

We need to remind the correspondents that the document is exactly what it is named, a proposal. If performance standards were to be implemented in this or any other form, they would not take effect before 2010. Rather than rejecting the proposal outright, competitors can contribute to the deliberations by reviewing their points and percentages when they show this year. This might provide us with further concrete suggestions and ideas.

We know that amateur riders are the backbone of our sport. The goal of the DC is to re-work this proposal and to find a system that is fair to the horses and allows riders with average horses who are on the right track with their training to move to the next level expeditiously.

Most judges do complete the score sheets with great care and try hard to give competitors the scores they deserve. Unfortunately, some riders do not agree or choose to ignore the judges’ comments. With our proposal, we will try to find a solution that will work well for all dressage sport participants. Also, please keep in mind that the proposal to be voted on at the USEF Convention in January 2008 will only establish a time-line for developing a qualification system. When the performance standards proposal is finalized, the qualification requirements will be submitted as a separate rule change proposal.

Respectfully,
USEF Dressage Committee

Rhiannonjk
Jan. 5, 2008, 12:40 PM
Why should being reminded that it wouldn't go into effect until 2010 make it any different?

It doesn't address the upper-level eventers, either.

CatOnLap
Jan. 5, 2008, 12:57 PM
With respect, and thanks Roberta:
That memo is a pile of placating non information.

What I get from it is that the proposal is forging ahead as planned to put in place some sort of system to prevent people from competing at higher levels unless they have jumped through the hoops (and paid the years of fees!) at the lower levels first.

They may have "listened", but I don't think anything has been "heard".


Unfortunately, some riders do not agree or choose to ignore the judges’ comments

So, let the judges and TDs single out those very few riders who do this and not punish the rest of us ( the majority) who don't.

hoopoe
Jan. 5, 2008, 01:06 PM
Nope, sounds like it is a done deal. Now we are supposed to pretend that we are going to be able to submit suggestions as to how the system will work.

I don't see my ever needing to buy a shadbelly. Ah well I guess my trainer does not have to worry about my carrying out my desire for a very dark almost black green shad.

Go me.

Martha Anderson
Region 6
perpetual OK but not great rider with average but dearly loved horse Jaybird

Thanks for all the fish. Good to see that the thousands of hours I put into making shows run over the last 15 years is finally going to work for me

insert icon that does not exist on this BB

J-Lu
Jan. 5, 2008, 01:11 PM
I sent a letter to all of the members of the dressage committee and I've received individual responses from about one third so far, and they've been constructive.

Thank you, Roberta, for posting this here.

The interesting part of this letter to me is that although the author states it is only "a proposal", she seems to have rejected the idea of rejecting the proposal outright herself. And unfortunately, I still don't see why "Some riders chose to ignore the judges' comments" is a justification for launching a qualification system. I've yet to here defensible justification for this system.

However, I want to thank everyone who took the time to email the committee. The committee should have comments and feedback from "the trenches".

J.

Roberta
Jan. 5, 2008, 01:38 PM
Please take the time to read the memo carefully. Saying that it is a done deal is jumping to a huge conclusion. It says ''IF".

The memo says that they are re-working it. And I know for a fact that they have been. I know for a fact that they have been listening and hearing all of you.

You can either choose to see this as a positive step in your direction as opposed to being so negative about it.

I have said this many times on this BB. Do not come out with blanket statements unless you know the facts to be true.

rebecca yount
Jan. 5, 2008, 02:35 PM
Roberta, thank you for sending this memo. I have probably been one of the most vocal of the critics. I appreciate the fact that the Dressage Committee is paying attention to the concerns of the dressage community. The memo is cordial and productive.

Everyone, I think the CRITICAL phrase in that memo is:

"When the performance standards proposal is finalized, the qualification requirements will be submitted as a separate rule change proposal."

This should be stated in the CURRENT rule change proposal.

If that is an absolute promise and the USEF Board of Directors will stick to it, and members of the Dressage Committee will stick to it, then I think it goes a long way to placating some of us who have been extremely concerned. At least it does for me.

PLEASE ROBERTA TELL THE COMMITTEE WE NEED TO SEE THAT LANGUAGE IN THE RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL OR AS AN ADDENDUM OR SOMEHOW IN THE RULE CHANGE AT HAND when it is voted on by the BOD next week!!!.

The fact that the qualifying criteria were going to just be "determined by the Dressage Committee" and it was not clear (and still is not clear, in the rule change proposal although the memo that you have just posted here helps--will someone please print it quickly I am not at a computer with a printer) that a separate rule change proposal would be submitted to cover the criteria was a huge worry.

freestyle2music
Jan. 5, 2008, 02:44 PM
Basicly I don't think that this proposal is a bad proposal in general. The same systems works in manyyyy countries. However..... You have to make a blueprint of the combined European system and not a blueprint of the Dutch, German, France or Danish system. In the Netherlands and Germany you can participate in a dressage competition almost every weekend (both saturday and sunday), but these countries are an exception to the rest of Europe.

The USA have to setup a system per region or even sub-region, like Europe has a different system for every country.

A very simple system (also based on the memo of the USEF posted here) is to let the judges give a stamp on the scoresheets, and if you have collected
(depending on the region) 2,3,4,....10 stamps you are allowed to move to the next level.

Most of the judges, that I know, love to give high (but realistic) scores, and hate it when they have to give the 3's and 4's at every competition.

Furthermore please be very happy that the dressagecommittee of the USEF has an open eye and ear for you (their members), I know many countries where this isn't the case.

And YES I have my flamesuit on !

Tiligsmom
Jan. 5, 2008, 02:52 PM
Roberta - Thank you for posting this.

I am one of the minority who endorses the proposal as is. I sent an email to the committee with my endorsement. I know that's unpopular, however, after calculating what it would take to advance through their proposed stages, it was doable and would/could elevate the quality of riding training at the AA level.

The largest leap is from 2nd to 3rd. This requires the largest number of points. However, those points are cumulative (training - 2nd), and are generally earned over a longer period of time. This time period allows for a deepening of skill and spreads out the cost over a longer period. The early years are the toughest, because there is soooooooooooo much to learn. So why shouldn't it take longer?

As I said, I know this is an unpopular POV, however, there are a few of us AAs who support the proposal as is.

yaya
Jan. 5, 2008, 03:03 PM
The largest leap is from 2nd to 3rd. This requires the largest number of points. However, those points are cumulative (training - 2nd), and are generally earned over a longer period of time.

That is incorrect. The proposal states that to move to 3rd level, ALL the qualifying points come from 2nd level. Training and First do NOT count.

In the higher divisions, the points come from more than one level, but not in the move from 2nd to 3rd.

rebecca yount
Jan. 5, 2008, 03:17 PM
Okay, it appears that the Dressage Committee members are listening.

Now that we have their attention, can everyone PLEASE be sure to keep your correspondence and comments cordial and professional?

This is an emotional issue. I think the Dressage Committee members are willing to work with the membership. Let's meet them halfway.

J-Lu
Jan. 5, 2008, 05:56 PM
Okay, it appears that the Dressage Committee members are listening.

Now that we have their attention, can everyone PLEASE be sure to keep your correspondence and comments cordial and professional?

This is an emotional issue. I think the Dressage Committee members are willing to work with the membership. Let's meet them halfway.

Well said and very true. Thanks for the reminder! :D

slc2
Jan. 5, 2008, 06:55 PM
I spent about 4 hrs reviewing 3rd level scores on line, and I now think I know why the committee wants to do this.

I also reviwed individual's scores on the usef records, and was shocked at what I found.

Very few people have the scores currently to qualify to ride at 3rd level. Of the riders I know their status as whether a bona fide amateur or not, other than professional trainers who showed as part of their business, I saw very, very few people who had the scores to qualify under ANY of the currently proposed systems.

Occasionally there is some benefit to being sick. I was very surprised at the patterns I saw. I also went over classes, thanks to the COH magazine back issues being on sale. There were some very fixed patterns to 2nd and third level classes.

I think instead of making it harder to show 3rd level, they should work on educating 1st and 2nd level riders more, with seminars and demonstrations an integral part of shows.

I think having people demonstrate tests and judges explaining how the test is marked and why, AT A SHOW, would be an idea of how to get people more ready.

I think that instead of an expensive point system, I'd like to see a kind of review from a judge. A rider could do the review more than once if he wanted to or felt he had a bad go. The rider scores would all have to meet a minimum on one test. I'd like the system to actually contain several options, rather than only one way to qualify to move up.

J-Lu
Jan. 5, 2008, 09:09 PM
I think instead of making it harder to show 3rd level, they should work on educating 1st and 2nd level riders more, with seminars and demonstrations an integral part of shows.

I think having people demonstrate tests and judges explaining how the test is marked and why, AT A SHOW, would be an idea of how to get people more ready.

I think that instead of an expensive point system, I'd like to see a kind of review from a judge. A rider could do the review more than once if he wanted to or felt he had a bad go. The rider scores would all have to meet a minimum on one test. I'd like the system to actually contain several options, rather than only one way to qualify to move up.

It's an interesting concept, but I think that if someone doesn't have "it" by the time they are at the showground, a demonstration won't help. Plus, I once went to a big show where they had demonstration rides and the judge asked a person in my trainer's (at the time - long time ago) class to demo third level. My trainer freaked, thinking that the judge had already "decided" the class by choosing this person to do a demo ride. It was fugly. I can see that happening if demo rides were regular events.

There are a number of educational videos available through USDF and catalogs that serve as excellent demonstration rides, though. That said, I'd like to see more educational videos and magazine spreads featuring average horses or horses just doing a movement for the first time. Many people try to emulate the head set/hand position of well-balanced, uphill, forward demo horses and it doesn't work out (one think I loved about Lendon Gray's Practical Horseman series versus, say, Leslie Webbs - she sometimes had plain demo horses and often showed horses acting poorly). Perhaps a series of videos that are "ride-a-tests" featuring good, average and bad rides (scored in real time with comments from a judge) at each level would be useful.

J.

Pony Fixer
Jan. 5, 2008, 09:19 PM
Well, hold on there, slick. I need one more score for my bronze. A SECOND level score. I have a horse that is stretched to his limit (non WB) at second level. I got 2 scores in the low 60s (same judge at 2 different shows, so doesn't count as 2, go figure), but mostly spent a lot of money to get 58-59%. I am never gonna get big scores on him at second, all the stars have to be aligned. I am not going to be pushing him any more, especially for the money it costs to compete.

I just bought a 3rd/4th level horse late in the 2007 season. Tried to ride him at second for the "easy" score. Well, I'd only had him 6 weeks, I had a ride in the coliseum, and I got high FORTIES. He was "Koo-koo for cocoa puffs". Four weeks later, different venue, I was AA high score at third level with a 65+%. Based on my second level scores, I don't "belong" at third. But I beg to differ. And I will be begging to differ all 2008 season as I ride him at 3rd.

flshgordon
Jan. 5, 2008, 11:13 PM
Roberta - Thank you for posting this.

I am one of the minority who endorses the proposal as is. I sent an email to the committee with my endorsement. I know that's unpopular, however, after calculating what it would take to advance through their proposed stages, it was doable and would/could elevate the quality of riding training at the AA level.

The largest leap is from 2nd to 3rd. This requires the largest number of points. However, those points are cumulative (training - 2nd), and are generally earned over a longer period of time. This time period allows for a deepening of skill and spreads out the cost over a longer period. The early years are the toughest, because there is soooooooooooo much to learn. So why shouldn't it take longer?

As I said, I know this is an unpopular POV, however, there are a few of us AAs who support the proposal as is.

I think it's a shame that you didn't take the time to read more carefully....all the points come from 2nd level so training and 1st count for nothing.


While I really appreciate the commitee taking the time to respond to us here, the memo doesn't do much to put my fears to rest and while they did use the word IF once, it still sounds to me as though it is a done deal. I hope if it does pass they will listen to the membership that the proposed requirements are far too cumbersome for the average AA who is the backbone of many of these shows.

Serrano16
Jan. 5, 2008, 11:44 PM
This is from another BB I belong to. The first post is from Janet Foy-Brown. You can follow the rest:
I am sorry that when I take over 3 hours per night to answer the last 500 E mails on my computer so that ALL MEMBERS who write to me feel I am responding that they then take my reply out of context and vilify me on the chat room floor. So be it.



The truth of the matter is that Dressage is an Olympic Sport. I did not determine that. The judges are trained to judge on a standard that is worldwide. Trainer's should be trained to work with their students on that same standard. NOW, if that were true and the world were perfect, THEN there would be no need for standards of any sort. Neither in dressage, nor figure skating etc. However, since the world is not perfect we must face a few facts.



One is that not all trainer's train correctly. Second is that not all students learn correctly. Many students in fact go against their trainer's advice as to which level they should show. (Many top trainers have requested this system). Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows. People with a lot of money buy well trained horses but fail to train themselves first. The horse gets frantic when the aids are not clear and when the rider punishes the horse for 'doing it wrong.' So who is at fault? All of us. The trainer who tell their student they are OK to go, when they are not. The judge who fails to score the poor rider low enough, instead giving the horse a low score for submission, instead of giving the rider a 4. The rider who overfaces a horse that can succeed at first level but not at third. The wealthy rider who thinks because they can buy the training they can ride the training.



If all of you sitting by your computers would take a moment and look at the new ideas from the DC: lower points, starting at 58% instead of 60%, no PM membership, I would say MOST OF YOU would already have the points to move into third. We are allowing ALL scores to count from the past, you can even bank them for later use.



So, are we so unfair? NO. The rule change is NOT about setting the proposal in stone, as a matter of fact, the rule change only STARTS THE PROCESS, it does not identify and program. The Committee is working very hard (and long at their laptops) gathering all of the information you have sent us. We have asked you to ride 2007 as a test year and let us know how it went. Does anyone hear this?????? I guess not, it is just easier to work oneself into a frenzy.



Let's start to all work for the betterment of the sport, the horse AND the rider as well as the judge. We are all in this together, this is not about us vs them.



It would be of more benefit to the committee to have all of you look at the second draft, do a score check on the USDF website and see really where you would stand if this proposal was in place. Our goal is to have a 58% rider be able to qualify to move up in two shows. Is this unreasonable?



Feel free to put this in your chatroom as it seems you have already done so. Janet Foy


-------------- Original message from "Jeff Moore" <jashtonmoore@earthlink.net>: --------------


I don’t have a strong opinion about this, and no personal stake, but….



Janet seems to be taking the grief for something that is not her invention. Don’t kill the messenger, I think.



Judges don’t like to say “Horse not ready for this level”. And we don’t like to see the desperate quest to say “I ride X level” [no matter how badly, and how unfortunate for the horse].



Maybe it needs to be considered in terms of the positive aspects of this. I know it seems ‘un-American’ to enforce limitation and enforcement, but judges do see horses that are asked to function at levels beyond both themselves and their riders, with detriment to both the horses and the sport (especially with the double bridle allowed sooner).



It is a balance between freedom to pursue goals, and well-being of the horses and the sport.



I personally don’t like to bother with the lower levels, just for lack of time, and would like to start at a higher level. If I’m not allowed to do this, so be it. I’ll have to earn my way, like everybody, thru due process.



I am also an FEI judge in another equestrian discipline, and we have had to deal with this issue – nationally and internationally. Qualification is necessary, and has proved advisable and useful.



We had, in dressage, for years, fussing about riders staying in lower levels so that they could win – I think that this is just a different/obverse application of the same issue.



Again, as a rider, trainer, competitor, and instructor, I don’t have an ironclad special viewpoint on this issue, but I think a balanced view would always be useful.



I really don’t think that the issue is about elitism. I think Janet’s remarks should be taken in context and intent - as explanation, rather than protection of viewpoint. Her openness and effort to communicate and clarify should be appreciated, not vilified.



I don’t think I’m ‘taking sides’, but just something to think about when looking at both sides of the equation……



Now, how many of you have I alienated? Hopefully few.





Best to all,







Jeff Moore







Jeff Moore

334 Mission Vineyard Rd

San Juan Bautista, CA 95045

Tel: (831) 623-4446

Fax: (831) 623-0607


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ingrid Edisen [mailto:ingrid.dressage@prodigy.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:51 AM
To: bobbie paulk; jeff1 moore; virginia ellis; william-askins@att.net; cindy dix; pj hardin; carol and rich; Kay Skillern; leslie white; donna barrett
Cc: jennifer jarvis; Porkypoo52@aol.com; nancy fair; michelle doty; robin whittenbaugh; judy elliott; rachel misiti; Linda Ryan
Subject: janet foy/dressage vote



This is from Classical Dressage, the chat group, and was posted this morning at 2:10 a.m. It contains a response to someone on the Dressage Standards Proposal and came from Janet Foy who is actually on the committee and was listed as the main point of contact for us to send our complaints to prior to their big vote on the 8th of January that will make it a sin to ride 3rd level and beyond. Enjoy.



A recent response from Janet Foy leads me to believe that in spite of all pretense that the proposal is "for the good of the horse", the real intent is to keep "lesser" riders and horses from participating at third level and above. To quote Janet:

"You have to understand that you are participating in an Olympic Sport
with certain standards. Even Guatemala has standards in place. This
country is the only one who seems to not undertstand this. The rider
AND the horse must be athletes. Does it take money? Yes. I was
unmarried, riding 14 horses per day and teaching until 10 pm every
nite. The weekends I would either go off to judge or give a clinic or
pack my four horse trailer with clients horses and one of mine and off
we would go to a show. I did no t have a day off for 20 years. All of
us on the committee have worked our buns off to get where we are, we
did not marry 'doctors and lawyers'. Even if you have tons of money,
perhaps you may not have much talent as a rider. This is not about
rich vs poor riders. (signed) Janet Foy"

I may not be interpreting this right, but I sure get the impression she WANTS the upper levels to be elitist.

Jeanne White
Wisconsin USA

Serrano16
Jan. 5, 2008, 11:52 PM
This is from an "S" judge friend of mine who is responding to the rule change. The person fears recriminations and prefers to remain anonymous.

I do think that there should be higher standards for the FEI classes, as that is the International Classes, but for 4th level and below, I not so sure. I think that we have issues that other countries do not have.

1. DISTANCE this is a huge country. Many people have to travel very far for a show. Consequently, there are additional expenses such as stabling, gas, extra help for those left at home. In Europe , there are usually 3 shows within 1 hour from spring through fall.
2. Entry Fees the entry fees for lower level in Europe is far less. Because you are there and gone in no time, there are often no stabling fees. My usual bill for having a young horse competed for me is between 30 and 60 dollars...for the whole show. You pay for a class, and then you are gone...in and out of the trailer.

These are big factors which make showing much easier at the lower levels (in Europe).
3. I believe you will see a lessening of offerings of recognized shows which will mean even further distances to drive in the U.S. and less of a pool of entrants for show management to rely upon.

Jasper'sMom
Jan. 6, 2008, 12:06 AM
[QUOTE=Serrano16;2915985]Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows.


Umm, yeah, I'd say I get a little whiff of elitism here.:rolleyes:

canticle
Jan. 6, 2008, 12:09 AM
What exactly is the point of these new performance standards? :confused:

rosinante
Jan. 6, 2008, 08:22 AM
Roberta

Many thanks for the post. Please carry the following message to the Dressage Committee

Many thanks for the time they have taken to reply. I have sent e-mails and received replies from a number of the DC....however....the following points seem not have been considered:

1- The reply states "when the proposal is adopted...." not "if...." A lot of people are upset that this subject was not raised for discussion at the GMO level or publicized in any public way...eg., USDF Connection and GMO or Regional Director's Newsletters. The lack of publicity raises a lot of questions as to why there has been little opportunity for dialog except thru these internet BB's.

2- The technology for score-keeping requirements seems to NOT be available to USDF. Based on prior problems with scores, the USDF does not have the systems to have timely (like real-time) scores to allow riders to maximize their show time....eg., if I get scores one weekend, can they be used the next?

3- The current dressage scoring system is highly biased towards horses with certain movement, yet the intent of this rule is to qualify riders. From a "testing methodology" perspective, perhaps the dressage scores are not the correct tool to assess riders' capabilities.

4- The rule will affect many AA's. Perhaps we're getting apples and oranges confused. In this thread a post states that this in an "Olympic sport"....yet AA's typically do not compete at FEI levels, so why put in place a qualification rules for national levels. And for the Olympic levels, the USEF already has its High Performance Division where selection criteria are already in place.

5- Although the rule is an USEF rule, the origin of this proposed rule is the USDF, an organization whose mission is education and promotion of dressage. How will a rule that will exclude a large constituency promote or educate people about dressage?

6- Making entry into a sport more difficult will drive potential members away, which may impact USDF membership. Most "special interest" organizations try to be "member friendly"....as in "what can we do for you?" This does not seem to be the case for the USEF/USDF rule proposers.

7- If poor riding is truly the concern, then the question should be asked as to why the scoring system currently in place is not getting the message across to riders. Instead of implementing another "rule," the DC should to back and revisit fundamentals of scoring. The same ways that correct dressage training is based on proper fundamentals, then the DC should scratch its collective head to question and challenge itself with why is the use of the double creating problems and why are riders riding above level? The scoring system currently in place has 4 descriptions of "bad" (bad, fairly bad, and very bad). The questions that the committee SHOULD be pondering is why the scoring system has failed before imposing new rules.

YankeeLawyer
Jan. 6, 2008, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=Serrano16;2915985]Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows.


Umm, yeah, I'd say I get a little whiff of elitism here.:rolleyes:

That comment was quite stunning. I am sorry, but the arrogance of these people is just astounding to me.

piaffegirl
Jan. 6, 2008, 11:49 AM
my first post in eons,

why can't we implement the bronze, silver, gold medal program that is already there. the wheel is not broken, yet, but if this new program is passed, it will throw the whole train off the track.

what is it going to cost all of AA for the implementation of this new program. they could extend us a credit for clinics with our own AA money that it is sure to cost to start this new wheel.

i have my bronze and was ready for my silver when my horse decided to be retired. so i'm penalized because i can't go out and buy a 4th level horse so i can continue on.

i bought two young horses, a diamond hit and a royal hit, and it seems i can ride them in the young horse test, but when they get to 3rd or 4th, i have to go point crazy, i'm sorry but that is beyond my understanding. not everyone can ride young horses but it would seem to be equal to 4th level or above riding ability. what do you do with the rider/horse combo after they do great at the young horse test, they can't compete at 4th or psg? wow, how confusing. i'm confused typing this because this rule will have so many implications throughout the USA, it's mind boggling.

i'm am married, have thee sons all college bound, do this as my professional hobby, train with Arthur Kottas (5 years), a local professional trainer, listen to the judges, what else am i supposed to do????? what more hoops are there for me to jump thru so that this sport that i got into for it's correct and classical way of training can keep it's Olympic hopes alive. how desperate the dc sounds.

i thought we were doing better, we have some of our Olympic riders competing on a regular basis in europe, our young rider program makes me want to clone myself.

what more does the dc want us AA to pay for so we can keep Dressage= to Olympics

i feel we should expect our judges to give at the moment scores and we as aa should accept these scores with humility and grace since our horses we ride accept us with the same.

judges should not be shagrined for the scores they give, it is what it is. i for one say if you can't accept the facts as presented then don't present the facts.

i will end that the medal program is there, use it, have judges get involved, they are out there in the "trenches", it is their score that will make the rider go forward or stay longer at a certain level.

oh and by the way (dc), why not let us know next time about how you feel a little sooner and more in the open; this feels like you are inventing the wheel, laying new track, and filling passenger cars with different riders.

rebecca yount
Jan. 6, 2008, 11:49 AM
Let's look at where we are now.

The rule change proposal (#275-07) was submitted by the USEF Dressage Committee (listed as proponent). The contact person listed on the rule change proposal is Janine Malone (on behalf of the Dressage Committee). Here's the Rule Change Brochure from the USEF website:

How to Submit Proposed Rule changes GR342

As the National Governing Body for equestrian sport, the fundamental mission of the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) is to inspire, encourage interest in, and regulate equestrian competition. Maintaining the integrity of the rules that govern the sport is central to this mission. A well-researched and carefully prepared proposal will have a better chance of being approved by the USEF Board of Directors or Executive Committee and will have a more meaningful impact on the fairness of competition and on the welfare of the horse.

Methodology of Writing Proposed Rule changes
�� Define the problem. Is it specific to one breed or discipline?
�� Determine the scope of the problem. Is it a local problem? Does it extend to state, regional, or zone levels? Is it nationwide?
�� Develop as may possible solutions as you can. Ask others for their input.
�� Choose one possible solution that appears to be the most appropriate and that fits the stated mission and goals of USEF. The solution to the problem may be something that can be accomplished without a rule
change. A rule change is not always the best solution.
�� If the solution requires the addition of rules or proposes changes to existing rules specific to a breed or discipline division, the Recognized Affiliated Organization that represents the breed or discipline should be
involved in the process. Each organization has a different process in place to consider proposed rule changes, some of which are more structured in their organizational requirements than others. Members of
staff are happy to direct you to the appropriate contacts within those organizations.
�� Determine if any other rules would be affected if your proposal were to be adopted by the USEF Board of Directors or Executive Committee and be prepared to submit proposed rule changes for these as well.
�� Deadlines for submitting Standard rule change proposals in 2007 are as follows:
�� Individual Federation Members and Federation Staff June 1st
�� Federation Committees, Affiliated Entities (Bylaw 221) and Affiliated Associations (Bylaw 222) September 1st
�� Exception: for 2007, Arabian Horse Association September 15th.
�� Pursuant to GR342, USEF staff may contact you regarding your proposal. As a result of feedback from various committees, you may be asked to consider certain amendments to your proposal prior to circulating it for review by committees or USEF Directors. You are not obligated to accept any such recommendations. The Board does have the authority to amend any proposed rule change.

Proposed Rule Change Form
�� The official Proposed Rule Change form is available online or can be obtained by contacting our office.
�� Determine the correct placement of the proposed rule change and locate the Chapter and Rule number in the current website version of the Rule Book, which contains all rule changes approved to date.
�� Proposed rule changes that comply with the conditions and timelines stated in GR342 are considered Standard rule changes and should be submitted with a proposed effective date of 12/1/08. Please clearly
state any request for an earlier proposed effective date; 4/1/08 is the earliest a change should go into effect to ensure proper notification is given to competitions, officials, and members.
�� If you feel circumstances require that your proposal be considered outside the standard annual rule change process, you may request that the USEF Officers consider it as an extraordinary change. You must clearly
state reasons for the extraordinary nature of the proposed rule change on the official form. The proponent will be notified if the proposed rule change does not meet the stated requirements to be considered
extraordinary by the Officers: an extraordinary rule change is defined “as one that, unless expedited, would create or continue a severe hardship or a gross unfairness to the Federation, its members or their horses, its
Licensed Competitions, or its Affiliated Associations.”

�� Proposed rule change: choose "add" if this is a new rule; choose "delete" if an existing rule is being deleted; choose "change to read" if a content change is being proposed for an existing rule. The latter may include both deleting and adding text.
�� Type or print neatly, stating the exact wording being proposed. To indicate deletions, strike through the words you propose to delete. Type in bold and italics the wording you propose to add.
�� If a substantial amount of existing wording is needed, the chance of error is less if you copy and paste from the on-line rule book at the www.usef.org website directly into the rule change proposal form and then make revisions. Use the Text copy tool to copy text; use the Graphics copy tool to copy any necessary graphics.
�� Intent: include a concise statement to state what you intend to accomplish with the proposed rule change.
�� Include proponent and contact information, including name of member, affiliated member organization, or a USEF committee submitting the proposed rule change. If the proponent is a committee, affiliate member
organization, a contact person and accompanying information should be provided. A USEF committee submitting a proposed rule change needs to attach a copy of portion of the minutes authorizing submission of the proposed rule changes. If the entire committee or council does not endorse the proposal, this information should also be noted.
�� While members submit proposed rule changes, the chances of the proposal being approved will be improved if there is support of at least one USEF committee. Members are encouraged to work through the
appropriate committee by contacting the relevant staff liaison.
�� Sign and date the form. The proposed rule change form can be completed on line or can be mailed or faxed to the USEF address or fax number listed below.

USEF Office /Legislative Committee/Board & Executive Committee
The proponent will receive a response from our office acknowledging receipt of the proposed rule change. The response will include a request for the proponent to proofread a copy of the proposal as it has been entered into the USEF’s database system.
�� Staff will review each proposed rule change. If there are any questions or concerns, the proponent will be asked to clarify the proposed rule change intent, adjust the effective date, etc. The Legislative Committee does have the right and responsibility to reject proposals for cause (see GR342).
�� The USEF Legislative Committee will designate review of the proposed rule change by any and all standing committees of the Federation and other assigned entities deemed appropriate. When available, committee
actions, staff, and legal comments will be listed as part of the proposed rule change report available on the website or which can be obtained from the Federation office.
�� Proposed rule changes, with committee and assigned entity comments/actions, will be listed on the Federation website, with an invitation for members to submit their comments. These comments will be
forwarded to designated review committees. We would appreciate receiving comments prior to December 15, 2007.
�� The USEF Board of Directors and/or Executive Committee may add to, alter, or amend the rules at any meeting, by a majority vote of those present in accordance with GR342. The proponent may speak at any
committee meeting and at the Board meeting.


SO:

The BOD of USEF has the authority to amend a proposed rule change.


If the proponent is a committee, affiliate member organization, a contact person and accompanying information should be provided. A USEF committee submitting a proposed rule change needs to attach a copy of portion of the minutes authorizing submission of the proposed rule changes. If the entire committee or council does not endorse the proposal, this information should also be noted.

From GR 300:

It is appropriate for each assigned entity to propose an amendment to a proposed rule change and an amended proposal may move forward in the process providing the proponent agrees to the amendment. In accordance with .j.(5) below at the third Board meeting at the Annual meeting, the Directors may amend any proposal at its discretion.

The Federation Annual Meeting.
(1) Each Federation Committee, Task Force or assigned entity (committee or Affiliate) that has been assigned one or more rule change proposals to discuss and comment upon should meet prior to the Annual Meeting to do so, and if necessary, have a representative present the Committee’s or Task Force’s comments at the respective General Forum at the Annual Meeting.
(2) All standard rule change proposals will be discussed before relevant sessions of the Federation Annual Meeting if they have been considered at a meeting of the designated assigned entity (committee or Affiliate). If a proposal has NOT been considered, it will automatically be moved for consideration in the next rule change year.
(3) During the various debates regarding a given rule change proposal, different drafts of a proposal may be made. However, these later drafts should be signed off by the designated Committee or assigned entity in order to go forward to the Board for action at the Third Directors’ meeting.
(4) The proponent of a proposed rule change, if present, may address the Board regarding his/her proposal at the Third Director’s Meeting, regardless of designated Committee or assigned entity action.
(5) At the Third Meeting the Board of Directors is empowered to adopt any such rule change proposal, to not adopt the same, or to revise or amend the same at the Board’s discretion.

THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THIS RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL CAN BE AMENDED OR WITHDRAWN.

IS ANYONE HERE GOING TO THE USEF CONVENTION IN LOUISVILLE AND COULD THAT PERSON BE ACTIVE (REMAINING CORDIAL AND NON-HYSTERICAL) RE THIS ISSUE?

inca
Jan. 6, 2008, 12:23 PM
The largest leap is from 2nd to 3rd. This requires the largest number of points. However, those points are cumulative (training - 2nd), and are generally earned over a longer period of time.

NOT TRUE - ALL the points (20 in the current proposal) have to be earned at SECOND LEVEL. You get NO POINTS for training and first level scores.

This means either showing a LOT in one year to get the necessary 20 points or staying at 2nd level for multiple years. Most amateurs are not going to get over a 65 at 2nd level so will be accumulating points by earning 1 or 2 points per test shown.

ideayoda
Jan. 6, 2008, 12:25 PM
There is sort of circular reasoning going on here with the qualifications thing.....WHO is going to take responsilblity with scoring? Case in point: rider showing (forum was at show, rider 3rd 3) hanging on horizontal curb/boucing/lacks collection/engagement/etc. Should NOT have been doing level/needed basics. Given 65% (satisfactory/fairly good), she did stay on went through the exercises (is that enough?). So, by that logic, the rider WOULD qualify to move up, and has been given greenlights. Is there a hope that less responsibility is to be taken individually for the scores by one judge, that it is spread more? Will keeping a rider longer at a lower level improve anything UNLESS the scores are more absolute (there also) in the first place? I am confused about the intention(s) of the new rule.

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 01:13 PM
What puzzles me is how USDF/USEF is going to permit non-US resident riders/horses in shows above 3rd Level where there is going to be a minimum point requirement.

canticle
Jan. 6, 2008, 01:48 PM
I'm confused. Is the purpose of these rules to get people to show more often in order to qualify? In other words, to get more $$$ for themselves? Or are they trying to engineer which horses (or breeds?) are allowed the "honor" of competing in the upper levels? Either way, it doesn't seem very well thought out. :uhoh:

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 02:43 PM
http://www.ultimatedressage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=121334&start=50

merrygoround
Jan. 6, 2008, 03:07 PM
Having watched some painfully bad rides at 3rd and 4th at major shows, I can understand the rationale of the DC. However, it would be easier on the rest of the world, if they just penalized the the offenders so strongly, that they got the point, and stopped competing at levels at which they had no business. Maybe they could make it a fineable offence under the cruelty section.

Certainly in eventing if some one crashes and burns at the first fence, they have to leave the course. Same with the jumpers. :yes:

Coreene
Jan. 6, 2008, 03:16 PM
Now that we have their attention, can everyone PLEASE be sure to keep your correspondence and comments cordial and professional?Too bad that some of them are not taking your advice. Most of the DC members are great. Some are utterly disgusting in their mean-spirited, bitchy and condescending emails that they have sent back to the people who have bothered to write. Thank God for the forward option on emails, so that these were shared with many, many others so that we could see how absolutely beastly some of them - and you three especially know who you are.

claire
Jan. 6, 2008, 03:17 PM
This is from an "S" judge friend of mine who is responding to the rule change. The person fears recriminations and prefers to remain anonymous.

I do think that there should be higher standards for the FEI classes, as that is the International Classes, but for 4th level and below, I not so sure. I think that we have issues that other countries do not have.

1. DISTANCE this is a huge country. Many people have to travel very far for a show. Consequently, there are additional expenses such as stabling, gas, extra help for those left at home. In Europe , there are usually 3 shows within 1 hour from spring through fall.
2. Entry Fees the entry fees for lower level in Europe is far less. Because you are there and gone in no time, there are often no stabling fees. My usual bill for having a young horse competed for me is between 30 and 60 dollars...for the whole show. You pay for a class, and then you are gone...in and out of the trailer.

These are big factors which make showing much easier at the lower levels (in Europe).
3. I believe you will see a lessening of offerings of recognized shows which will mean even further distances to drive in the U.S. and less of a pool of entrants for show management to rely upon.

Theo, I think this "S" judge explained some of the issues involved with qualification rules here in the USA. (vs. Europe)

In addition, Dressage as a sport is not subsidized by the govt. (and wealthy sponsors) Dressage (horse sports in general) are not part of the grade/highschool programs in the USA.

Hence, our shows (especially outside the east/west coast "hot spots") sure aren't turning away entries, especially at the higher levels.

Wasn't there just a discussion about why more young people in the USA aren't involved in Dressage?

I just wonder WHY, at this point in the development of Dressage in USA, we would try and make an already $$$$ sport even MORE selective and elitist?

WHY would a national governing body penalize the largest part of their volunteering/$$ base because of a few who don't understand that 45%-50% DOES NOT mean you are ready to move up to third level.

As far as preventing abuse of the horse. Judges have scores for fairly bad and bad riding and yellow cards for abuse. Perhaps re-looking at these already existing tools would be a better solution? :confused:

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 05:15 PM
Theo, I think this "S" judge explained some of the issues involved with qualification rules here in the USA. (vs. Europe)

In addition, Dressage as a sport is not subsidized by the govt. (and wealthy sponsors) Dressage (horse sports in general) are not part of the grade/highschool programs in the USA.

Hence, our shows (especially outside the east/west coast "hot spots") sure aren't turning away entries, especially at the higher levels.

Wasn't there just a discussion about why more young people in the USA aren't involved in Dressage?

I just wonder WHY, at this point in the development of Dressage in USA, we would try and make an already $$$$ sport even MORE selective and elitist?

WHY would a national governing body penalize the largest part of their volunteering/$$ base because of a few who don't understand that 45%-50% DOES NOT mean you are ready to move up to third level.

As far as preventing abuse of the horse. Judges have scores for fairly bad and bad riding and yellow cards for abuse. Perhaps re-looking at these already existing tools would be a better solution? :confused:


Claire, please read all of my postings about this subject, before pointing your finger at me !

And to make something clear: dressage/equestrian sports is/are NOT subsidized in Holland or Germany, nor is it a part of a schoolingsystem.

slc2
Jan. 6, 2008, 05:44 PM
What if the yellow card thing were not the only thing. Those cards I think are for out and out abuse - whipping, not for poor riding, poor sitting, unsteady hands. I don't think that program could be widened out that much. What if judges could issue cautions or remarks about riders they felt are really out of their depth and struggling too much? If a rider got so many remarks on tests, they'd have to drop down? maybe just from big R and up, judges.

if the problem is poor riding at specific levels, what about having those riders drop down, instead of keeping them from moving up? and they could take an 'exam' to get to do those levels if they later are ready.

Is the problem really that people move up, or that a judge can't make them move down? Doesn't bumping the really bad cases down solve the problem better?

I realize such a system could have pitfalls, but at least it wouldn't penalize everyone else so much financially, and gets at the problem specifically.

Saying 'dressage is an olympic sport' doesn't make sense to me as justifying a new qualification system. Riding third and fourth level is not an Olympic sport. And I very much doubt most of the Olympic hopefuls are cutting their teeth on third and fourth level in the next couple years. Most of the Olympic hopefuls have been in the FEI system for at least 15-18 yrs before they even qualify.

Saying, 'the scores are just that bad at third and fourth level' is justification to some people, but not people who feel anyone should be allowed to ride at any level and the judge will just score them however they deserve. That's a very, very fundamentally different philosophy.
We do have another thread where people are saying, 'who does it hurt' if someone shows at a level they're struggling at, if it's their dream to do so. if they are consistent, they should also be against qualification. i'm not against it per se, but the current plan sounds very very expensive.

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:04 PM
What if the yellow card thing were not the only thing. Those cards I think are for out and out abuse - whipping, not for poor riding, poor sitting, unsteady hands. I don't think that program could be widened out that much. What if judges could issue cautions or remarks about riders they felt are really out of their depth and struggling too much? If a rider got so many remarks on tests, they'd have to drop down? maybe just from big R and up, judges.

if the problem is poor riding at specific levels, what about having those riders drop down, instead of keeping them from moving up? and they could take an 'exam' to get to do those levels if they later are ready.

Is the problem really that people move up, or that a judge can't make them move down? Doesn't bumping the really bad cases down solve the problem better?

I realize such a system could have pitfalls, but at least it wouldn't penalize everyone else so much financially, and gets at the problem specifically.

Saying 'dressage is an olympic sport' doesn't make sense to me as justifying a new qualification system. Riding third and fourth level is not an Olympic sport. And I very much doubt most of the Olympic hopefuls are cutting their teeth on third and fourth level in the next couple years. Most of the Olympic hopefuls have been in the FEI system for at least 15-18 yrs before they even qualify.

Saying, 'the scores are just that bad at third and fourth level' is justification to some people, but not people who feel anyone should be allowed to ride at any level and the judge will just score them however they deserve. That's a very, very fundamentally different philosophy.
We do have another thread where people are saying, 'who does it hurt' if someone shows at a level they're struggling at, if it's their dream to do so. if they are consistent, they should also be against qualification. i'm not against it per se, but the current plan sounds very very expensive.

OK let me dream a little : I can't imagine that many dressage-riders deliberatly compete above their own or their horses levels ??????????????????????

Before I continue is this a wrong assumption ?

claire
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:26 PM
Claire, please read all of my postings about this subject, before pointing your finger at me !

And to make something clear: dressage/equestrian sports is/are NOT subsidized in Holland or Germany, nor is it a part of a schoolingsystem.

Theo, Sorry I thought (for once ;) ) you were agreeing with TOB from the link you posted: people moving up the levels before they are ready as the reason to support the rule proposal.

Re: schooling system support/subsidize, I was making the point that here in USA there ARE sports supported by the school system and to an extent subsidized. Basketball/Football/Baseball/Soccer most schools have teams and coaches and the access for children is much greater (not so elitist)

As I said, USEF Dressage Committee giving the reason for the Rule as the need to adopt a European model to advance Dressage in USA...is just so :confused: given the huge differences between Europe and USA: culture,distance,equestrian history and resources.

We are getting there! :D But why put the cart before the horse?

Put the $$$ resources that would be used to track qualifying scores and subsidize training and educational clinics for YR's/Trainers/GMO's.

Finally, I cannot believe that soooo many people would continue to show after receiving 45-50%.

Plus, even if a few silly heads DID persist in showing "above their level"...who are they hurting? The poor judge's eyes? The railbird's highly evolved dressage sensibility?

slc2
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:33 PM
It depends on who you talk to. There are people who say it's very common here, and really a problem. On the bb, they're called 'dq's' and 'snobs'.

And there are people who say that people don't show at too high a level often enough to worry about it.

Then there's the group that says 'so what, let people choose whatever they want to do, it doesn't hurt anyone'.

My pov has evolved and changed thru the course of this thread. I started out sure it wasn't needed at all. Then I looked at scores, I started thinking we still need education, and we need some kind of screening, but can we come up with something less expensive. I don't agree that it needs to be 'easy to be pallatable to the membership', it's the number of shows and mileage, and the fact that people with more money can travel more and scrounge up more points (one gal i knew showed her dog in 80 - eighty - obedience trials to get his cd, that's the kind of thing i mean). But I don't want people who can barely afford showing now to be saddled financially with going to many more shows, either. some people think you can get all these scores in 1, 2 shows...nobody AA does that, though. i looked at existing scores by show. amateur riders don't do that.

I think the reason many people feel a qualification is 'unamarican' or 'snobby' is that we've gone so long without a qualification system and many people have been able to ride at any level they choose. most people don't have a trainer insisting they ride a lower level, my experience has been even when trainers do that, they don't always follow that advice.

We have very serious problems with dressage in the USA. A lack of qualified instructors, school horses, and huge distances to shows, and we have amateur riders. Many very committed and serious riders might only show in 1-3 recognized shows a year.

I looked at scores on the usef site, and found that very few people had the numbers to qualify. i'll do that again some day for the second scheme described.

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:37 PM
Theo, Sorry I thought (for once ;) ) you were agreeing with TOB from the link you posted: people moving up the levels before they are ready as the reason to support the rule proposal.

Re: schooling system support/subsidize, I was making the point that here in USA there ARE sports supported by the school system and to an extent subsidized. Basketball/Football/Baseball/Soccer most schools have teams and coaches and the access for children is much greater (not so elitist)

As I said, USEF Dressage Committee giving the reason for the Rule as the need to adopt a European model to advance Dressage in USA...is just so :confused: given the huge differences between Europe and USA: culture,distance,equestrian history and resources.

We are getting there! :D But why put the cart before the horse?

Put the $$$ resources that would be used to track qualifying scores and subsidize training and educational clinics for YR's/Trainers/GMO's.

Thats why I stated I my earlier post that you can't take a blueprint of the Dutch or German or Belgium or or or system and project this on the USA. But the USA can take a blueprint of the European system by replacing every country for a region or even a sub-region. For example : In Belgium (where dressage is still growing) 2 scores of >60%, In Poland 2 scores > 58%, in Holland 5 scores above 65% etc....

But I keep repeating myself :cool:

What I don't like about the pole on TOB is that 50% of the riders don't mind to ride in a class which is to high for them (including the horse).

IMHO, this is the ROOT of the problem and the reason why the USET/USDF want to make these qualification rules.

Bold Jax
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:37 PM
"Most judges do complete the score sheets with great care and try hard to give competitors the scores they deserve. Unfortunately, some riders do not agree or choose to ignore the judges’ comments."

The above statement is quite true. I have scribed over 4,000 tests with about 18 judges (primarily west coast based), including 2 "O" judges and had only slight concern about one. I have seen very little difference in the way they score and all have been cosistant within their scoring. They are focused and work hard to be fair. It's not easy sitting up there watching 70+ rides in a day.

Instead, I find riders and their trainers disagreeing and complaining. If you have never scribed, you should make the effort to do so. The view from the judge's booth is completely different than what you see from the ground. I cannot accurately view a ride from the ground so rarely even try. For example, I remember one adult rider who clearly did not have the talent she though she had nor the ability to ride the horse to its abilities. At a break I walked past her and overheard all her comments about the judge and the scoring. This woman was SO wrong. The judge was right on with every score and comment. It's just easier to blame the judge.

I've also overheard comments about how great XXX movement was, but it was not a part of what speficially was being scored. I can't tell you how many points I have seen being thrown away by sloppy riding.

I write the monthly newsletter at my barn and included some things I'v learned from scribing. I'll post them separately.

angel
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:41 PM
I would say, Theo, that most riders over here do not compete above levels that they have been led to believe they are capable. On the thread you posted, one of those folk awhile back posted pictures of her riding. For the level that she was supposed to be showing, it was dreadful. Yet, she has a regular instructor who is encouraging her onward! As a rule, I do not see problems in the ring to the degree these pictures showed. However, I do see problems in the upper levels that are the direct results of missing parts in the lower levels. I tend to think that the problem in this country is more about how the judges are awarding scores. There is too much touchy, feely going on. Whether I would see the same things in your country at your lower levels I cannot be sure. But, I can tell you that the upper level videos that you post show signs of missing parts in the training as well.

Ghazzu
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:41 PM
[quote=Jasper'sMom;2916046]

That comment was quite stunning. I am sorry, but the arrogance of these people is just astounding to me.

You're not alone.
I guess I should stick to Native Costume classes with my Arabs, eh?

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:48 PM
I have been in this business for over 25 years now. I have given many judge-clinics, produced videos and dvd's for the judge's graduate program in Holland, wrote books and articles about judging the freestyle to music, stayed in hotels for weeks with judges, trainers and riders. I NEVER ever heard that judges like to give LOW scores, even stronger; they hated to give LOW scores. Believe me they all want to give the 8's, 9's and 10's.

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:52 PM
I would say, Theo, that most riders over here do not compete above levels that they have been led to believe they are capable. On the thread you posted, one of those folk awhile back posted pictures of her riding. For the level that she was supposed to be showing, it was dreadful. Yet, she has a regular instructor who is encouraging her onward! As a rule, I do not see problems in the ring to the degree these pictures showed. However, I do see problems in the upper levels that are the direct results of missing parts in the lower levels. I tend to think that the problem in this country is more about how the judges are awarding scores. There is too much touchy, feely going on. Whether I would see the same things in your country at your lower levels I cannot be sure. But, I can tell you that the upper level videos that you post show signs of missing parts in the training as well.


Can you be more specific PLEASE ?

Furthermore there are many videos of level 2 and 3 rides on my website !

Equibrit
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:56 PM
I have been in this business for over 25 years now. I have given many judge-clinics, produced videos and dvd's for the judge's graduate program in Holland, wrote books and articles about judging the freestyle to music, stayed in hotels for weeks with judges, trainers and riders. I NEVER ever heard that judges like to give LOW scores, even stronger; they hated to give LOW scores. Believe me they all want to give the 8's, 9's and 10's.


We are all very much aware that dressage in general is absolutely wonderful in Holland and Europe in general. Too bad that is not the subject of this thread. Unless you have extensive experience in the US dressage scene, I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself!

yaya
Jan. 6, 2008, 06:59 PM
What puzzles me is how USDF/USEF is going to permit non-US resident riders/horses in shows above 3rd Level where there is going to be a minimum point requirement.

Foreign riders have to present a letter from their national federation stating at which level they are qualified to ride.


I can see the European countries doing this for their CDI-level riders, but I sure don't see Canada doing this for their 3rd level riders who happen to want to show at a US show. What a pain!

Bold Jax
Jan. 6, 2008, 07:05 PM
OK let me dream a little : I can't imagine that many dressage-riders deliberatly compete above their own or their horses levels ??????????????????????

Before I continue is this a wrong assumption ?

Oh yes they do! It's all ego based for the rider and a trainer who either lacks the balls to set the rider straight or is afraid to be completely honest and lose a client. I remember once watching a rider at the Del Mar Nationals. Just because she bought a sale horse from Guenter Seidel, the rider thought that she should be able to go in and and do a PSG or I freestyle. OMG, what a train wreck! And I know the rider's trainer told her she wasn't near ready for this. I couldn't believe someone could be that foolish.

freestyle2music
Jan. 6, 2008, 07:14 PM
We are all very much aware that dressage in general is absolutely wonderful in Holland and Europe in general. Too bad that is not the subject of this thread. Unless you have extensive experience in the US dressage scene, I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself!

I was refering to the post of Bold Jax

And for the rest of your post, I don't even want to take the time to answer that.:cool:

piaffegirl
Jan. 6, 2008, 07:35 PM
Part of my post was a comment on the lack of communication from DC. Had anyone heard of this last summer? I saw this on this BB around xmas if I'm not correct. I personally was stunned.

I would be willing to go to Louisville, KY, but I am not an elected person from my fellow peers. Someone please tell me why our elected Regional people didn't/haven't opened some sort of mass communication for this rule change.

AHJA had a rule change concerning their helmet rule not too long ago. I know that that was a very volatile subject going either way no matter who you talked to.

I pay my dues at the local level, I volunteer, I pay my USEF/USDF dues. Where is my representation for a rule change that could forever affect the way we all "go" to shows.

I thought I would post the mission statement from the USDF website, the competitors handbook, but somehow it's under revision.

I copied this from revisions to the bylaws posted on USDF.org on November 1, 2007.

"Section 1. Whenever at least 30% of the Participating Members or at least 20% of the
Group Member Organizations indicate by written request to the Executive Board that an
action be taken, or that an action be discontinued, the Executive Board shall submit such
request to the current Presidents of each Group Member Organization and to each current
Participating Member by mail ballot. Such ballot shall be mailed not less than fifteen days
prior to the last date on which such ballots must be returned. "

Miss Dior
Jan. 6, 2008, 09:11 PM
I completely agree with piaffegirls previous statement. This is a ridiculous complicated rule change with ramifications far beyond the simple passing of as of yet undecided standards. And Ms. Foy's comments were rude. I am sorry that she is tired of seing cowbred ponies in dressage. I am certain that since she has worked sooooo hard for 20 years at her sport that she would like to personally go tell the next hapless amateur that is on a quarterpony that she needs to replace it immediately !!!! I have worked to hard for you to muck up/f***up my damn Olympic discipline. Perhaps the best way down the path to "true & classic dressage" is to license the damn instructors. Not the existing system but an actual academy that they need to "graduate" from. Just getting in could be elitist enough !!! Also I would personally like to attach a bullshit meter to the forehead of all applicants. If your shit meter is activated the majority of your term you are out !!!! If your shit meter is activated only in the presence of a client you are out immediately. If your shit meter is activated in front of a current dressage comittee member you IMMEDIATELY move up to the next level.!!!! They need their energies directed elsewhere...this problem is not the 5000 lb elephant that is in the room.

piaffegirl
Jan. 6, 2008, 09:39 PM
Miss Doir, my husband is cheering, he wanted to say all of what you said and more, but I told him we should be diplomats, we should try and emulate what our leaders (DC) are doing.

I'm sorry, had to say it.

Anyone reading this who cares about the health of our (not Europe's) USDF should be telling all your friends you show with to email USEF (acook@usef.org) and our emails will get to the DC this upcoming weekend.

Miss Dior
Jan. 6, 2008, 11:22 PM
Since I am on a rant whatever happened to dressage being able to benefit "every" horse. I grew up showing QH's. I now ride my Ferrari WB. If all I could afford or for that matter desired to ride was a cowpony or the "majikal Arab" so often referred to here I would be just as happy. Would I be successful or able to move up? Depends on your definition of success. When I went in search of my dream dressage horse I kissed a lot of frogs. Tried one horse that was trained to GP I would never have even considered putting in my barn at any level of training. To say he was conformationally challenged was kind. I would have never wasted my time and efforts in that direction to bring him up the levels. But someone did. Maybe it was all they had to work with. Or maybe they found him to be thoroughly enjoyable and fun and really enjoyed every step of the challenge. He just was not my cup of tea. Nor I his for that matter which he made VERY clear !!! I really do not want the DC prescribing a numerical formula to measure my successes against. That is I believe the purpose of receiving a score for riding a test in the first place. Oh which by the way I will have already paid for by the time the judge gives it to me. If I am too stupid to realize that I am doing a terrible job of riding a level by my score that is my problem. Would I be doing a diservice to my horse by riding poorly? Probably. Is he kept/fed/taken care of at great expense and having all his needs met? Probably. Could he do much worse than having a poor scoring dressage rider bug him?? You betcha!! I am not in favor of dumbing down the sport by ANY means. I merely suggest that we are shoveling poop from the bottom up as near punishment for the lack of good training and education being readily available in this country. Their focus is misguided. Solve the bigger issue...good training....high standards...easy to access competent professionals...a ready supply of capable and affordable mounts..these are the bigger issues given our geographic challenges and the size of our sport here. Stop trying to mimic other countries when their models are not comparable. Ever heard the term apples to oranges. What we need on the DC and board at large are INNOVATORS not imitators. Get a clue !!!!

Derid
Jan. 6, 2008, 11:23 PM
This all seems very strange......is 3rd level a prerequisite for moving forward in the USDF's judging program or some other group outside of competitors?

Now, having asked this question..... I can remember Axel Steiner judging a show in the Pacific NW where many of the 3rd level competitors, amateurs and professionals alike, were given scores in the 30's and 40's. It was an eye-opener for me. I don't think he was asked back, but my trainer thought his scores were right on the mark.

Clearly, the committee felt this was a way to pass a rule that would then be administered by USEF rather than USDF.....again, is there something here we are all missing.....

yaya
Jan. 7, 2008, 01:04 AM
Yes, there is something you are missing.

THIS IS NOT COMING FROM THE USDF.

It is coming from the USEF only. Now, it is confusing because the members of the committee are members of both organizations, but really USDF has nothing to do with it other than they are the ones who will have to do the administration work.

Because it is a USEF rule change proposal, there ARE NO regional representatives. Everything is done by the Board of Directors of USEF, which are 52 people appointed to be on the board from all the breeds and disciplines under the USEF umbrella.

There were little rumors and hints of this coming last year, but the first time any of the proposed qualifications were seen in public was at the open meeting of the USEF Dressage Committee at the USDF convention. This committee is NOT under the governance of the USDF, they just have one open meeting at the convention kind of as a courtesy to USDF. But this meeting was the first time any of us saw or heard of any of the actual proposed requirements.

The best way to be heard is to contact the USEF Board of Directors before the meeting next week. USDF cannot do anything about it.

DennisM
Jan. 7, 2008, 01:06 AM
There have been many great comments in this thread. I hope you all have emailed them to USEF Board and Committee members.

It is my confirmed view (and one I have expressed in email messages to the USEF Dressage Committee and Board Members (some of whom have been kind enough to respond personally) that dressage riders shouldn't have to do ANY repetitive classes to earn points, because "points" and a dressage "class system" will not achieve what I assume (which I must do, because I have seen no memo -- and I'm certain that there is none -- from the Committee or anyone else at USEF clearly setting forth what the "competition standards" idea is supposed to achieve and why this is the best way to achieve it) is the goal of any "competition standards" proposal -- to discourage riders from competing "above their level."

There has been input on this BB about the "problem" of any dressage rider who may attempt to "ride above his/her level." Please do explain, what is the harm of that anyway (assuming of course that there is no dangerous or abusive riding that can and should be controlled by judges, TDs and show managers)? OK, so it would be better for sport if it weren't happening at all, but . . .

Are numerous horses at or above 3rd Level being abused or harmed any more than, say, the multitude of school horses or Intro Level horses nationwide whose riders can't (yet) sit still or keep their hands still? More than jumper riders in timed classes performing roll-back turns with truly severe bits? More than sliding-stopping curb bit-wearing reining horses? More than gag bit-wearing event horses being slowed from full gallops before tricky solid jump combinations? More than what those same "problem" riders are doing at home?

I just don't believe it. Moreover, I don't believe the proponents of "competition standards" can demonstrate that there is a problem in dressage at 3rd Level and above that is so pervasive and severe that it requires the introduction of a huge bureaucracy to track "points" for every USEF dressage rider (as opposed to taking already available measures to deal with horse abusers). Are our 3rd Level and above 1000+ pound dressage horses really such hot-house flowers that they must be protected from their riders so much more than any other type of horse competing in other USEF disciplines? The clear answer is -- NO.

Miss Dior
Jan. 7, 2008, 01:37 AM
I would love for someone to email this thread to the USEF powers that be. I am uncertain how to or I would have. If anyone can they should.

DressagetoDay
Jan. 7, 2008, 02:54 AM
What makes anyone on this board think that they do not have some other undisclosed reason for implementing this rule change?? What makes anyone think that they do not know of the existence of the various boards/forums and that they are incapable of responding in a public forum??

They absolutely could condense most of the questions / problems since most of the people are saying the same things and having the same issues with the "proposed" rule change and post answers to them or assign someone the job.

If they did not think there would be problems with it why was it brought up at the last minute??

I cannot imagine being on a committee and having my head so much in the sand that I would not realize that this brilliant idea was going to create havoc among the membership. Since I do not view any of these people as stupid I would assume that they waited until the last minute so nothing or little could be done to stop the changes and it would minimize the repercussions and the resulting work load.

Obviously, OUR committee members are NOT in touch with the needs of the rank and file of this organization or they just do NOT care. So what are they doing there?? I see complaints about oh God I had to spend 3 hours answering all of these e-mails where MEMBERS complained. DUH, If you come up with a stupid and very controversial issue then expect to have a lot more work to do.

Ok So why aren't they asking all of the members to vote on this change? It is very apparent that most of the membership is actually quite upset in one form or other by this. If someone has to publish a reminder for everyone to be nice and polite there are clearly some pretty upset people.

I am upset otherwise I would not be sitting up all hours of the night writing about this!

Please note WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OLYMPICS HERE no matter what the committee members might insinuate or state. We are talking local / possibly regional shows NOT the qualifying rounds for the Olympics or even for any other International or even National event.

Those shows already have qualification systems in place.

I for one think that this should be voted on by the entire dressage membership before they get to add ANY performance standards at all.

AND I think very important that since they are so dead set on having this implemented: They should ALL re-qualify! No Grandfathering at all! Want to judge / compete, everyone re-qualifies. After all no one in Germany (our supposed dressage system gods that we must all bow down before and copy), in our lifetimes anyhow, ever got grandfathered in.

that would certainly put a monkey wrench in the works wouldn't it

HUMMM Why was that Maybe because they have been doing this for hundreds of years that way. Probably left over from the feudal system where only the upper classes could ride. Knights were all from the wealthy uppers classes and dressage was started as a way of training a knights war horse wasn't it.

OH yeah Didn't most of the state studs start out as stables of the kings and queens of the various countries.

And this works for our country why??

AND this is not an elitist change?? Who are we BSing here???

Does anyone have any idea how much this is going to cost to implement? Do they even care??

Much less if anyone takes serious offence to it and decides to sue the USEF over it. Does anyone have any idea the costs to the USEF to litigate this type of issue? Maybe Yankee Lawyer could submit some projected costs? When the USEF has to defend this type of suit what happens then our fees go up yet again?

I still have yet to see the justification for this change. Who the heck cares if 90% of the people out there competing at 3rd are getting 40's ?? In this country who is at the shows to watch?? Normally only the other competitors, family and possibly some friends are watching anyhow. IN THIS COUNTRY THIS IS A HOBBY FOR MOST PEOPLE, NOT BIG BUSINESS!! In what way does this help our entire dressage community?

THIS IS NOT like in Europe where half the country shows up to watch and there is coverage on the nightly news. When was the last time anyone heard on the nightly news that say Robert Dover or Lisa Wilcox got dumped off their horses?? OK NEVER. That is because this is clearly NOT Europe. Even wrestlers get more TV play time here than our top dressage riders do!

Why can't our dressage committee work on that instead???? A plan for more national TV coverage !! What was televised from the dressage part of the WORLD CUP that was held in Las Vegas????????????? I believe the answer was NOTHING!!!!

I think the things I resent a great deal about this "PROPOSED" (looks like it is done deal to me, they all have too much vested in it to back down now anyhow) rule change is not only the big brother idea (we know what is best for you!!! So we will put rules in place to make sure you follow them) but the insinuation that unless we change to a German system we will not be able to compete on the world stage. This change has NOTHING to do with that at all.

If the USEF Dressage committee wanted to make us more competitive on the world stage they would be out getting us federal funding. They would have state run equestrian schools. They would have scholarships to the major universities, they would get our sport televised nationally. They would work on making dressage big business in this country too so it paid to be a top trainer or competitor. Then our really good trainers could afford to tell those clients with no talent that they do NOT belong at the FEI levels nor even at 3rd so we would not need this rule change!!

Furthermore our Dressage judges are there to judge to a standard. They should not really give a darn about what score they hand out. It they cannot stand giving out low scores stop judging! It comes with the territory. Get over it. They are paid, NOT VOLUNTEERS! It might be boring as hell and the people might not belong there, but it is their da** choice NOT someone else's. Personally, do I want to go and make an ass of myself in public? NO but do I think that if other people want to they should be able to YES.

We can burn the American flag in this country but we cannot compete at 3rd level or above with PERMISSION????????

Xhltsalute
Jan. 7, 2008, 03:58 AM
I can remember Axel Steiner judging a show in the Pacific NW where many of the 3rd level competitors, amateurs and professionals alike, were given scores in the 30's and 40's. It was an eye-opener for me. I don't think he was asked back, but my trainer thought his scores were right on the mark.

Are you referring to the 2003 show at Devonwood in Oregon?

etk
Jan. 7, 2008, 04:24 AM
With the system we currently have, we have managed to promote/grow dressage in the US and to allow the creme de la creme to rise to the top and to earn the coveted bronze/silver status in the international arena. Therefore, I see no reason to start installing barriers for dressage competitors in the US. Let's face it, the US is not a tiny, little nation which currently financially supports its competitors adequately, and we certainly don't offer equal access to competitions and training/education opportunities for all members (heck, we don't even have access to see our dressage team at prestigious international events live on TV!). If these new proposed standards are implemented, we are going to discourage many folks from competing, and would be promoting the mindset that dressage is only for the wealthy and elite who can afford exceptional horses. These new proposed restrictions would discourage competitors from showing. I'm afraid of what's next ...... getting rid of the "All Breeds" non-warmblood awards since many of those breeds do not measure up score-wise?

ACMiller
Jan. 7, 2008, 07:00 AM
Do you HAVE to be a USEF member to show?

Meaning if you don't want points for year end or whatever, just want to go out and show to be judged on how you are coming along at that level... can't you just pay their non-member fee and ride whatever level pleases you?

I'm quite disappointed in some of Ms. Brown's comments. Not all of us want to go to the Olympics, ya know.

MazzyStar
Jan. 7, 2008, 07:35 AM
I completely agree with piaffegirls previous statement. This is a ridiculous complicated rule change with ramifications far beyond the simple passing of as of yet undecided standards. And Ms. Foy's comments were rude. I am sorry that she is tired of seing cowbred ponies in dressage. I am certain that since she has worked sooooo hard for 20 years at her sport that she would like to personally go tell the next hapless amateur that is on a quarterpony that she needs to replace it immediately !!!! I have worked to hard for you to muck up/f***up my damn Olympic discipline. Perhaps the best way down the path to "true & classic dressage" is to license the damn instructors. Not the existing system but an actual academy that they need to "graduate" from. Just getting in could be elitist enough !!! Also I would personally like to attach a bullshit meter to the forehead of all applicants. If your shit meter is activated the majority of your term you are out !!!! If your shit meter is activated only in the presence of a client you are out immediately. If your shit meter is activated in front of a current dressage comittee member you IMMEDIATELY move up to the next level.!!!! They need their energies directed elsewhere...this problem is not the 5000 lb elephant that is in the room.


PREACH IT SISTAH!

I think what Ms. Foy-Brown said was probably the bitchiest things I've ever had the unfortunate mistake of reading.

I, for one didn't start my dressage endeavors due to it being an "Olympic sport." I started it because I admired greatly the workings of the Spanish Riding School!

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Ms. Foy-Brown does quite a few clinics/training/symposiums/etc. to students who are married to lawyers/doctors/celebrities/presidential hopefuls, does she not? I bet if they read her rantings that they would probably no longer take instruction from her. After all, they married into their money... she worked for 20 years without a break. I wonder just how much more she'd have to work if she no longer was receiving her income from the spouses of the wealthy. Hmm...

I took it upon myself to look in the USEF members’ directory from 2006. Janet Foy-Brown is not listed at all, but the rest of the DC board is.

By the way, who the hell voted for them to have their "board seats" anyway? I never got a phone call/email/formal letter or invitation for my vote and opinions.

MazzyStar
Jan. 7, 2008, 07:47 AM
How about instead of doing such a costly rule change, why doesn't the USEF come up with it's on t.v. network and show us "news", "shows", "clinics", etc.

Oh wait, BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE!

Until this rule change goes through, I'm not currently competing as my horse decided she'd like go strain a tendon playing in the pasture, I won't be re-newing my USEF membership. What's the point? Obviously we're not going to the Olympics so USEF shouldn't need my money. It'd be nice too if they'd stop begging for hand-outs for their elite riders.

I think I'll pocket that $60 and go take a lesson!

yaya
Jan. 7, 2008, 10:14 AM
Do you HAVE to be a USEF member to show?

Meaning if you don't want points for year end or whatever, just want to go out and show to be judged on how you are coming along at that level... can't you just pay their non-member fee and ride whatever level pleases you?

Under the new proposal, yes, you HAVE to be a USEF member to set foot (hoof) in the ring. Whether you are going for points or not.

Originally, you had to be a USDF Participating Member as well. They have scaled that back to allow GMO members to show.

Apparently, showing as a non-member is not an option.

Whisper
Jan. 7, 2008, 10:19 AM
Since when are people doing *3rd Level* tests at the Olympics?!?

Soccer, a lot of track events, and many other sports are in the Olympics, and they don't use that kind of criteria at the mid- to upper- levels until they get to the point of Olympic qualifiers. Ice skating has a qualification system, but do we really want to emulate the flash, subjectivity, and politics that are associated with it at the top levels?

I didn't see anything about the USEF membership, just the PM one.

DressagetoDay
Jan. 7, 2008, 10:47 AM
If Ms. Foy-Brown had gotten the financial support to do what she wanted with her career from the USEF instead of what sounded (from what was posted on these boards) like walking through hell to get where she is maybe she would not be demanding that all people that ride above 3rd be qualified to do so.

Why is the USDF NOT involved in this "PROPOSED" change. Who authorized these various people at the USEF to decide on rule changes anyhow? Who decided that they knew how to represent dressage in the US anyhow????

USDF's entire membership should be involved in this. How many USEF dressage members are there that actually are not members of USDF also. USDF should be going to bat for their sport and their membership.

I only have my membership in the USEF because I need it to compete in USDF shows. They should take the lead in anything DRESSAGE in this country not just the USEF.

yaya
Jan. 7, 2008, 11:28 AM
The USEF is the National Governing Body for the sport of Equestrian in the US. That is why they make the rules, and that is what gives them the authority. They also train and license the judges, and they write the tests.

The USDF is supposed to be an educational association, not the ruling body.

Miss Dior
Jan. 7, 2008, 11:33 AM
Just doing the math here which may or may not be correct. We have 3 local shows. By that I mean within an hour otr 2 drive. If I show Sat/Sun and hopefully get 62 or possibly a 63% I get 2 points maybe 3. I prefer to show 3 shows a year. But sometimes I can only get to 2. If I received 2 points per 2 day show I need 5 shows that year to be able to move up the following year. $$$$$. Does anybody get the idea behind this proposal yet !!! MONEY !!! Sorry but rather than show continuously thru the year I prefer to stay at home and WORK ON MY TRAINING !!!! That is the utmost important thing to me. I PREFER to spend my $$$ on clinics and monthly training/lessonns/etc. Also travel outside my area and even internationally to enhance my education and exposure to the sport. What are the members with lesser funds to do? Scrap the extras. Sorry Cupcake can't have his supplements this month or his shoes reset because I simply MUST get more points and a show is nearby that I cannot miss because I want to move up. Great idea huh! "by the way sorry for the lack of commas on my posts bad keyboard..too much Diet Coke". This idea is idiotic. This will not add to the appeal of this sport sorry. Quite the contrary. Many of us will possibly give up going to shows as OFTEN. Oh why bother...Cupcake really cannot get above a 60 % with me on board so why waste my time. Narrowing the base of this sport and decreasing its appeal is hardly a sound marketing plan for expansion.

NMK
Jan. 7, 2008, 12:16 PM
Ok here is a simple solution. Add a coefficient score that we currently do not have to the 3rd and 4th tests of each division...a simple yes/no

Should this horse and rider team move on to xx level?

You have to get x amount of yes votes to move up.

Nancy

slc2
Jan. 7, 2008, 12:58 PM
I was thinking of that too, that at 1st and 2nd level, though, the judge could check a box 'this combination is ready to move to the next level'. if the usef wants more money, have the rider pay an extra fee (like a qualifier) to have that done. 3 check boxes and yiou could move up. cheaper but still revenue for usef.

another idea was to have a rider take a single 'exam', which could consist of a test, perhaps even the judge could have the rider repeat test segments or show something else the judge had questions on. the rider could receive a written evaluation and a recommendation emphasizing rider scoring, hell, it might even be more popular that regular showing. it would emphasize rider aids and seat and technique.

also providing revenue to the usef. my neice had to earn 'medals' to move up each level in her riding, she could not for example jump til she had earned her 'achievement medal' on the flat. why not use something like that.

CatOnLap
Jan. 7, 2008, 01:10 PM
Most of you are still trying to compromise with the proposal to require qualifying before moving up the levels.

It is not necessary here to have a separate qualifier apart from the medals. The scores you get in tests are your qualifications. If you are getting 50's, you are obviously not ready.If you decide to show anyway at a higher level, you will get 40's and exit the showgrounds redfaced. If you are obviously abusing your horse, the judge or TD should put on their official hat and stop you mid stride.

Perusing the scores in our local show area, the people showing and staying at the lower levels deserve to be there and know it. Lots of low to mid 50's, a good portion of low to mid 60's and higher scores? The folks move up. Most of the people moving up are getting those high 50's and 60's at the new level unless they have a bad day. The current system is self policing, or rather I should say, adequately policed by its officials. If they are complaining, its because they only want to watch elite riders? Get over yourselves and do your job, if thats your opinion. Be brave enough to write things like "Not yet ready for this level" and give out a bunch of 3's and 4's.


It is a cash grab.
It may not be intended that way, but that is how it works out.
What a waste of resources the whole discussion is.

As if making up a new rule is going to stop those few asshats who bend the rules or "ignore the judge's suggestions". Asshats will be asshats and will find new ways around the new rules, while the rest of the rule abiding membership is abused by yet another new restriction.

eurofoal
Jan. 7, 2008, 02:18 PM
I was thinking of that too, that at 1st and 2nd level, though, the judge could check a box 'this combination is ready to move to the next level'..

Why not just use the rider score? If you can get a '5" or better, than you are riding "sufficiently". A FIVE!!! Sufficient should suffice! Why would we need to ride better than "sufficient"... in other words, a "C" (Sufficient) is a passing grade at Harvard...

DownYonder
Jan. 7, 2008, 02:47 PM
Why not just use the rider score? If you can get a '5" or better, than you are riding "sufficiently". A FIVE!!! Sufficient should suffice! Why would we need to ride better than "sufficient"... in other words, a "C" (Sufficient) is a passing grade at Harvard...

Best idea yet. But why would USEF want to use the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) method, when it can create a whole new revenue-generating, complex, confusing, unwieldy bureaucracy? :lol:

Bold Jax
Jan. 7, 2008, 05:47 PM
Politics and individual egos of the "powers" are a real issue in our governing organizations. Don't ask for details. I won't say more than I learned this directly from an owner of Olympic horses when the USEF was being formed. A lot was told to me at that time.

J-Lu
Jan. 8, 2008, 12:44 AM
Part of my post was a comment on the lack of communication from DC. Had anyone heard of this last summer? I saw this on this BB around xmas if I'm not correct. I personally was stunned.
. "

Actually, I heard about this two years ago from Ms. F-B herself. She was sure then that this would occur. Here and there in articles such as Anne Gribbon's "between the rounds" in COTH one could find additional breadcrumbs. But as someone who combs her magazines (including the membership ones), I hadn't seen anything actually in print.

The funny thing is that the DC seems shocked that people are so shocked. ???

J.

ToN Farm
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:09 AM
AND I think very important that since they are so dead set on having this implemented: They should ALL re-qualify! No Grandfathering at all! Want to judge / compete, everyone re-qualifies.At least they all should have to go back and pass the L program or for some of them, an eye exam.

freestyle2music
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:13 AM
Like the FEI stated about using Hyperflexion/Rollkür, "it only works in the hand of professionals" :lol::lol:

piaffegirl
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:41 AM
I started a new thread with revisions of the proposed rule 275-07. It is a copy of the email that I received from Janet Brown-Foy.

SGray
Jan. 8, 2008, 01:54 PM
......from Janet Foy-Brown......

I am sorry that when I take over 3 hours per night to answer the last 500 E mails on my computer so that ALL MEMBERS who write to me feel I am responding that they then take my reply out of context and vilify me on the chat room floor. So be it.

The truth of the matter is that Dressage is an Olympic Sport. I did not determine that. The judges are trained to judge on a standard that is worldwide. Trainer's should be trained to work with their students on that same standard. NOW, if that were true and the world were perfect, THEN there would be no need for standards of any sort. Neither in dressage, nor figure skating etc. However, since the world is not perfect we must face a few facts.

One is that not all trainer's train correctly. Second is that not all students learn correctly. Many students in fact go against their trainer's advice as to which level they should show. (Many top trainers have requested this system). Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows. People with a lot of money buy well trained horses but fail to train themselves first. The horse gets frantic when the aids are not clear and when the rider punishes the horse for 'doing it wrong.' So who is at fault? All of us. The trainer who tell their student they are OK to go, when they are not. The judge who fails to score the poor rider low enough, instead giving the horse a low score for submission, instead of giving the rider a 4. The rider who overfaces a horse that can succeed at first level but not at third. The wealthy rider who thinks because they can buy the training they can ride the training.

If all of you sitting by your computers would take a moment and look at the new ideas from the DC: lower points, starting at 58% instead of 60%, no PM membership, I would say MOST OF YOU would already have the points to move into third. We are allowing ALL scores to count from the past, you can even bank them for later use.

So, are we so unfair? NO. The rule change is NOT about setting the proposal in stone, as a matter of fact, the rule change only STARTS THE PROCESS, it does not identify and program. The Committee is working very hard (and long at their laptops) gathering all of the information you have sent us. We have asked you to ride 2007 as a test year and let us know how it went. Does anyone hear this?????? I guess not, it is just easier to work oneself into a frenzy.

Let's start to all work for the betterment of the sport, the horse AND the rider as well as the judge. We are all in this together, this is not about us vs them.

It would be of more benefit to the committee to have all of you look at the second draft, do a score check on the USDF website and see really where you would stand if this proposal was in place. Our goal is to have a 58% rider be able to qualify to move up in two shows. Is this unreasonable?

Feel free to put this in your chatroom as it seems you have already done so. Janet Foy...........



...... A recent response from Janet Foy .... To quote Janet:

"You have to understand that you are participating in an Olympic Sport with certain standards. Even Guatemala has standards in place. This country is the only one who seems to not undertstand this. The rider AND the horse must be athletes. Does it take money? Yes. I was
unmarried, riding 14 horses per day and teaching until 10 pm every nite. The weekends I would either go off to judge or give a clinic or pack my four horse trailer with clients horses and one of mine and off we would go to a show. I did no t have a day off for 20 years. All of us on the committee have worked our buns off to get where we are, we did not marry 'doctors and lawyers'. Even if you have tons of money, perhaps you may not have much talent as a rider. This is not about rich vs poor riders. (signed) Janet Foy".....


I'm thinking that the above contains the makings of a new pejorative

Coreene
Jan. 8, 2008, 01:59 PM
I'm thinking that the above contains the makings of a new pejorativeAnd the background tune can be "Cry Me a River." ;)

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Jan. 8, 2008, 02:03 PM
Well, I'll be sticking to schooling shows. I simply can't justify $1500 a year in rated shows.

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 8, 2008, 02:09 PM
I've read a couple of recent articles about people doing dressage in Timbuktu. Hawaii and Alaska are clear examples, but any island will do. There should be some accomodation made for people who have to travel ridiculous distances. Otherwise, isn't USEF saying to them, "Take up a new sport?" ;)

Sandy M
Jan. 8, 2008, 02:22 PM
Ummm....poor Janet, she'd "pack her FOUR-HORSE TRAILER" (it was given to her for free perhaps, since she was so poor?) (and what did she pull it with?).....musta had SOME money. And what about those who rely on the charity of friend to get to a show, make sacrifies to keep ONE horse, and would like to show a little as they progress? Or folks like me, driving a 20 year old truck and pulling a 15 year old trainer, both purchased used many years ago?

Two shows, 58% riders will qualify? In what world? Four classes a show at 2nd level? I don't THINK so.

Coreene
Jan. 8, 2008, 02:24 PM
I have said it before, and I will say it again. If it is too much trouble for a judge - who is being PAID to judge - to sit through six minutes of some shitty ammy ride, then perhaps they should do something else with their weekends. Horse welfare my ass.

yaya
Jan. 8, 2008, 03:40 PM
Two shows, 58% riders will qualify? In what world? Four classes a show at 2nd level? I don't THINK so.


Not only four classes a show, but the two shows have to have four separate judges between them so you can get the correct number of judges for qualifying. Not every show has more than one judge!

Those areas of the country with fewer shows usually have smaller shows as well - meaning one ring, one judge.

These people forget that not every area of the country is like Wellington or California - we don't have multi-ring, multi-judge shows!

canticle
Jan. 8, 2008, 03:46 PM
Wow, Janet Foy-Brown is a piece of work! :eek: You know what they say... the fish rots from the head down...

Sandy M
Jan. 8, 2008, 03:50 PM
Not only four classes a show, but the two shows have to have four separate judges between them so you can get the correct number of judges for qualifying. Not every show has more than one judge!

Those areas of the country with fewer shows usually have smaller shows as well - meaning one ring, one judge.

These people forget that not every area of the country is like Wellington or California - we don't have multi-ring, multi-judge shows!


Of course, you're right. Forgot to mention that. And for those where shows are few and further apart, you have to add the travel expense and hotel/motel/food, etc. expenses.

I am lucky being in NoCal with multiple shows within an hour or two. But even most of those are one- or two day shows/one judge, so you're talking AT LEAST four shows (assuming no duplication of judges, and that DOES happen). The view from the top seems to be somewhat distorted, to say the least. "do it in two shows" -"get a loan and buy a better, (i.e., more expensive) horse" - "should not be riding a horse down the center line that should be chasing cows..." [the steam is beginning to come out of my ears] - not to mention that continuing LIE (apparently) that dressage is supposed to be about improving the horse, not about the GAITS you can purchase. Sigh. Well, most things come down to money, and dressage headed in that direction a long time ago, and it looks like most of the higher-ups have fallen into that trap, to the detriment of the majority of the USDF/USEF membership.

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:14 PM
Of course, you're right. Forgot to mention that. And for those where shows are few and further apart, you have to add the travel expense and hotel/motel/food, etc. expenses.

I am lucky being in NoCal with multiple shows within an hour or two. But even most of those are one- or two day shows/one judge, so you're talking AT LEAST four shows (assuming no duplication of judges, and that DOES happen). The view from the top seems to be somewhat distorted, to say the least. "do it in two shows" -"get a loan and buy a better, (i.e., more expensive) horse" - "should not be riding a horse down the center line that should be chasing cows..." [the steam is beginning to come out of my ears] - not to mention that continuing LIE (apparently) that dressage is supposed to be about improving the horse, not about the GAITS you can purchase. Sigh. Well, most things come down to money, and dressage headed in that direction a long time ago, and it looks like most of the higher-ups have fallen into that trap, to the detriment of the majority of the USDF/USEF membership.

And ultimately to the detriment of the sport as a whole. If a sport is not accessible to a large number of people, there is very little interest. If there is very little interest, then there are fewer spectators, fewer sponsors, fewer volunteers, fewer competitors,etc. etc. etc. :dead:

Just what we need at this point in time--with the economy not so hot and equestrian sports already under extreme pressure. :no:

No wonder people are turning to better marketed alternatives like Natural Horsemanship!!! :sigh:

claire
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:17 PM
As I composed my letter to the USEF BOD, I was tempted to add this bit of wisdom from Janet Foy
(and wondered what David O'Connor might think) :winkgrin:

quote Janet Foy:
"Many horses do not understand that they should be able to go to third level and do extended trot when they were really bred to chase cows."


Would he be thinking about a little arab/shetland/tb cross pony named Theodore who blew the competition away at the Pan-Am's.

Of course, Teddy is only a pony, and 14H ponies don't understand that they were not bred to go flying around *** cross-country courses! :D

zinnniaz
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:21 PM
Otherwise, isn't USEF saying to them, "Take up a new sport?" ;)


That is pretty much what they are saying to most of us.