PDA

View Full Version : new proposal to rule 275-07



piaffegirl
Jan. 7, 2008, 09:53 PM
I received this last nite from foy-brown

COMPETITION STANDARDS PROPOSAL
Revised 1/06/08

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

**Voluntary participation beginning December 1, 2008. Mandatory participation beginning December 1, 2009 for Competition Year 2010

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

POINTS
*There will be no negative points
NEW SUGGESTIONS:
60% - 62.99 % One Point (58%-59.99% ONE POINT)
63% - 65.99% Two Points (60%-62.99% TWO POINTS)
66% - 68.99% Three Points (63%-64.99% THREE POINTS)
69.00% and above Four Points (65% and above FOUR POINTS)

Points will be earned at USEF/USDF licensed/recognized or FEI recognized competitions. Freestyle scores and FEI Young Horse Tests do not count towards points. Any test of the level may be used to accumulate points. However, at least 50% of the points earned must be earned with the highest test of the level. (SUGGEST: AT LEAST ONE POINT MUST BE FROM THE HIGHEST TEST OF THE LEVEL) These points will track with the rider, not with the horse. Once the rider has earned a designation, it will be permanent. There will be no need to re-qualify. One ride equals one score.
FEI tests (junior, young rider, pony etc.) can accumulate points as ‘equivalent’ national levels. These equivalent levels are shown on a chart in the USEF Rule Book DR 119.2.

Dressage classes, sections or divisions in regular competitions (eg: breed specific shows with dressage divisions) are not required to utilize this system to qualify entries.

EXEMPTIONS TO THIS SYSTEM
Riders may enter any USEF Training, First or Second Level class without any qualifying points. Riders may also ride the following FEI Tests without any qualifying points: FEI Pony, USEF Four Year Old, FEI Five Year Old, and the FEI Six Year Old tests.

FEI Juniors and FEI Young Riders who are entering U.S. National Championship or NAJYRC Qualifying shows are exempt from qualifying to compete and may enter without any qualifying points. However, if entering an open competition Juniors and Young Riders are not exempt from qualifying points.

USEA (Event riders) Members shall be exempt as follows:
Horse/Rider combinations at the Intermediate level and below will show at second level or lower, and shall not need qualifying points. Advanced, three and four star horse/ rider combinations who are on the list of qualified USEA riders shall be allowed to show at the MEDIUM level (Third/Fourth) without any qualifying points in dressage.

Foreign Riders: May qualify using the USEF System as long as membership requirements are met. Or, they may prove competition eligibility with a letter from their National Federation.

Riders may move up at any time during the season, once the scores are verified by USDF. Riders may not move up during a show.

In order for qualifying points to be recorded after December 1, 2008 the rider must be a USDF Participating and/or ( GROUP MEMBER) and a USEF Active Member at the time the points are earned. Verification of membership (membership numbers and cards) from USEF/USDF must be received by the rider before points are accumulated.

If a rider has been ‘grandfathered’ (SEE PAGE 4 FOR GRANDFATHERING and how to use scores from shows prior to November 30, 2009) into the system and plans to ride Third Level or above at a recognized show (USDF, USEF or FEI), they must be a USDF (GROUP MEMBER) and a USEF Active Member.

The following system will apply for USEF/USDF recognized/licensed competitions and FEI recognized competitions:

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

To move from Second Level to Third/Fourth Level: (MEDIUM LEVEL) A rider will need a minimum 20 (SUGGEST 10) points from at least FOUR (SUGGEST THREE) different USEF judges. A panel (of two or more) will count as ONE judge. There will be no limit on scores a rider can receive from any panel of 2, 3 or 5 judges. At least 50% (SUGGEST AT LEAST ONE POINT) of the tests used for points must be from Second Level Test Four. The remainder of the points may be from any Second Level test.

To move from Third/Fourth Level to Prix St. Georges/Intermediaire I: (ADVANCED LEVEL) a rider will need a minimum 10 (SUGGEST 8) points from at least THREE different USEF judges. Same rule for panels as above. At least 50% (SUGGEST ONE POINT) of the tests used for points must be from Fourth Level Test Three. The remainder of the points may be from any Third or Fourth Level Tests.

To move from Prix St. Georges/Intermediaire I to Intermediaire II/Grand Prix: (INTERNATIONAL LEVEL) A rider will need a minimum of 8 (SUGGEST SIX) points from at least THREE different USEF/FEI judges. Same rule for panels as above. At least 50% (SUGGEST ONE POINT) of the tests used for points must be from Intermediaire I. The remainder of the points may be from Prix St. Georges.







GRANDFATHERING
NOTE: USEF and USDF will publish these lists, the rider does not need to send any information to the federation UNLESS your name is missing from the list

l. If you have appeared on a long list from 1999-November 30, 2009 with USET/USEF you will be allowed to compete at any level
2. If you have competed at the Festival of Champions from 1985 to 2009, you will be allowed to compete at any level
3. USDF Bronze Medal winners from 1974 to November 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the MEDIUM Level.
4. USDF Silver Medal winners from 1974 to November 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the ADVANCED Level and below.
5. USDF Gold Medal winners from 1974 to November 30, 2009 will be allowed to compete at the INTERNATIONAL Level and below.
6. Active USEF judges will be grandfathered as follows:
*”r” Dressage Judges may compete at the MEDIUM LEVEL
*”R” Dressage Judges may compete at the ADVANCED LEVEL
*”S” Dressage Judges may compete at the INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
7. USDF Certified Instructors at Fourth Level may compete at the Advanced Level.
IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE ABOVE LISTS YOU MAY STILL BE GRANDFATHERED AS FOLLOWS;
NOTE: Grandfathering is a one time exemption and will end November 30, 2009. Scores earned prior to December 1, 2009 may be used towards the required number of points as follows: Scores at any second level test or any third level test may be used to earn the Medium Level. You would need 8 points. Scores at any 4th Level test or Prix St. George may be used to earn the Advanced Level. You would need 6 points. Scores at either Prix St. Georges or Intermediare I may be used to earn the International Level. You would need 6 points.

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

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

TIMELINE:

January 2008: Rules Changes approved at USEF Annual Meeting
February through April 2008: Development of USDF/USEF business Plan and Grandfathering process
l. USEF/USDF Business Plan is developed to identify and formalize the responsibilities of both organizations
2. Grandfathered riders are flagged in the USDF data base. Grandfathered list is received from USEF along with member numbers and a matching up of these riders and flagging in the USDF database is performed both electronically and manually, as necessary.
May through September 2008:
USDF Coding and Programming, public relations campaign development
l. Coding and programming for this project will take approximately 3-4 months based on current workload and projects. Since this will affect the USDF website, USEF data exchange and USDF’s main working database, this will require on-going monitoring during the programming phase to ensure that normal services and functions are not affected by the additional programming.
2. Public relations and marketing strategies will have to be developed with USDF and USEF in order to ensure that all effected riders are aware of this requirement
October 2008: Begin implementation
l. Pilot run through, testing and debugging
2. Introduction of verification process and public and public relations plan implementation
December 2008: Begin one year of voluntary participation
December 2009: Plan goes into effect at start of 2010 Competition Year


We all need to remember that we as a colective body voted our regional reps into their position, obviously this part of the process was overlooked. This should not have happened and it should not happen again.

I will be writing to USDF to find out why I was aware of the rule before it was even proposed.

Tanyanoel
Jan. 7, 2008, 10:37 PM
Thank you for the info, 10 point seems a heck of a lot more reasonable than 20 - it could actually be accomplished in 3 shows and I imagine that is sensible to expect someone to ride the same level at 3 different shows. When do they actually vote on this thing?

canyonoak
Jan. 8, 2008, 12:21 AM
Exactly WHY and HOW is it going to improve international dressage to make misguided rules governing the lower levels of the sport?

Exactly WHY and HOW is it going to make life better for marginal horses that their riders have to go to MORE shows to gather the requisite number of points to move up?

The qualification systems in place in Holland are there because so many shows are over-subscribed.

of course, it is also true that in Holland and Germany there is an ENTIRE infrastructure in place that is quite different from the US:

show classes cost about $25 in Holland.
You can drive across the entire country in like 6 hours.
Judges get a per diem, a nice bottle of something of their choice and a good meal.
Sponsors provide REAL prizes --at the high end, Jan Brink (just for example) has won something like 6 cars in the last 12 months.

When the rest of the infrastructure is in place, and shows are over-subscribed--then I think the qualification standards might have a purpose. Because by then, the susbtantial fees this proposal will engender would be taken care of by the sheer numbers of supporters/members.

When fees all go up to cover the database that will accompany this proposal--just remember: not enough people wrote in to point out the pitfalls.

yaya
Jan. 8, 2008, 12:49 AM
We all need to remember that we as a colective body voted our regional reps into their position, obviously this part of the process was overlooked. This should not have happened and it should not happen again.

I will be writing to USDF to find out why I was aware of the rule before it was even proposed.

THIS DOES NOT COME FROM THE USDF. This comes from the USEF Dressage Committee, whose members are not elected. The USDF is being asked to help administrate this proposal, but it comes from the USEF.

We as members had nothing to do with putting these people on the committee, and we have no direct representations with the USEF Board of Directors who will be voting on the rule change proposal.

And the lady's name is Janet Brown-Foy. Foy is the more recent addition to her name.

rebecca yount
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:55 AM
This has been around since December 15!!! It is VERY old news. There has been extensive discussion of this version of the "criteria" on many threads on this and other boards.

In addition, it would also be better if people got the individuals' names correct when commenting. It is Janet Brown-Foy, and I think she deserves the courtesy of us getting her name right.

If we are going to provide constructive criticism, we have to be sure our information is accurate.

It would also be more constructive if individuals went to the USEF and USDF websites and read the rule book, bylaws, etc. before assuming who makes which rules, which body (USEF or USDF) was in charge of what, etc.

USEF makes the rules. Members of the USEF Dressage Committee, yes, are USDF members but USDF itself does not make the rules.

You might want to read through the other threads, piaffegirl and tanyanoel, because all of this has been discussed over and over.

piaffegirl
Jan. 8, 2008, 08:35 AM
I sincerely apologize for the name mix up, also my point about the USDF was that the proposal was brought to the surface at the USDF convention in December which is where the I feel the communication gap exsists.

I was only posting the proposal per an email the Janet Brown-Foy emailed to me.

The USEF is voting on this in Louiseville, KY this weekend.

Again, I never meant to be disprespctful at all, just wanting to pass along info.

inca
Jan. 8, 2008, 09:10 AM
The new proposals are much more reasonable! Both the lowering of the scores and the lowering of the points needed to 10 (instead of 20) makes this doable in a few show in a year.

I actually think only requiring ONE point from the highest test of the level is a bit too lenient, if they are going to enact any kind of meaningful system. You would think you would want at least 2 scores of 58% or better at the highest test of the level before moving up. But, what the heck - they are trying to make it more "amateur friendly" and I think they succeeded.

For example, if you show 2nd 1 and 2nd 2 in one day and get a 58% on one test and a 60% on the other, that is 3 points in one day. If you get a 60% on each test, that is 4 points in one day. That would mean in 3 days of showing (a total of 6 tests), it is very possible to get enough points to move up to 3rd. You can do 2nd 1 and 2 in the spring, for example and do a fall show with 2nd 4. That is doable, even for people like me that only like to show a few times a year.

freestyle2music
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:00 AM
One very weak point in this proposal is the fact that riders have to wait for conformation from the ruling body to move up to the next level.

In Holland and Germany (and probably in many more European countries) the riders have to take their own responsibility. Meaning when they have scored the necessary points (they are mostly the first to know :yes::yes:) they can move up to the next level, and don't have to wait for conformation of the governing body. Specially because I understand that setting up the database might cause some problems.

BTW This advice is for free :D

Theo

SGray
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:04 AM
Exactly WHY and HOW is it going to improve international dressage to make misguided rules governing the lower levels of the sport?

Exactly WHY and HOW is it going to make life better for marginal horses that their riders have to go to MORE shows to gather the requisite number of points to move up?

The qualification systems in place in Holland are there because so many shows are over-subscribed.

of course, it is also true that in Holland and Germany there is an ENTIRE infrastructure in place that is quite different from the US:

show classes cost about $25 in Holland.
You can drive across the entire country in like 6 hours.
Judges get a per diem, a nice bottle of something of their choice and a good meal.
Sponsors provide REAL prizes --at the high end, Jan Brink (just for example) has won something like 6 cars in the last 12 months.

When the rest of the infrastructure is in place, and shows are over-subscribed--then I think the qualification standards might have a purpose. Because by then, the susbtantial fees this proposal will engender would be taken care of by the sheer numbers of supporters/members.

When fees all go up to cover the database that will accompany this proposal--just remember: not enough people wrote in to point out the pitfalls.


good points all c-o

I'd say, when the majority of shows in the U.S. are turning away competitors, THEN we might revisit qualifying

Miss Dior
Jan. 8, 2008, 10:27 AM
I still believe the entire proposal is bs and need to be scrapped. Why incur any cost at all? Obviously the medal system has no prestige at all to the powers that be. I think those that have earned them would beg to differ. I would like to encourage them to please find another way to piss off all our money. Plant some f***ing flowers or sponsor a FREE adult amateur clinic once a year with a master class in horsemanship like the George Morris one currently available for FREE to audit at the WEF. Why are they looking to spend unnecessasary funds for this. Do we not track the scores already? Education/access/skilled trainers is the answer here. I have a great idea. Why not take all that extra $$$ that it would cost to implement this crap and sponsor/adopt an upcoming trainer for a year. Let them perfect their craft without the burden of working their butts off for little $$$ like our poor Ms. Foy had to do.Or sponsor a "wonderful European model" trainer for a year here all expenses paid. Their sole purpose could be giving clinics and or fostering a group of up and coming dressage trainers who are worthy of inclusion. Do not forget to attach the all important bullshit meter to their foreheads however(see previous post). Said wonder trainer would be so well compensated that he/she would not be able to engage in the buy/sell horse trading that usually accompanies these types. This simply need to go away. Where are the INNOVATORS on these comittees. Some additions from the rank and file need to serve on these board. Oops.. I forgot for a moment how that works in the real world. I can be a member on any board in town and I am on a few. When you make a large donation to any cause they are soooo happy to have you there. Does this mean you are their greatest asset because you have the $$$. Sometimes yes/sometimes no. Does that mean all bow before you on the board and try to placate your every need/desire in search of your all important $$$. What do you think??? Can't their be an adult amateur competitor elected by the general membership from each region added to these executive comittees? That way possibly the most innovative thinkers from each region could get some input that represents vast geographic locations. All with different special interests and points of view. This is where the really helpful ideas will come from. Not from the elite few and old guard whos relevant time has long passed.

slc2
Jan. 8, 2008, 12:15 PM
"poor little miss foy"

talk like that should help our cause ALOT

Sandy M
Jan. 8, 2008, 02:59 PM
"poor little miss foy"

talk like that should help our cause ALOT

Frankly, I think people like Ms. Foy NEED a little prod like this to remember that the vast majority of their membership are NOT in the same tax bracket as Karen Offield; that most of us struggle to support ONE horse, and budget carefully in order to take lessons/training clinics, etc. and go to a few shows, not to mention the married women/men who have to tiptoe a bit around their SO regarding horsey expenses. I just got a raise. My first thought was, "Great! I can afford more lessons for my greenie and me!" Then....I realized, "No, you've got to increase your 401K contribution...." I doubt many of the USDF BOD have to choose between keeping/training their horse(s) and contributing to their retirement accounts.....

slc2
Jan. 8, 2008, 03:02 PM
That is not a little prod to remember that others are not rich. It is a personal insult, a nasty one, like so many others on this bb toward Foy. Where do you expect it to get you, to single out one individual like that by name and insult her personally?

There's a tendency to admire personal insults here, and to feel clever about them, and to have little cliques pick at people and pat eachother on the back for saying clever, nasty things.

The rest of the world doesn't work quite like this bb; most people grew out of such childish behavior once they cleared the 5th grade. In most parts of the world, calling people names and saying things like 'Foy is a piece of work, the fish rots from the head first' would not cause you to be more likely to get what you want, nor would it make someone more likely to even listen to you.

Many people have been EXTREMELY nasty and personal to the committees and here and on other boards, some voices of reason have BEGGED people to just not be QUITE so snotty.

Where do we really think such personal nastiness gets us? Why do we feel it's alright to behave in such an incredibly childish manner?

Sandy M
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:00 PM
That is not a little prod to remember that others are not rich. It is a personal insult, a nasty one, like so many others on this bb toward Foy. Where do you expect it to get you, to single out one individual like that by name and insult her personally?

There's a tendency to admire personal insults here, and to feel clever about them, and to have little cliques pick at people and pat eachother on the back for saying clever, nasty th


While it is definitely a bit sarcastic, I don't think "poor little" is that much of a "personal insult," if at all. And it was Ms. Foy, not the rest of us, who made rude comments about other peoples' horses... the implication that we need to exclude the horses that aren't of potential Olympic quality. My horses are an "off breed" in her terms, though they are sport horse types for their breed, but frankly, I don't care and think it is admirable if someone has a horse that "should be chasing cows" but wants to improve it with dressage and I support their right to ride down that center line. There's no reason such horses can't get decent scores at the lower levels, and the riders of such horses are rarely deluded enough to think their "career path" lead to the Olympics. I hae a friend who showed a very "unsuitable" Morgan cross through 4th level while waiting for her WB yearling to mature. It rarely scored in the 60% range, but she learned a lot from training that horse, which she applied to her young horse.

The detachment from the "average" person is so obvious AND oblivious. It reminds me of when, many, many years ago, I and other boarders fortunate enough to keep our horses in Golden Gate Park, protested an almost 100% raise in the boarding charges (for small, paddock-less stalls). Yes, we WERE paying for the convenience of being right in San Francisco, but a 100% raise in the board rate was quite a shock. When we produced documentation regarding boarding charges from Marin county (expensive) to the East bay (less so), to the SF Peninsula (expensive), all of which were lower than the proposed new board, we were told by the Chairman of the Park & Rec Committee that he did not understand our objection: It was considerably less than HE was paying to keep his family's horses at Pebble Beach! He - with his multiple homes and six figure income - couldn't grasp the difference between a public park being used by City residents and keeping his horse on a piece of VERY expensive and exclusive private property.

Ms. Foy needs to get over this "Olympic" fixation: Those on a path to the Olympics will get there with or without any "qualification" criteria to move from level to level. Those that are not should be allowed to putter away at whatever level they choose to compete/succeed/embarass themselves - it's THEIR problem, not hers.

slc2
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:13 PM
that is not the only personal insult toward foy, i think you're very well aware of that. if not, read some of the related posts.

flshgordon
Jan. 8, 2008, 04:22 PM
While it is definitely a bit sarcastic, I don't think "poor little" is that much of a "personal insult," if at all. And it was Ms. Foy, not the rest of us, who made rude comments about other peoples' horses... the implication that we need to exclude the horses that aren't of potential Olympic quality. .........
Ms. Foy needs to get over this "Olympic" fixation: Those on a path to the Olympics will get there with or without any "qualification" criteria to move from level to level. Those that are not should be allowed to putter away at whatever level they choose to compete/succeed/embarass themselves - it's THEIR problem, not hers.

I agree that the "poor little" is hardly what I would consider an insult and while some of the attacks (as in every aspect of life) were personal, I must agree that some of it was brought on by Mrs Foy's words that indicate that the direction of the commitee is to seemingly exclude "unsuitables" from the sport. I'm sorry but there is NO REASON why the USDF or USEF should move towards excluding ANYONE unless they are outright dangerous to their horses, themselves and/or others. That's it, that's the only criteria that should exclude someone. If they want to make fools of themselves, then they should be allowed to do so. We're not talking about the olympics here, we're talking about training-fourth level dressage. If you want to make rules for FEI, fine go ahead--but there is just no reason for this lower level qualification system other than to be elitist.

slc2
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:05 PM
no, that's not the worst insult, but there are many, here and on other bb's and lists. canticle's i found nasty.

I think I understand why you're all getting so nasty. This isn't a rule, this is a criticism of how you've chosen to do dressage and a criticism of your belief system and of your horse. THAT'S where all the snotty words come from.

Ah, I got it, don't restrict training thru 4th, if we want to suck that's our business, but let the bb's continue to bitch endlessly, nastily and personally, about how awful the fei riders are. I think I get it now. if a person rides poorly at 2nd-4th level, that's their right and their privilege, it's a free country, why it's now according to this bb NOBLE to go to some show and get a low score(unless you're at ringside, then the rider IS horrible, and you can even post later about how horrible it is nd no one is classical anymore, yadda yadda yadda, and THAT thread will be noble too.....), because it's the person's dream to do that... but the fei riders don't have that right because....let me see...because.....what's so magical about crossing the line from 4th to psg...let me see....

rebecca yount
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:13 PM
Acting rude, making insulting statements, and BICKERING amongst yourselves does NOTHING to help "the cause".

slc2, I believe you added the "little" to the name.

Anyway--why don't we knock it off. Get back to the work at hand.

Miss Dior
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:16 PM
Obviously not !!! Sorry I don't agree with the extremely personal insults either. Those are indeed counterproductive. But none are as out of line as her comments were. It does not matter one little bit that her's were made in more general terms. She spoke her mind and the insight it gave us into her line of thinking was deeply offensive to many. She is by no means the only subject of anyone's irritation. And don't think for a minute that we will catch more flies with honey on this rule change. People need to speak their mind as freely she did.

Sandy M
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:18 PM
You know, slc, that is such a muddled nonsensical statement that does NOT represent the arguments that have been presented here, that I think I'll leave it to others to pick it apart in detail. But at a glance, I must have missed where people said it was noble to get low scores. But then, I suppose we should just take your last post for what it's worth: We all know that whatever anyone says on a subject, you will choose to disagree, even when you contradict yourself.

Coreene
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:19 PM
But none are as out of line as her comments were.Oh, you'd be surprised. Several members of the DC and one on the BoD make Leona Helmsley look like Mary Sunshine.

flshgordon
Jan. 8, 2008, 06:22 PM
I think I understand why you're all getting so nasty. This isn't a rule, this is a criticism of how you've chosen to do dressage and a criticism of your belief system and of your horse. THAT'S where all the snotty words come from.

Ah, I got it, don't restrict training thru 4th, if we want to suck that's our business, but let the bb's continue to bitch endlessly, nastily and personally, about how awful the fei riders are. I think I get it now. if a person rides poorly at 2nd-4th level, that's their right and their privilege, it's a free country, why it's now according to this bb NOBLE to go to some show and get a low score(unless you're at ringside, then the rider IS horrible, and you can even post later about how horrible it is nd no one is classical anymore, yadda yadda yadda, and THAT thread will be noble too.....), because it's the person's dream to do that... but the fei riders don't have that right because....let me see...because.....what's so magical about crossing the line from 4th to psg...let me see....

Do you ever listen to yourself slc or do you just start typing and hit send without knowing what came out??? :confused: Because I don't know who died and made you the all-knowing goddess of what we should think.

This whole thing has been ramrodded down people's throats too quickly for some to stomach, so I don't see what's wrong with not standing there and taking it. We do after all have the right to a dissenting opinion.

I do however find it awfully hard to swallow that someone who does not compete as yourself has the nerve to tell anyone else they are not allowed to voice an opinion on a subject that directly impacts ones ability to show up the levels!!! :rolleyes:

When FEI level becomes involved, I'll concede that there might be a different set of standards since that's more focused towards olympic level riding but honestly, I could care less if someone goes and flops around their cow pony at grand prix....as long as it's not hurting anyone or the horse. I'm secure in my riding abilities, and I don't need the USEF to start making new rules to tell me what the judges should already be able to do.

canticle
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:20 PM
no, that's not the worst insult, but there are many, here and on other bb's and lists. canticle's i found nasty.
Oh please. :rolleyes: Do you even know what the saying means?

I think I understand why you're all getting so nasty. This isn't a rule, this is a criticism of how you've chosen to do dressage and a criticism of your belief system and of your horse. THAT'S where all the snotty words come from.

Ah, I got it, don't restrict training thru 4th, if we want to suck that's our business, but let the bb's continue to bitch endlessly, nastily and personally, about how awful the fei riders are. I think I get it now. if a person rides poorly at 2nd-4th level, that's their right and their privilege, it's a free country, why it's now according to this bb NOBLE to go to some show and get a low score(unless you're at ringside, then the rider IS horrible, and you can even post later about how horrible it is nd no one is classical anymore, yadda yadda yadda, and THAT thread will be noble too.....), because it's the person's dream to do that... but the fei riders don't have that right because....let me see...because.....what's so magical about crossing the line from 4th to psg...let me see....
Enough with the psychobabble already. Not all of us have an inferiority complex which we need to project onto others. :dead: I am opposed to this rule because there is no identifiable reason for it. It will accomplish nothing except to make Dressage even more of a headache. I ride for pleasure, and I'd just as soon stay at home or choose another (more welcoming) discipline than deal with the bureaucracy this would create.

And by the way, the insults are coming from the USEF/USDF higher-ups who are trying to foist this rule upon us peons. We are staying remarkably civil, all things considered.

canticle
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:31 PM
When FEI level becomes involved, I'll concede that there might be a different set of standards since that's more focused towards olympic level riding but honestly, I could care less if someone goes and flops around their cow pony at grand prix....as long as it's not hurting anyone or the horse. I'm secure in my riding abilities, and I don't need the USEF to start making new rules to tell me what the judges should already be able to do.
The irony is that the rule is aimed squarely at amateurs, but amateurs are the least of the discipline's problems. Just look at the exemptions:

Riders in the FEI young horse tests are exempt. Young riders competing in the NAJYRC are exempt. Foreign riders are exempt. Long-listed riders are exempt. Medal winners are exempt. Judges are exempt. Certified instructors are exempt.

It's so corrupt I don't know what to say anymore. slc, THAT'S what I meant when I said "the fish rots from the head down!" :eek:

The governing body should be focusing precisely on the groups which they were so kind as to exempt or grandfather in. Instead they are giving the amateurs a hard time, the very people who aren't hurting anyone. :no:

Coreene
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:35 PM
Instead they are giving the amateurs a hard time, the very people who aren't hurting anyone. :no:Oh, but apparently it's too difficult for some of the DC members who also judge to sit through a few minutes of a shitty ride. You know, the shitty ride they are being paid to judge. :rolleyes:

Sonesta
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:42 PM
And after they sit through the shitty ride, they give the rider a collective of "5" and then go and complain about what terrible rides they saw.

slc2
Jan. 8, 2008, 07:59 PM
this whole thing has become ridiculous, now it's about foy's remark about cow ponies, and nothing else and this remark has caused alot of very childish reactions where people totally lose focus on the issue - that's what makes 'the membership' so ineffective, NOT that there's some friggin' conspiracy.

i did not start out a great fan of qualifiers, but the new plan sounds better. for me the worry is the financial aspect.

i must say that after hearing the arguments against it presented here, i am very sure i know why there is a 'disconnect' between the committees and some complainers.

i am excluding rebecca from that, as she has presented a very good case, and done so politely and with dignity and has discussed it without the accusations and snotty words others have used - how they ever expect anyone to listen to them when they write that way is totally beyond me.

she (there was another good letter from another lady too) has done a good job - no, you others have not. yes, a bulletin board IS a public place, and it's a small world and this is not the half of it. collectively, the bb's and lists have been incredibly snotty and childish.

piaffegirl
Jan. 8, 2008, 08:03 PM
I personally would never have posted anything if it weren't for Rebecca Yount, I was trying to be apart of something I care about and unfortunatley spelled Brown-Foy's name wrong. I feel somewhat responsible for starting the "slight" curve in the road.

But we must remember this has nothing to do with any one person, but a process that wasn't as open as it should have been and about a rule proposal that we all feel very passionately about no mater which side we take.

This is ultimately about the horse, and how we show this wonderful creature. We all know we will continue riding, but showing and paying money to do so might be different.

Let's all keep our head up, breath deeply and get a grip.

rebecca yount
Jan. 8, 2008, 09:16 PM
Piaffegirl, don't feel bad.

You made an honest mistake and I am sure you will be more careful now.

Everyone is doing the best they can with this difficult issue. We just shouldn't be bickering with each other.

J-Lu
Jan. 8, 2008, 09:36 PM
Riders in the FEI young horse tests are exempt. Young riders competing in the NAJYRC are exempt. Foreign riders are exempt. Long-listed riders are exempt. Medal winners are exempt. Judges are exempt. Certified instructors are exempt.


Actually, I think the Young Riders are exempt to a point because they have to qualify to compete at NAJYRC, and the qualification "points" are similar to the proposed scheme. Foreign riders need letters from their governing body to prove what level they show at, and anyone long-listed is already riding GP and doing well. Medal winners are exempt at the level they won their medal at plus one (no big gain for them there). The grandfathering level for judges is inflated, IMO, but they are not totally (only mostly :winkgrin:) exempt.

J.

Sonesta
Jan. 8, 2008, 09:38 PM
As for me, I couldn't care less about Janet Brown-Foy's comments about cow ponies. I am concerned about a rule that appears completely unworkable, elitist and expensive, when all the judges have to do is score the rider as he/she deserves instead of being afraid/unwilling to give a rider score below a 5.

canyonoak
Jan. 8, 2008, 11:08 PM
I am still waiting for anyone to explain WHY demanding that lower-level riders meet a standard in order to show above a certain level at local and regional shows...is somehow going to make the sport of dressage in this country become like the top-end of dressage in Germany and Holland.

Sure the score standard exists in those two countries.

But the standard is hardly the reason they continue to beat us.

They beat us because dressage as horse sport is part of the culture and has been for a long time.

They beat us because the sport has a fan base big enough that DRESSAGE is regularly on television!
They beat us because DRESSAGE has sponsors!
They beat us because they have a standardized process and a system for teaching that process.

They beat us in dressage for the same reason that the U.S. beats just about everyone else in football and baseball and basketball.

There is nothing wrong with a proposal to have standards.

What is wrong is that (to borrow a fitting cliche) the DC is putting the cart before the horse: they are picking one element out of several ,and refusing to accept that OTHER elements must be established first.

Because it will be difficult to attract sponsors.
Because it will be difficult to create a standardized teaching process when we no longer even really have a USET headquarters, as Gladstone is basically a golf course and Kentucky is basically...an edifice.
So the DC seems to have fastened on an element they can do something about: they can pass an edict.

The problem is--the edict does not make sense .Dressage is too marginal a sport to want to enforce a proposal that may discsourage possible new members.

I watched bull riding on regular TV the other day.
OK, so it is 8 seconds and a space alien, in the space of maybe 3 rides, could figure out how and why someone wins.
And the cowboys all say shucks, wear tight jeans and stetsons and are so damn cool it makes my teeth hurt!

But you know what? If dressage were marketed properly, people would learn that our riders are also athletes; that the horses are waaay more interesting than the bulls (hey! those bulls have fan clubs and posters and NAME RECOGNITION). That the sport has the same allure as gymnastics and pairs figure skating, just to pick two obvious comparisons.

anyway...just thinking aloud.

MEP
Jan. 8, 2008, 11:21 PM
Canyonoak :yes:

Coreene
Jan. 9, 2008, 12:42 PM
Canyonoak, you go girl. :cool:

claire
Jan. 9, 2008, 02:36 PM
I am still waiting for anyone to explain WHY demanding that lower-level riders meet a standard in order to show above a certain level at local and regional shows...is somehow going to make the sport of dressage in this country become like the top-end of dressage in Germany and Holland.

Sure the score standard exists in those two countries.
But the standard is hardly the reason they continue to beat us.

-They beat us because dressage as horse sport is part of the culture and has been for a long time.
-They beat us because the sport has a fan base big enough that DRESSAGE is regularly on television!
-They beat us because DRESSAGE has sponsors!
-They beat us because they have a standardized process and a system for teaching that process.

What is wrong is that (to borrow a fitting cliche) the DC is putting the cart before the horse: they are picking one element out of several ,and refusing to accept that OTHER elements must be established first.

Exactly CanyonOak! :yes:

Reminds me of the exchange between Joan Cuzak and Melanie Griffith in the movie "Working Girl":

"Sometimes at home I sing and dance around in my underwear...doesn't make me Madonna." :winkgrin:

Passing an Open-Ended Rule Proposal for 3rd/4th/PSG Performance Standards won't make US Dressage more competitive with Germany and Netherlands.

happyrider
Jan. 9, 2008, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure if it's late enough they won't consider the letter but regardless I'm sending mine today. I applaud the committee for identifying an issue they feel warrants attention - the welfare of horses and how the selection of an appropriate showing level impacts the horse's wellbeing.

I don't believe the proposed rule change will achieve either the missions of the USEF (which is what rules are supposed to do) nor meet its own objectives.

Some of my reasons are what I believe are would be some unintended consequences of the rule change. For example, I believe there will be a significant rise in schooling shows which don't necessarily regulate the levels people compete at let alone the equipment, abuse, medications etc.

I offered my thoughts as to why I don't think the rule is a good idea and offered some alternatives that I think might better achieve the objectives. I think their issue - making sure horses are shown at the appropriate level - isn't a bad one. I believe they simply overlooked a USEF rule-writing requirement in the process - "Develop as may possible solutions as you can. Ask others for their input" and went straight to what everyone (or every other country as the case may be) else has done. Which isn’t a great reason for doing anything except exercising more. 

Some of the alternatives I submitted are based on making things more transparent and making it tougher to call yourself a professional. For example: 1) making tests publicly viewable (not just the total scores - movement by movement scores and comments) which would hold both rider and judges more accountable a little public scrutiny could be a good thing 2) requiring qualification for anyone that wants to show open -I think if we tighten requirements for those that want to call themselves professionals we will eliminate many that abuse the system or encourage/enable their students to do so (most true professionals work really, really hard to get their students to show the correct level since it really does reflect on them)

I may not have it perfect but I'm willing to my ideas out there for others to improve and build on.

Rebecca - kudos to you for putting yourself out there and encouraging the rest of us.

Who else has constructive suggestions on what would work in lieu of the proposed standards?

Let's get behind the intent - improving the welfare of our horses and helping ensure competitors to show at the right level - and find ways to achieve it!

claire
Jan. 9, 2008, 05:01 PM
Who else has constructive suggestions on what would work in lieu of the proposed standards?


In my letter to the USEF DC and the USEF BoD I explained the reasons I disagreed with an (Open-Ended) Rule Proposal for Performance Standards. (a rule proposal with qualifications to be determined "later")

But I added (what I thought) were constructive alternative solutions to the USEF DC's expressed problem of raising the standard of riding and protecting horses from "abuse"/"stress":

-Judges better utilize the existing Scoring System and TD's/Judges better utilize Yellow Cards when faced with "Fairly Bad" or "Abusive" riding.

-$$$ allotted to the Proposed Performance Standard monitoring is used to off set the cost of training clinics at the regional level for PM's/riders who have achieved a yearly score average of X%.

However, the responses I received indicated (nicely and some not so nicely)
that "I did not understand". :confused:

~Freedom~
Jan. 9, 2008, 06:27 PM
i did not start out a great fan of qualifiers, but the new plan sounds better. for me the worry is the financial aspect.




Hmmm are you finally planning on competing?:eek: