PDA

View Full Version : Any news from the USEF Convention?



DennisM
Jan. 10, 2008, 10:50 AM
What's going on, particularly with reference to the "competition standards" proposal? Anybody know?

rebecca yount
Jan. 10, 2008, 03:20 PM
There are discussions going on relative to this issue. Best to let them work it out now.

Hazelnut
Jan. 10, 2008, 07:59 PM
It would be great if someone whi is there can keep us updated on the discussions.

Miss Dior
Jan. 12, 2008, 10:22 AM
Best to let them work it out? I could not disagree more strongly. Please keep us updated . I have very low expectations of the outcome given their past history of listening to the membership at large.

rebecca yount
Jan. 12, 2008, 05:18 PM
I am not there.

What I meant was, though, that I have been communicating with someone who is there and she felt that it was best to refrain from posting a lot of specific information, because everyone's feelings were pretty raw right then and she thought best not to further inflame the situation.

I was taking her word for it. She is there as a representative from CDS and has been lobbying all week.

Voting has apparently not taken place yet. There is some talk of adding another year to the proposed effective date.

If the general proposed rule change (that there will be qualifying criteria) is voted on and passes, you can be sure that there will be continued action on the parts of almost every GMO. Shame on us for not being more active. I have learned that my GMO did receive the USEF booket of proposed rule changes (of which this was one), but the person who got it apparently didn't GET IT that she should study them and then ask for feedback from the GMO re the rule changes, so she could go to the USDF convention prepared with our GMOs position. That WILL NOT happen again.

I had suggested on this board previously that I may attend the convention to assist in lobbying regarding this issue. There was very little response so I dropped the idea.

At this point, I personally have called USDF and USEF officials; written to every single member of the USEF Dressage Committee (multiple times); sent emails and snail mail letters individually to every single member of the USEF Board of Directors; publicized the information on this, UDBB, and TheHorseCommunity as well as participating in the Dressage-L list and forwarding relevant information to various dressage officials; spoken personally to the President of the USDF, Sam Barish, as well as to Scott Hassler, George Williams, several judges, and Jeff Moore; contacted Mary Phelps at DressageDaily and been the impetus as well as contributing to writing (and editing several times) an article on DressageDaily; saw to it that a letter from PVDA was written and sent to the USEF convention with Connie Davenport from CDS; corresponded with CDS officials; corresponded with PVDA officials re why we didn't hear about it, and continued to participate in bulletin board discussions of this issue to encourage people to let their opinions be known and to help them know where to write.

What else do you suggest be done at this point, Miss Dior???????

hoopoe
Jan. 12, 2008, 06:53 PM
so, RY are you saying that all the GMO's received word that this was going to be a voting issue BEFORE the USDF convention when it was presented to the 'public"?

:mad:

perhaps I will go to that awards meeting next weekend

to whom was the mailing directed, the President of the GMO?

Miss Dior
Jan. 12, 2008, 07:11 PM
I too have made certain that our area has been heard from. Aside from being there who knows. I have no idea how it is going to go down.

rebecca yount
Jan. 12, 2008, 08:50 PM
I was told by USEF that copies of the rule change booklet were mailed to all GMOs in October. That would have been before the USDF convention, yes.

I was wondering what happened to the one that supposedly came to PVDA, since there was no discussion of that rule change at PVDA meetings, etc. Then I noticed that in an article in the PVDA newsletter AFTER the USDF convention (where this first got a lot of talk) by one of the PVDA delegates to the USDF convention. In it, she referred to the USEF rule changel booklet and said "it landed in my mailbox in October". So therefore she had it.

What awards meeting are you talking about going to?

hoopoe
Jan. 12, 2008, 10:10 PM
our local GMO has one next weekend

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 12:23 AM
I just went back to look at the first 'proposal thread', and that was November 7th.
So yes, it was late October that the GMOs etc got mailed the rule proposals.

BUT-- it's a lot of pages, whether in paper or online...and it was just because a friend and I were talking about the proposals and zipping through the pages that we got ,um, excited, when we found 275-07 with its non-specific ' we'll let you all know later the exact criteria' that I decided to start that thread.

And even with that--look how long and how many threads it took for all of us to really UNDERSTAND the implications and then DO something.

I am grateful to Rebecca, among others, for really getting the ball rolling (pardon the cliche)

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 12:34 AM
Hmmm.

http://www.dressagedaily.com/2008/dd_200801/dd_20080113-usef.html

is a new interview with Janet Brown Foy explaining the latest developments at USEF Convention and how nearly 98% of us all 'misunderstood' the proposal ; AND the current status of the proposal--which has definitely undergone some changes ; AND what is still being worked on.

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 02:33 AM
hmmm, indeed. I thought one of the biggest objections was that it was an Open-ended Proposal? :confused:

So, reading this article, does it appear that the "open-ended" rule proposal was passed and now the Dressage Committee is going to determine the implementation and specifics of the qualification system?
Or
Will the rule proposal be re-submitted with the specific criteria attached?

quote Dressage Daily:
"While it is premature to cover the specifics of the various proposals as they are not finalized, the plan is to continue discussing with the membership and within the Dressage Committee what the various qualification processes should include. These three proposals will then be finalized at the Dressage Committee’s June Meeting and then distributed through the USDF Group Membership Organizations (GMO) and Participating Membership (PM) Delegates to be disseminated among their constituencies. This will allow “the people a voice to give their feedback,” added Janet.
The Dressage Committee will then take all this feedback into consideration and will go to the December USDF Convention where they will have an open discussion about the proposals."

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 02:50 AM
From Dressage Daily:

"I asked Janet (Foy) why she felt there was so much resistance to this proposal.

“This is the United States and everyone is used to being free to do whatever we want. I ran across this a little in the breeding when I was standing a stallion. Everyone thought that even if their horse was lame or mentally unrideable that they should still be allowed to breed to my stallion. :confused:

In Europe you have to go through a strict process for breeding and it’s important to set standards. People are used to qualifying in other areas so this shouldn’t be that surprising.”


"Janet continued to explain that overall the committee was able to resolve most of the concerns voiced by the 500+ people who had emailed them.

“Once I explained what we are doing and cleared up any misinformation, I would say 98% came back satisfied and some even apologized. :confused:

What people have to understand is that we don’t have hard hearts. We know the adult amateurs drive the sport but it’s a fine line between what is good for the sport and safe for the horses and fair to the riders,” she added."

Dressage4Fun
Jan. 13, 2008, 07:01 AM
SO we are 3%???????? How many on HERE apologized or were SATISFIED????
WTF??????????

JRG
Jan. 13, 2008, 08:25 AM
I am not nearly appologetic or happy.

The qualifying proposal is written too general, and I for one am reluctant to jump on board and support something that is so open ended and up to too much interpretation.

arnika
Jan. 13, 2008, 08:41 AM
When you read through all three pages of the Dressage Daily article, all I have to say is that Janet Brown-Foy is the most elitist, obnoxious and stupid person I have ever had the privilege of reading.

Could the USEF and dressage leadership have a more obtuse spokesperson???

If she no longer has a breeding business it isn't difficult to understand why. She will have the recognized dressage arenas cleared out so quickly her head will spin if she is allowed to continue antagonizing people.

I was and still am against the proposed qualifying rule based on its merits but I would be against it in principle due to her ridiculous snobbery if for no other reason!

inca
Jan. 13, 2008, 09:16 AM
Has anyone actually seen a 3rd level test where the final score is a 30%? I haven't and trust me, Region 9 isn't exactly the cream of the crop for dressage. Barring a mental meltdown from the horse (which could happen if it was a spooky, hot horse) I just don't think there are a plethora of 30% rides being performed at recognized shows. And if it does happen, I bet it doesn't happen too often to the same rider. Who in their right mind is going to spend the boatload of money it costs to show at recognized shows to get a 30% over and over again.

I like the end comment by Janet that it will take 2-3 shows MAXIMUM for people to get the necessary qualifying scores. I do think with the new proposal starting at 58% and only requiring 10 points, that will be true in a lot of cases. But, I don't think it will be quite as easy as she makes it sound.

I do like that they have pushed this back to 2011 and also will count scores retroactively. It doesn't say how many years they will go back. But, the retroactive scores, even if they start now, should help a lot of people be qualified for 3rd level by the time the rule is in place.

I agree that Janet needs a PR lesson.

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 09:44 AM
I'm bumping this up hoping more people read the interview.

NoDQhere
Jan. 13, 2008, 09:46 AM
We have been involved in Dressage for many years and have never seen a 30% ride, at any level. And we are in the wild wild west:lol:! This qualification system is going to create a record keeping nightmare within an organization who already has trouble keeping things straight! And really, it isn't needed anyway. I don't think too many horses are "suffering" because their riders are SO BAD. I say if the Judges do their jobs, the cream will rise to the top;)

hoopoe
Jan. 13, 2008, 09:50 AM
I know this selection process is going to put into place

I was not happy with the carte blanc they were asking for

somewhere between the USDF convention and the USEF they officially decided to go with the lower 59 / 10 pts rather than the original 60% / 20pts for the approval jump??? :confused:

that is what the article sounds like. A point level such as the 60/20 was far to restricting on riders from less populated regions where it would mean for some at least 10 shows. I don't know about others but I prefer to show my horse ( 2nd level) only one ride per day. In our area most shows are two day. Some shows at three day and a few make it so friday is one show and saturday and sunday are considered a second show. I notice that this year a few venues are holding 2 one day shows back to back. This is a great way for people to get qualifying rides with minimal travel impact. As long as the judges are arranged to advantage that is a win /win for all


I like that they seem to "get it" that for those of us scoring in the 55% - 62% range, our limitations might be more about our horses basic "non- warmblood quality" rather than heinous riding. I like the idea that someone presented ...the checking a box on the test "rider demonstrates proper understanding of riding basics" gather "X" number and you can pass.

I think they learned that they could not do such a poor job with the communication process. I think a few GMO's are going to hear the same thing as well. I think they learned that dressage riders tend to be very involved with their shows and showing decisions.

freestyle2music
Jan. 13, 2008, 09:55 AM
I'm bumping this up hoping more people read the interview.

OK I'll join, but I like the idea that (and I stated that already weeks ago) that they have created an escape route. An escape route witch is working very well over here. And imho every system (good or bad) needs an escape route.

Meaning when you think that you and your horse are good enough to start at FEI-level (without having the necessary scores/points) you can ask two O- or I-judges to give the combination the green light.

Theo

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 10:23 AM
<<Meaning when you think that you and your horse are good enough to start at FEI-level (without having the necessary scores/points) you can ask two O- or I-judges to give the combination the green light.>>


HOW does one do this?

I know La Withages has gone around and 'watched' people and given them qualifying scores for major international competitions...but how does it work just to move up?

IS this done at a show, after regular compeition?

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 10:51 AM
I have been communicating with someone who is there and she felt that it was best to refrain from posting a lot of specific information, because everyone's feelings were pretty raw right then and she thought best not to further inflame the situation.
I was taking her word for it. She is there as a representative from CDS and has been lobbying all week.
Voting has apparently not taken place yet. There is some talk of adding another year to the proposed effective date.

It would be helpful to hear other viewpoints (besides JBF's) on what information was presented:

-*If* the open-ended rule proposal was/was not passed :confused:

-Was there scoring data presented showing the % of scores in the 50%/40%/30% ranges demonstrating the stated problem? :confused:

-Was there discussion of $$$ ways and means of implementing and administrating this sort of score qualification program? :confused:

Janet
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:13 AM
If you look at the rule change proposal, it was modified on Jan 7.

It now reads

DR119 Participation in Dressage Competitions. [Chapter DR. Dressage Division] Add new and renumber remaining:
3. Effective December 1, 2010 (was "2009"), riders competing in Dressage Competitions at Third Level and above must be eligible according to qualification criteria recommended (was "established") by the Federation Dressage Committee (the rest is new) and approved by the USEF Board of Directors.

Is has been "disapproved" by 5 other committees- AFTER the revision.

The BoD has not yet voted on it, as far as I can tell.

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:22 AM
Is has been "disapproved" by 5 other committees- AFTER the revision.

The BoD has not yet voted on it, as far as I can tell.

Thanks Janet! If you don't mind, could you explain "disapproved by 5 other committees"? Which committees? The procedure? :confused:

freestyle2music
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:23 AM
<<Meaning when you think that you and your horse are good enough to start at FEI-level (without having the necessary scores/points) you can ask two O- or I-judges to give the combination the green light.>>


HOW does one do this?

I know La Withages has gone around and 'watched' people and given them qualifying scores for major international competitions...but how does it work just to move up?

IS this done at a show, after regular compeition?

Yes, you can ask the show-organisers, and these tests are taken after a regular competition. The same system is also effective in Germany.

A very good example was when my sister passed the ride on our GP-horse to her daughter Wendy. Wendy didn't have the necessary points to start at these levels. (because she never competed in dressage, and was mostly jumping). One Olympic judge and an International judge (now Olympic) did test her twice and she was allowed to start at PSG-level.

Janet
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:31 AM
Thanks Janet! If you don't mind, could you explain "disapproved by 5 other committees"? Which committees? The procedure? :confused:
If you read the proposal
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/275-07.pdf
edited to fix link
You will know as much as I do.

It was disapproved by

Arabian 1: Disapproved-12/18/2007, 2: Disapproved-1/11/2008
Morgan 2: Disapproved-1/10/2008
Friesian 2: Disapproved-1/10/2008
Andalusian/Lusitano 2: Disapproved-1/11/2008
Connemara/Welsh 2: Disapproved-1/11/2008

with the following comments

Friesian: Committee feels that qualification criteria first needs to be established before submitting as a proposed rule change.

Andalusian/Lusitano: Would qualifying criteria established first.

No action yet reported by the BoD

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:34 AM
<<Yes, you can ask the show-organisers, and these tests are taken after a regular competition. The same system is also effective in Germany.

A very good example was when my sister passed the ride on our GP-horse to her daughter Wendy. Wendy didn't have the necessary points to start at these levels. (because she never competed in dressage, and was mostly jumping). One Olympic judge and an International judge (now Olympic) did test her twice and she was allowed to start at PSG-level.>>



HA HA, I can just see trying to find a typical show in the US where there just happen to be an O and I judge willing to hang around (and miss their plane) AFTER a show in order to watch and score a rider.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.



And as for the proposal-- thank heavens the committees so far are all in the 3% of us who are still not in favor of or 'understanding' a proposal that gives an unelected committe the right to decide criteria.

not really laughing,

Janet
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:39 AM
How did five committeees 'disapprove' the proposal 275-07 ?

I do not understand the question. Every committee gets a chance to vote on every rule change proposal.

Then the BOD votes on the rule change proposal.

The BoD is not bound by any of the committee votes, but takes them into consideration.

In particular, (as I understand it) any rule change proposal which has a "disapproved" vote gets reviewed individually by BoD, while proposals which only have "approved" votes may get lumped together and voted on as a group.

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:42 AM
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/519-07.pdf


takes me to the "dual agent/horse sales" proposal which 9is getting lots of play on the hunter/jumper forum...

Janet
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:44 AM
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/519-07.pdf


takes me to the "dual agent/horse sales" proposal which 9is getting lots of play on the hunter/jumper forum...
Sorry, that is another one I am tracking and I put in the wrong link.

Should be
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/275-07.pdf

freestyle2music
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:44 AM
HA HA, I can just see trying to find a typical show in the US where there just happen to be an O and I judge willing to hang around (and miss their plane) AFTER a show in order to watch and score a rider.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.



Maybe our judges do that because they love the sport. :yes:

They must love the sport because they don't get any money to judge !. And mostly they also combine this with teaching/lecturing the lower level judges.

Theo

Janet
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:46 AM
They must love the sport because they don't get any money to judge !.
I can assure you that, in the US, judges DO get paid.

slc2
Jan. 13, 2008, 11:48 AM
"you can ask two O- or I-judges to give the combination the green light"

what does this service cost? how is the permission recorded? does the two o or one i judge send in something, or does the rider...?

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 12:00 PM
Every committee gets a chance to vote on every rule change proposal.

Then the BOD votes on the rule change proposal.

The BoD is not bound by any of the committee votes, but takes them into consideration.

In particular, (as I understand it) any rule change proposal which has a "disapproved" vote gets reviewed individually by BoD, while proposals which only have "approved" votes may get lumped together and voted on as a group.

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/275-07.pdf

Thanks Janet!

That is at least hopeful:
that with 5 disapprovals Rule Change #275-07 will be reviewed individually by the BoD.

Dressage4Fun
Jan. 13, 2008, 12:02 PM
You know,, it seems that we have spoken, were heard, and ignored. Sad that our orginization that supports and promotes the sport that we love chooses to ignore us. We do not elect them, we do pay them in a round about way, we are stuck with the decisions that they make. Do we have any recourse? In a way we do, but we sacrifice what we love to do, we can not show, not pay our dues, not support them,,, who do we hurt? Ourselves. They do not care. As a BOD they have proven that! If we need a system,, why not present a few options and let the members vote? OH I FORGOT,, they would forget to listen. We have a few options, we can not rejoin, thereby keeping or money and doing more clinics, lessons, ect.. We can rejoin and ride our as# off and work up thier system and make it work. We renew our membership,stay home do more clinics and lessons,, and send more letters and keep the word out that the BOD has no cares of the members voice! All viable options. Which will YOU choose?

freestyle2music
Jan. 13, 2008, 01:25 PM
"you can ask two O- or I-judges to give the combination the green light"

what does this service cost? how is the permission recorded? does the two o or one i judge send in something, or does the rider...?

This cost nothing, like it cost nothing if you ask the judge to make a videotape of your ride, with extensive (vocal) comments on the tape. These kind of tapes (i have many of them, and have posted some of these footage on my website) are later used for educational purposes.

Next to this; almost all judges stay for some hours after the competition, and are open for discussions and comments to the trainers and riders.

To answer you last question these scoresheets are delivered to the show organisers (and the rider get's a copy). The show-organisers send these scoresheet to the KNHS.

Also I want to point out that the KNHS has a good database for keeping track of the scores and scoring-points of every horse and rider. However the descission for competing at a certain level is up to the riders, this is because of the fact that when a rider get's his score to move up to the next level on saturday, he is allowed to do this on the next (sun)day. But starting to high or to low will be penalised. So you don't have to wait for the "green light" of the KNHS.

Please take in consideration that the communication and descission lines are much shorter and easier over here and the judges are part of the TEAM.

Scores and even rides are published life on the internet. (at this moment I am watching the Friesian Stallion Keuring)

Could this be a start for the US ?

slc2
Jan. 13, 2008, 01:35 PM
If we have to have something because Europe has it, and we only adopt one part of it, we are not copying Europe very well :lol:.

If a person could get an evaluation from an I or O judge, that would still be a problem in the USA. Most of the shows in the USA do not have judges of those levels.

I think it would be good to have something like that though. IT would help people who have less money if they did not have to go to so many shows.

ride-n-tx
Jan. 13, 2008, 01:41 PM
So, some people want to make things better for us. However we don't really know what they are planning. No one in charge wants to tell us and they won't listen to our opinions. Wow, i feel like i am in high school again! :no:

I feel that this proposal is not very well thought out. No one knows what the criteria will be, and opposition/constructive criticism is not being taken into account at all. To me it feels like this whole thing is being very rushed. What is the big hurry!!!!!

Man, i love this sport, but this whole charade does not give me much confidence in the system or the people running it. All i can think about is the additional $$$$$ this is going to cost us.

Sonesta
Jan. 13, 2008, 02:03 PM
Theo, this is just another area where Europe and the U.S. differ greatly. Here ALL judges are PAID to judge. And the country is ENORMOUS. The vast majority of shows do NOT have Olympic or International judges. And the judges have planes to catch. I assure you they do NOT hang around after the show to chat, nor have I EVER heard of a judge here being willing to videotape a ride with audible critique. Just not done.

rebecca yount
Jan. 13, 2008, 03:30 PM
It is now about 3:20 pm Sunday 1/13/08 Eastern Standard Time. I do not know if the proposed rule change has been voted on by the USEF Board of Directors. I have seen the changes to the proposed rule change that have ensued since 1/10/08. As of right now, the changes include that the "qualifying criteria" would be effective a year later than they would have been per how the thing looked on 1/1/08. Also, the proposal has been changed to say that the criteria would be "recommended" by the USEF Dressage Committee and that the criteria would have to be "approved" by the USEF Board of Directors.

It is my opinion that those changes were made because people like us spoke up.

I STILL don't like the whole thing, but I feel it is incorrect to say that NO changes were made and that our comments (and letters and emails) didn't make any difference.

THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVISED. How can you say that "opposition/constructive criticism is not being taken into account"? Making statements like that is as incorrect as was the Dressage Committee in its initial ill-advised actions. There have been significant changes as you can see by looking at the USEF rule change proposal portion of the website. It has been put off by a year and the criteria would have to be approved by the USEF Board of Directors. I think that is quite a bit of progress. Not enough, maybe, but quite a bit.


I don't think anyone who is posting here knows at this point whether the REVISED rule change proposal (see link above to 275-07) was approved by the USEF Board of Directors. I hope it is not approved.

However, if it IS approved, it represents an improvement over the initial proposal, AND there is a lot of work to be done. I suggest we think about that and how we will approach that task, rather than stomping off in a huff.

atr
Jan. 13, 2008, 03:36 PM
I had dinner with a high-ranking judge last night. I asked what he thought of the whole qualification furore. His view was it should have been put in place 15 years ago. He did acknowledge the problems faced by those of us in regions with tiny numbers of recognized shows with the concept as it is currently being expressed, however.

I asked him if he saw THAT many bad rides that he felt this was necessary, and he said that he did indeed see many what he considers to be training level horses attempting to compete at 4th level and that it was in his view abusive and needed fixing.

From what I've been reading as contributions to this debate on the Internet, and actually what I would personally say I've observed, this means his view of what constitutes bad/abusive riding is vastly differerent from that of most lower-level adult amateurs in this country. Which is kinda scary, and which has got me wondering whether my own personal standards need raising, quite honestly.

His other point, which I thought was very interesting, is that in his travels to mainland Europe, he goes to regular stables and boarding barns, and sees regular riders, folks with full time jobs who get to ride maybe one evening during the week and on weekends, and their goal is to be able to eventually ride a really lovely third level test (which, as he pointed out, isn't so easy), rather than constantly feeling they must move up the levels, and are failures if we don't get to Grand Prix, even with mediocre scores, as we do rather have a tendency to do in this country.

It was interesting food for thought.

canyonoak
Jan. 13, 2008, 03:39 PM
If some of the other infrastructure were in place: ie, shows easily available (within an hour's drive);
shows nearly as cheap as in Holland /Germany ($20-40 class);
real prizes with real sponsors (been covered umpteen times);
judges who are not paid for judging (see above);
competent certified instruction based on a process that is central to the teaching;
shows over-subscribed;

If these and other realities were in place, then the proposal would at least make more sense.

And IF the proposal somehow does get in place, it would be oh-so-nice if the responsibility and execution of the PURPOSE was left to the rider, as is done aparently in Holland and Germany.

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 03:57 PM
Rebecca,

Once again, Thank you for all your efforts and support.

You utilized the various BB's as a means of quickly and accurately getting the facts out to the base and organizing the the information, resources and contacts to initiate letter writing campaigns!

Whether the USEF BoD votes to approve the Rule Proposal or not, I doubt there would have been this result had the base not spoken up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet
Every committee gets a chance to vote on every rule change proposal.

Then the BOD votes on the rule change proposal.

The BoD is not bound by any of the committee votes, but takes them into consideration.

In particular, (as I understand it) any rule change proposal which has a "disapproved" vote gets reviewed individually by BoD, while proposals which only have "approved" votes may get lumped together and voted on as a group.

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/275-07.pdf
that with 5 disapprovals Rule Change #275-07 will be reviewed individually by the BoD.

Dressage Art
Jan. 13, 2008, 04:29 PM
I support the idea of the qualification system that will set a clear standard that we can strive for, system that will raise expectations and quality of dressage in the show ring. However, I'm disappointed how new qualification system was presented and I’m opposed to such difficult qualification standards.

Current proposed qualifying scores are not based on any of the existent USEF or USDF standards. Current proposed points to qualify to move up to the 3rd level belittle the scores needed to earn USDF Bronze Medal, they also belittle the scores needed to qualify for the USDF Championships, and belittle the scores needed to earn USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards. Scores that are needed for USDF championships, scores that are needed towards USDF Bronze Medal, and scores that are needed for USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards are all lower in % and lesser in the amount than the new proposed 3rd Level Qualification Rule calls for.

I would be glad to see the new qualification system based on the existing scores that needed for
1) USDF Championships Qualifying scores: aka 2 scores of 61% on 2nd level http://www.usdf.org/docs/competitions/regionals/RCProgramRules.pdf
Or
2) USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards: aka 4 scores of 60% on 2nd level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-performance.asp
Or
3) Towards USDF Bronze Medal: aka 2 scores of 60% on 1nd Level and 2 scores of 60% on 2nd Level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-medals.asp

If the USEF creates a new rule based on the existent rule, it will be easier to track the scores and it will be easier to introduce this new rule to the membership as well. I also think it's important to make sure that riders can earn their scores riding only 2 tests. That will make it affordable and give it a reasonable time table.

Introducing a dressage levels qualification system is a correct direction, but it needs to be introduced for the right reasons and it needs to affect negatively only riders who are not spending enough time on the correct dressage basics, rather than negatively affecting people with a limited income.

sm
Jan. 13, 2008, 04:35 PM
At this point, I personally have called USDF and USEF officials; written to every single member of the USEF Dressage Committee (multiple times); sent emails and snail mail letters individually to every single member of the USEF Board of Directors; publicized the information on this, UDBB, and TheHorseCommunity as well as participating in the Dressage-L list and forwarding relevant information to various dressage officials; spoken personally to the President of the USDF, Sam Barish, as well as to Scott Hassler, George Williams, several judges, and Jeff Moore; contacted Mary Phelps at DressageDaily and been the impetus as well as contributing to writing (and editing several times) an article on DressageDaily; saw to it that a letter from PVDA was written and sent to the USEF convention with Connie Davenport from CDS; corresponded with CDS officials; corresponded with PVDA officials re why we didn't hear about it, and continued to participate in bulletin board discussions of this issue to encourage people to let their opinions be known and to help them know where to write.

What else do you suggest be done at this point, Miss Dior???????

Well, not to be snide, but one could see about some sort of publicity/article in Dressage Today I don't know what angle to pursure there at this point, that would take some thought.

claire
Jan. 13, 2008, 04:42 PM
Dressage Art,

Did you read the Potomac Valley Dressage Association's letter that was presented at USEF meeting.

Very clearly and objectively covers all your points.

http://www.pvda.org/Documents/Letter...e%20Change.pdf (http://www.pvda.org/Documents/Letter%20to%20USEF%20on%20Rule%20Change.pdf)

sm
Jan. 13, 2008, 04:43 PM
...regular riders, folks with full time jobs who get to ride maybe one evening during the week and on weekends, and their goal is to be able to eventually ride a really lovely third level test (which, as he pointed out, isn't so easy), rather than constantly feeling they must move up the levels, and are failures if we don't get to Grand Prix, even with mediocre scores, as we do rather have a tendency to do in this country.

It was interesting food for thought.

The AAs here I know would love to complete Second Level with a respectable -- not great but respectable -- score, and that's after going to Europe for their WBs. I honestly don't know any Ammies setting their sights for FEI GP, so I must say I don't understand and don't think this is a valid point of view. And I'm involved with sponsoring national breed awards at USDF-recognized shows, so I feel I have a close-up view of AA expectations.

J-Lu
Jan. 13, 2008, 07:01 PM
Has anyone seen this yet?
http://www.dressagedaily.com/2008/dd_200801/dd_20080113-usef.html

While I appreciate what she is saying, I am disappointed that she's blaming much of the "public perception" on "misinformation".

The "misinformation" she refers to appears to be earlier iterations of this proposal from what I can gather. I wish she would have acknowledged that the original guidelines were very restrictive rather *and so have been changed* rather than basically stating that the membership has been misinformed this whole time. I'm wondering whose eyes she thinks she's pulling the wool over. *sigh* Oh well!

So there are a couple of more options on the table now, and they're considering pushing the start date back to 2011. Apparently, they'll float the options to the GMOs and solicit feedback from the membership.

Although one BOD member said he was surprised that I was "so caught up in the internet hysteria"*, it appears as though our discussions and Rebecca's grass roots organizational skills really did have an impact and served to constructively inform the DC members about the points of view from the membership. I think that without this feedback, the original rules wouldn't have changes as much as they have. I'm happy to see that the DC is actively trying to find a workable solution for everyone (even though I still don't like the idea-I like it when people compromise to converge on a solution).

*That said, the vast majority of those who emailed me back actually read my rather lengthy email and responded professionally and positively.

Thanks Rebecca, and to everyone who wrote constructive emails.
J.

Hazelnut
Jan. 13, 2008, 07:08 PM
Yes,
really appreciate the work done by all and am eager to hear the outcome.

RY stayed focused on the concerns. She kept us allfocused. Thank you. Didn't see much hysteria here, a little frustration, perhaps.

Whisper
Jan. 13, 2008, 10:50 PM
The news so far sounds good, and hopefully we'll hear about the USEF BOD's decision soon.

yaya
Jan. 14, 2008, 11:06 AM
Anyone know the ultimate result???

Janet
Jan. 14, 2008, 11:14 AM
They have just updated the rule change proposal, under BoD it now says
"Referred 1/13/2008"

Under "other comments" it says
"1/13/2008: The BOD voted to table this rule until Annual Meeting 2009."

canyonoak
Jan. 14, 2008, 11:50 AM
WA-HOO!

Congratulations to everyone who wrote in, whatever your views; I hope we take away from this how important communication can be and definitely in this case proved to be.

YAYYYYYY.

and a special thanks to Rebecca Yount!

inca
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:08 PM
At the USEF Convention...
The very controversial rule change proposal to develop a dressage
qualification system at third level and above was tabled until the US
Equestrian annual meeting in January 2009. The Board of Directors
supports the concept of developing such a qualification system. The
main reason that the motion was not passed is that Board members did not
believe that we should make a rule for a qualification system without
the details of the system specified. The US Equestrian Dressage
Committee will work on developing these details and will inform the
dressage community about the progress on this project. The planned date
for implementation of the qualification system is December 1, 2010.
This assumes that the US Equestrian Board of Directors will pass the
necessary rule change proposal.

slc2
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:11 PM
This is not a 'victory'. This isn't going away.

Portia
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:11 PM
I was at the Board meeting yesterday and attended part of the Dressage Committee meeting and a few others meetings where this was discussed. Here is where it comes out.

The version of the rule change proposal that was presented to the Board yesterday read, in its entirety: "Effective December 1, 2010, riders competing in Dressage Competitions at Third Level and above must be eligible according to qualifications criteria recommended by the Federation Dressage Committee and approved by the USEF Board of Directors."

In a fairly lengthy discussion, a significant majority of the Board indicated that they would not vote to approve this proposal because it was not truly a rule but instead a statement of intent to make a rule. HOWEVER, the Board affirmed in no uncertain terms (through discussion and by a straw vote) that the Dressage people have the right to make these standards and require competitors to meet stated qualifications to compete at different levels, and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. Therefore, the rule proposal was tabled rather than withdrawn or voted down explicitly to prevent any perception that the Board did not approve the concept or that the proposed qualification requirements will not go forward in some form. It is going forward and it will very likely happen.

The Dressage Committee and the Dressage members of the Board have committed to work with the GMOs to develop the standards and obtain comments on the appropriate way for the standards to be implemented. The Dressage Committee will report back to the Board at its mid-year meeting in July regarding the status of development of the standards. When the standards have been finalized by the Dressage Committee, the rule change proposal will be presented to the Board at its Annual Meeting next year.

SaddleFitterVA
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:25 PM
My 5 year membership in USDF ends in 2010. And, I likely may not renew if they ignore the membership.

For the person who shows infrequently, but takes lessons and likes to ride well, this becomes one less reason to be a member of any of our governing bodies.

And Theo, I am not sure if you are posting on THIS thread, but you've posted on this topic frequently....this is not the Netherlands, it will never be the Netherlands. Just because our judges get paid to judge, doesn't mean they don't enjoy doing it. Are there really that many independently wealthy people over there? Who don't need income? Are horses free there? They weren't when I took a riding vacation there in 2006. I enjoy watching your videos, and can appreciate your nationalism, but sometimes, it does get old.

sm
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:44 PM
In a fairly lengthy discussion, a significant majority of the Board indicated that they would not vote to approve this proposal because it was not truly a rule but instead a statement of intent to make a rule. HOWEVER, the Board affirmed in no uncertain terms (through discussion and by a straw vote) that the Dressage people have the right to make these standards and require competitors to meet stated qualifications to compete at different levels, and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. Therefore, the rule proposal was tabled rather than withdrawn or voted down explicitly to prevent any perception that the Board did not approve the concept or that the proposed qualification requirements will not go forward in some form. It is going forward and it will very likely happen.

The Dressage Committee and the Dressage members of the Board have committed to work with the GMOs to develop the standards and obtain comments on the appropriate way for the standards to be implemented. The Dressage Committee will report back to the Board at its mid-year meeting in July regarding the status of development of the standards. When the standards have been finalized by the Dressage Committee, the rule change proposal will be presented to the Board at its Annual Meeting next year.

Appropriate, Board.

If there's a problem I would look at the points in the test to find a way to stop rewarding extravagent gaits over correct riding. Honor the tests --- they were written very well and do quite nicely support the Training Scale. That is, after all, what members are paying for in the first place.

Good job, Rebecca. One may demand a transparant method to review responses from GMOs, I hope the Committee's intention is to provide adequate and transparant feedback per each GMO . As opposed to one lump concensus.

SGray
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:45 PM
....and that it is appropriate for them to do so if that is in the best interests of the discipline. ......

Thanks Portia for the report



my comment is that the onus is on those that put forward the change to come to the Committee and the public with the facts and figures that support that premise -- something more concrete than "some judges say they've seen some bad riding at third and above"

canyonoak
Jan. 14, 2008, 12:47 PM
So what this means is that we the membership have one year to try to figure out how to defeat the proposal.

And if we decide that is unrealistic, at least come up with a version that makes more sense.

And yes, I am of the opinion it is a bad proposal, highly misguided, does not help US dressage in the slightest, and has no business even existing...but think that realistically, we need to prepare on two fronts: defeat and/or proposal we can shape and live with.

DennisM
Jan. 14, 2008, 01:13 PM
Thank you, Portia, for your report on the actions of the USEF Board regarding the "competition standards" proposal.

As many of us have commented, what still appears to be missing from the Dressage Committee is a demonstration, consistent with the Board's charge, that a "standards" proposal "is in the best interests of the discipline" and/or the USEF. That can only be determined in the context of a specific proposal (as, apparently, the Board had the wisdom to recognize).

Although a bullet has be dodged, ALL GMOs must/should make their interests known to the Committee and/or the Board. It also would be an improvement if there were AA (what must be the vast majority of USEF membership) representation on the Dressage Committee itself.

freestyle2music
Jan. 14, 2008, 01:15 PM
When we introduced these Qualification Rules in Europe, it was done because the judges toke the initiative. It seems to me that this is the same in the USA. And yes I can understand the judges because it's no fun to go home after a weekend without having raised the 7,8,9 or 10 marks high up in the air.

Theo

sm
Jan. 14, 2008, 01:32 PM
my comment is that the onus is on those that put forward the change to come to the Committee and the public with the facts and figures that support that premise -- something more concrete than "some judges say they've seen some bad riding at third and above"

Agreed. Some judges may have very well seen some bad riding, but it's not representative of the whole. What you have is a perfect storm:

- Overmounted AA

- Judges who think they are at a euro breed inspection instead of grading a mounted dressage test and give high, but unearned, scores at lower levels. Which enables overmounted AA to feel they are doing the right thing and they should keep proceeding.

Most AAs work very hard and are honestly out to earn the respectable score. If there's a mistake or an error in communication to the riders in question, look at the points in the test, since the tests themselves are beautifully written.

claire
Jan. 14, 2008, 01:37 PM
-In a fairly lengthy discussion, a significant majority of the Board indicated that they would not vote to approve this proposal because it was not truly a rule but instead a statement of intent to make a rule.

-The Dressage Committee and the Dressage members of the Board have committed to work with the GMOs to develop the standards and obtain comments on the appropriate way for the standards to be implemented.

I think this was a positive development. The above addresses the major points of concern with the initial rule proposal:

-It was an open-ended proposal.

-There was a lack of transparency. The GMO's and base were not included in the discussion on the (perceived) problem and possible solutions and ways/means of addressing the problem.


Maybe the best result will be that we all become more involved with our GMO's!

Perhaps, persuading the USEF DC to utilize the current scoring system or medal program that is already in place as a more fiscally responsible way to establish standards. :yes:

Whisper
Jan. 14, 2008, 02:05 PM
I think it is a very positive step, and will encourage the USEF Dressage Board to actually seek feedback from GMOs and riders.

piaffegirl
Jan. 14, 2008, 02:44 PM
Perhaps, persuading the USEF DC to utilize the current scoring system or medal program that is already in place as a more fiscally responsible way to establish standards. Claire


I agree with claire and then some. Using a program already in exsistence like the medal program, scoring tests for what is actually riden in realtime, and not over inflating scores because of "wb gaits" would be a great start.

I received a 60% on my last third 1 test a couple of (2004) years ago here in NC. I thought I was doing pretty well. This was before our international riders really started receiving those high 80 scores. I have since retired that horse (blind in one eye and a truck accident) but I have realized that it would be tougher to get those scores now. (I did receive my bronze medal and before I retired him I got a 58% in 4-1)

By happenstance I received a very high score of 64% from that same judge this past year(2007) on my 4 year old thoroughbred in his first show. I said something to a couple trainer friends of mine and they both commented that this judge was a high scoring judge.

Someone please tell me how to take that into account?

I can appreciate the judges concern, but it seems that the qualification requirement would be redundant. Would that minimize the effectiveness of our actual tests?

I definitely don't know the answers but it all seems blown out of proportion.

Thank you RY for getting me involved with the "process", I should have been years ago. Member since 1998.

I honestly like the idea that if they did the qualifing deal, just make it a test you did in front of the judges. We all do that all the time. NO PROBLEM THERE!!!!!

arnika
Jan. 14, 2008, 02:48 PM
My thanks as well, Portia.


by SGray
my comment is that the onus is on those that put forward the change to come to the Committee and the public with the facts and figures that support that premise -- something more concrete than "some judges say they've seen some bad riding at third and above"

I agree that I would like to see a concise, cogent written argument put forth by the Dressage committee and published in either USDF magazine or sent to each GMO(actually both would be better!). Then each GMO could solicit individual responses and send their answers prior to the July meeting.

A followup letter from the committee stating the membership responses and the process, if any, that has been agreed upon back to the GMOs by perhaps October for any last thoughts, responses and revisions would be a more member friendly option. In terms of actual qualifying conditions, I hope that the committee would take into consideration the good number of members who train up the levels at home and only show infrequently.

If there could be more than one way to prove competency; in front of two judges for example, or by using only two scores, etc. I'm still not happy with the thought of a qualifying system that requires multiple shows/points/judges per level to move up. I've lived in areas with few shows and the expense since then has risen to ridiculous levels. I think it would be difficult to progress in Ocala, let alone Iowa, which is where I lived before. Travel alone is prohibitive both in miles and in fuel expenses.

Dressage used to be a sport of the very wealthy, and in some ways still is. Imported horses, imported trainers, imported judges and so on. However, as it has become more well known, more people are finding it enjoyable and a great source of time spent with their horse partner no matter what breed it is. I have mainly Hanoverians now but learned dressage in 1980 on a Quarter horse trained to 2nd level, schooling 3rd. He was a wonderful teacher and I've enjoyed dressage ever since.

If we make dressage as a sport seem inaccessible to those in America with non-WB breeds, or not enjoyable to the many AAs who support our sport and shows, we will just be "cutting off our nose to spite our face" as my grandmother used to say.

Sorry to be so long, I just feel very strongly on this point.:yes:

SGray
Jan. 14, 2008, 02:54 PM
quoted from an earlier post by Rebecca Yount

"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.
......... "

emphasis in above added by me --- I have yet to read anything in regard to this rule change proposal which shows me that even lip-service was given to the 'Methodology' much less facts/figures/research/discussion to back up the need for the change

SGray
Jan. 14, 2008, 03:03 PM
annnnnndddd - consider this point

in the days of yore you would ride a test at a show and it would be posted at the show, perhaps in your GMO's newsletter and maybe (in teeny tiny font) in the COTH - thus, few would actually have the chance to see your score if you blew your test

today scores are posted on the internet so millions have the opportunity to see that a rider is competing beyond their (or their horses) level of competancy

in my mind creating a huge disincentive to enter at a level beyond one's capability

so there is LESS need for this rule change than a decade ago or even a couple of years ago

rebecca yount
Jan. 14, 2008, 03:04 PM
Which is in part why, IMO, the USEF Board of Directors tabled the rule change proposal and asked the Dressage Committee to do more work on it and come back next year.

It seems to me the system is working.

Now we have work to do.

piaffegirl
Jan. 14, 2008, 03:26 PM
I'm in NC, I already contacted the pres of my GMO, what now? I didn't get any call back by the way. Should I call all the members of my GMO, email all the GMO Board?

I'm readly!

flshgordon
Jan. 14, 2008, 05:13 PM
While I am glad to see that the proposal was at least tabled for further discussion, I am absolutely APPALLED at the statements by JBF in the DDaily article. To the point where they need to seriously consider taping her mouth shut before she shoots it off anymore :mad:

I don't buy for one second that 98% of us that were concerned either backed down or apologized and if there is ANY apology necessary, it should be coming from her.

We should not have to tolerate such a blatant, ridiculous and elitist attitude from one of the "leaders" of the sport.

I hope the powers that be take some time to regroup and think about why they want this proposal and why they can't force judges to USE the 1, 2, 3 numbers as a score if it is deserved. I suspect it's because they have blown the whole thing out of proportion and that 30% ride is more rare than an 85%. And I love how she tells us a 50% is failing in school. Well a 90% is an A and you don't see that too often do you? I'd like to know if she really thinks no one in this country has ever performed an "A" ride :no:

SGray
Jan. 14, 2008, 05:36 PM
from the DD article "Janet went on to explain that there were riders completing Third Level tests with a 30% score. “That’s bad. A lot of time it is not the horse but the rider has no clue about the correct classical aids. Little things like the rider sitting crooked or giving the horse poor signals and then the horse becomes confused and frantic. There are also riders that think that every horse should do Prix St. Georges but not every horse can be trained to be in the correct balance and have the necessary elasticity for that level. I see a lot of very unhappy horses.”

if that is indeed the case then why DOESN'T the proposal include negative points? If JBF is thinks that these riders are so bad that they are harming the horse then you'd think she want to have the subtraction of points for horrid rides so that one of her clueless riders couldn't keep riding their confused horse and perhaps luck into some good scores when the judge was asleep.

RonaldGroen
Jan. 14, 2008, 07:49 PM
if that is indeed the case then why DOESN'T the proposal include negative points?


EXACTLY

60 % 1 point
64 % 2 points
67 % 3 points
70 % 4 points

50% minus 1 point
47% minus 2 points
45% minus 3 points
40% back to school

JennNC
Jan. 14, 2008, 08:14 PM
I'm in NC, I already contacted the pres of my GMO, what now? I didn't get any call back by the way. Should I call all the members of my GMO, email all the GMO Board?

I'm readly!
R

Rachael, I am sorry that I didn't call you back, but I thought the response I gave to you in the other thread was enough. Your phone message was cut off in mid-sentence and so I never heard a request from you to return your call. Regardless, I always appreciate hearing from the NCDCTA membership and I will reiterate here what I said to you in another thread a few days ago...I personally contacted the entire dressage committee to express my concerns about the new proposal. I printed the entire proposal in the NCDCTA newsletter (along with the DC's contact information )so that every member had an opportunity to express their views. I also sent a letter as soon as I returned from the USDF convention to every single GMO president in Region 1 to make them aware of the USEF proposal so that they would have ample time to respond. My letter was circulated to members of at least one GMO via their own website.

I agree with Rebecca Yount that we have done all that could have been done and it worked. The USEF Dressage Committte obviously has heard from the masses and is responding in a reasonable fashion.

I think it is important for me to represent my GMO and I will try my best to do so. For me PERSONALLY...I am in favor of a type of qualifying system that is reasonable for a rider who only shows at a couple of USDF/USEF shows a year to qualify. This was what I expressed to the DC. I adamantly oppose the requirement for riders to be full Participating Members and said so during the BOG at the USDF convention. George Williams kindly responded to those of us with that specific concern saying that they didn't want to hurt GMOs and that they obviously hadn't considered the impact of that decision. They have since retracted that part of the proposal. I appreciate that greatly.

As for the qualifying system idea...MANY people across the country DO support it, as long as it is reasonable. I think they are just keeping quiet for some reason. I am one of those who thinks that a reasonable qualifying system could help the sport and actually increase interest.

However, no matter what my personal opinion is, I speak on behalf of my GMO, so I will be asking for more feedback in the coming year with plans to represent my membership at next year's USDF convention.

So, Rachael, once again I am sorry you thought I chose not to respond to your phone message. I surely would have if I had known you were expecting a return call.

Jennifer Mitchell
President, NCDCTA
GMO Council Member
2007 Region 1 PM Delegate

RonaldGroen
Jan. 14, 2008, 08:30 PM
I think they are just keeping quiet for some reason.

Could it be that these quiet people focus on improving their riding skills and their horses ?

rebecca yount
Jan. 14, 2008, 10:06 PM
RonaldGroen--whoever you are--I tried googling you and didn't come up with anything using Ronald Groen and dressage--

I completely RESENT the fact that you come on here and imply that those of us who spoke our mind and requested change are somehow NOT "improving our riding skills and our horses".

I use my real name, and you are welcome at any time to come and observe what I've done, how hard I work, and my riding skill as well as my horse's training. How DARE you suggest otherwise! Many of us work our butts off not only riding and training, but raising wonderful families and contributing in many other ways to American society and American dressage. We have studied for years with excellent trainers and teachers.

What have YOU done to contribute?

Reitsport
Jan. 14, 2008, 10:52 PM
I don't like negative points... you can have a god-awful ride....that is an anomally.

Arathita
Jan. 14, 2008, 11:39 PM
Could it be that these quiet people focus on improving their riding skills and their horses ?

Could it be that RonaldGroen is a pot-stirring alter? Don't feed the trolls, they'll go elsewhere for entertainment if ignored.

Hazelnut
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:16 AM
Portia,
thank you for the inside scoop. Hopefully the communication begun between the USDF/USEFmemberships, the DC and the USEF BOD will make a difference.

Janet and Rebecca Yount deserve kudos for factual and focused posts.

Any suggestions on how to provide reasoned input?

piaffegirl
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:29 AM
I didn't know you replied to my call thru a post, I have read and reread many threads, and it's quite obvious I missed yours. I am new to all this BB etique and so I apologize.

I want to thank you for responding and in my earlier post on this thread, want to know what I can do now to protrect my right to ride at any level. I would love to get involved in anyway so as to make sure this doesn't get passed in July.

Again, sorry Jennifer.

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 09:00 AM
Well, comments like those of "RonaldGroen" can just be taken right back to Germany, or Canada, or Hades, or from wherever he/she/it brought them, in my opinion. BEAT IT!!!!

One of my biggest complaints about the whole frickin' "qualifying criteria" documents that have been passed around is the statement "Based on existing European models". I sincerely hope that the motivation for the whole hoo hah mess is our horses' well-being and NOT becoming a world dressage power.

Puh-leeeezze! THIS IS NOT GERMANY, IT IS NOT HOLLAND, AND I SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT WE SHOULD ASPIRE TO BE JUST LIKE THEM. Who CARES if the US beats Holland or Germany? What possible meaningfulness or positive outcome does that hold for the well-being of our horses, our families, our country, or the world? How does that make our world any better? Why is it important for the US to be at the "top" of horse sports? Oh, yeah, I remember--one thing it has done is make people look for more ways to cheat by drugging and abusing (sharp things in boots, killing horses for money, finding "untestable" performance-enhancing substances) their horses.

I think the Olympics is a money-grubbing, political, elitist pile of horse poop. Big frickin' deal which country wins in the Equestrian events. Sure, it's fun to watch our riders compete and I, as a psychologist, am very interested in the human motivation and resulting fulfillment when one does well. I am sure it is an unforgettable experience for those who compete. HOWEVER, it has become a game of who has the most money and sponsors and is willing to subject his/her horse to the stress that is now being recognized by some top riders, who are electing to NOT go to Hong Kong. And don't get me started on that...

GOOD FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT GOING!

Just leave me alone and let me make my own decisions about my horse and my riding.

There. I'm done. For now.

Oh, and another thing--piaffegirl--this will not be passed in July because it is not going to be voted on in July. It will be voted on in January 2009. But please do stay involved.

slc2
Jan. 15, 2008, 10:05 AM
I think the Olympics would be a lot better if there were no medal counts, and if people took off their national outfit and put away their flags and put on an olympic uniform when they arrived, and if the results were announced with the athlete's names, not their country. I want to see sport, not p****** matches between countries.

JennNC
Jan. 15, 2008, 10:25 AM
I didn't know you replied to my call thru a post, I have read and reread many threads, and it's quite obvious I missed yours. I am new to all this BB etique and so I apologize.

I want to thank you for responding and in my earlier post on this thread, want to know what I can do now to protrect my right to ride at any level. I would love to get involved in anyway so as to make sure this doesn't get passed in July.

Again, sorry Jennifer.

No problem, Racheal! Funny thing is that I ASSUMED (we know it's bad to assume..hehe) that you read my post because I thought I saw you post again on the same thread the next day! However, it wasn't you, it was PiaffeDREAMS that posted! oops. The thread was the one entitled, "DressageDaily article re rule change proposal". You posted on the 9th, I responded on the 10th and Piaffe Dreams posted on the 11th. I just saw "Piaffe" and thought it was Piaffe "Girl".

Anyway, the best way to get involved is to do what folks are doing...stay informed and make your voice heard.

It is my opinion that some sort of system WILL be put into place (based on the tone of things that I heard at the USDF convention). I am just hoping that the "powers-that-be" will come up with something that is reasonably attainable for those who live in remote areas with shows that are few and far between or those who choose to show only two or three times a year at the USDF/USEF rec. shows.

Jennifer

sm
Jan. 15, 2008, 10:56 AM
One of my biggest complaints about the whole frickin' "qualifying criteria" documents that have been passed around is the statement "Based on existing European models". I sincerely hope that the motivation for the whole hoo hah mess is our horses' well-being and NOT becoming a world dressage power.

Puh-leeeezze! THIS IS NOT GERMANY, IT IS NOT HOLLAND, AND I SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT WE SHOULD ASPIRE TO BE JUST LIKE THEM. Who CARES if the US beats Holland or Germany? What possible meaningfulness or positive outcome does that hold for the well-being of our horses, our families, our country, or the world? How does that make our world any better?

This reminds me of the current COTH Between the Rounds With Denny Emerson. He figured the massive changes to eventing were made for one (1) rider out of one thousand -- or 25 riders total for the entire 25,000 membership.

Emerson goes on to suggest a two-track or three track system with USEF where aspiring international riders can do their thing without screwing it up (my words not Emerson's) for everyone else. "Four Issues That Dominated 2007," January 11, 2008 COTH Issue http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=23007043187207&ShowArticle_ID=1331001083353308

Something for the USEF to think about. Maybe the GMOs can join/unite both problems and put THAT on the table. After all, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir now, there are many CTAs listed in the USDF GMOs http://www.usdf.org/clubs/list.asp?TypePass=GMO

yaya
Jan. 15, 2008, 11:11 AM
I was just thinking of that this morning. The USEF/USDF already have the "High Performance" type classes, maybe they could expand on that?

Have one type of classes for ammies who have no delusions of going for the Olympics and another type, the HP classes, for those wanting to go for the Olympic/World Cup/Pan Am type of thing.

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 01:38 PM
I did some quick math. I took the results as posted on the USDF website for all dressage competitions from 10/1/07 to present, in Region 1 (my region) and Region 5 (Janet Brown-Foy's region--since she is the one that made the comment about scores in the 30s). I think it is important to look at all results for all regions but I don't have time to do that right now.

In Region 1, there were 2260 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--2--0.08% of total
Scores in the 40s--37--1.6% of total
Scores in the 50s--783--34.6% of total
Scores in the 60s--1326--58.67% of total
Scores in the 70s--105--4.6% of total

In Region 5, there were 773 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--0--0% of the total
Scores in the 40s--9--1.2% of the total
Scores in the 50s--242--31.3% of the total
Scores in the 60s--483--62.49% of the total
Scores in the 70s--27--3.4% of the total

To summarize, it looks like a tiny fraction of a percent of rides for those two regions for that time period score in the 30s. Most score in the 60s (by far), next comes scores in the 50s with again a tiny fraction in the 40s. Only about 4-5% of rides score in the 70s.

Much more work needs to be done in analyzing the data, like including other regions and adding data from shows as it becomes available. But it was not hard to do.

I think THIS is the kind of information that is needed, along with which judges are giving 30s, and where those scores are being found.

Badger
Jan. 15, 2008, 01:42 PM
Interesting. Are those status for ALL levels, or are they for Third Level (which was the level Janet F-B was referring to)?

I assume the stats are for all levels, but am curious about the percentages at Third in particular.

claire
Jan. 15, 2008, 02:02 PM
Rebecca,

Interesting. Another point to consider would be if the 30-40% riders
continued to show receiving the same scores.

Maybe, it was a one-time :eek: ride, and the rest of the season was in the 60% range?

OR

Maybe, the scoring system actually works and the 30-40% riders dropped back a level/or stayed home to get additional training?

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 02:02 PM
They are for all levels but I put them into an Excel spreadsheet so I can sort by level. Just a minute.

Also, I did it for Region 2. In that Region, there were 465 total rides so far, with the following results:

30s--0 rides--0% of total
40s--4 rides--0.8% of total
50s--134 rides--28.8% of total
60s--300 rides--64.5% of total
70s--21 rides--4.5% of total

SGray
Jan. 15, 2008, 03:36 PM
wow rebecca -- you're good

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 05:17 PM
Yes, I am, thank you--and I have a helper who is even better. She and I will get going on this within the next few days. After we get the info loaded into our database, we can run get all sorts of statistics related to this issue and use them to present our case more effectively.

And my kid got my genes: She has been accepted to vet school at Ohio State, and has interviews at: UPenn combined VMD/Ph.D. program; Tufts vet school and Ph.D. program; Harvard Ph.D. program; Johns Hopkins Ph.D. program. Waiting to hear from Wisconsin vet school, VaTech, vet school and MIT Ph.D. program.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

DennisM
Jan. 15, 2008, 05:33 PM
WOW, Rebecca. Thanks. There was a fun post earlier on this or another thread that owned-up to having a truly low score in a FL show when her horse misbehaved badly, then went on to score in the 60s in her other classes. Who hasn't suffered a bad class? Although I've never scored below 50% (yet, thank goodness), I have had classes where -- mare ran backward at X (after seeing scary judge) and another where (same) mare tried to jump the puddles in the very soggy ring and another where she tried to jump shafts of light in an indoor ring. I like to think that those classes were not representative of the mare's ability or my riding capabilities under more normal circumstances (all made me laugh at the time, however).

So, particulary since there are SO few low scores being uncovered by Rebecca's number-crunching, perhaps this BB can help collect (if anyone is willing to own up) other such examples to explain-away dramatically low scores that may be misused by the USEF Dressage Committee to impose a bad new rule? Any volunteers to offer data/explanations for this good cause?

SGray
Jan. 15, 2008, 05:41 PM
I've seen a local trainer get poor scores consistently at GP on a client's horse -- the client is the driving force in putting the horse in those classes, not the trainer

horse is not stressed or harmed by the riding - it's just not really a GP horse and that is evident in the scores - trainer doesn't push horse, they just muddle through

sm
Jan. 15, 2008, 05:52 PM
Actually the data in posts 88 and 91 show roughly one-third of all riders under 60% -- so I see where that ties in or even supports the concept of achieving a minimum score of 58%, scores of 58% or higher would be given points, with rider needing x-amount of points to proceed further.

Not that I'm for this idea, I think it's the wrong "solution" on many levels.

I like the posts earlier asking for the Third Level and above breakdown of the numbers instead of lumping all riders together -- and also all Claire's questions in post 90 to further break down data.

Reitsport
Jan. 15, 2008, 06:07 PM
I'll own up... I rode 1st level and got a 49% from an S judge (back in 2002) J Ashton Moore.... Found a new trainer in 2003, went back to training level, qualified for champs w/ consistently 60+ scores, moved to 1st level, made consistently 60+ scores, then at 2nd level (mare started having age related arthritis problems) got 59 & 60 %... (between 2003 and 2006) [this was an older anglo/arab mare who was ridden consistently in double bridle to horrible scores by previous owner - and mare's mind was blown until I found the new trainer in 2003]

Some riders do listen to scores and retrench... in my case I figured out that my trainer sucked, I sucked, and I needed to find someone better - I did, and we don't suck so much anymore!

arnika
Jan. 15, 2008, 07:28 PM
by sm
Actually the data in posts 88 and 91 show roughly one-third of all riders under 60% -- so I see where that ties in or even supports the concept of achieving a minimum score of 58%, scores of 58% or higher would be given points, with rider needing x-amount of points to proceed further.

I think this shows how two people can look at the same data and come to two different conclusions.

I see 1/3 of all rides under 60% and think those rides were probably early season or move-up rides or the AA who just likes to show occasionally for social enjoyment. Perhaps an occasional poor behavior ride.The 60% and above I would tend to think are later in the year rides, confirmed-horse and rider or pros and serious ammies. Especially the 70% rides.

I don't see where there appears to be any pressing need for qualifications just because there are some 50-59% rides. There are so few(sometimes none) 30-49% rides they are negligible.

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 07:32 PM
Please note that the following was done rather quickly so there may be some minor errors, which need to, obviously, be corrected before this is presented formally. But:

Okay, I had to cut out the number of rides per region in each score category, but here are the percentages, for all shows in all regions where results are posted on the USEF website (this is 10/07 through 11/07, approximately). Numbers are rounded, quickly done, and there were some rides at each show that were young horse tests so had scores like 6.4, etc. so I didn't put those in the calcs.

Editing here: I noticed that when it went on the BB it got hammered, so I'll interpret. I think examining the totals is interesting. Only 0.02% of ALL RIDES nNATIONWIDE scored in the 30s, 1.8% were in the 40s, 33.5% were in the 50s, 59.5% were in the 60s, 4.7% were in the 70s. There was one score in the 80s but it was a sport horse breed score of some kind so I didn't include it.

Many of the scores included in the below calculations were from Regional Championships. In Region 6 there were no scores reported so far. Some regions have many small shows (with 15 or 20 rides total!). Many regions have shows that only have one judge.



% of total rides in all shows in each score range
Reg 30s % 40s % 50s % 60s % 70s % Total Rides
1 0.08 1.6 34.6 58.67 4.6 2260
2 0 0.8 28.8 64.5 4.5 465
3 0 1.4 31 59.66 7.3 1490
4 0 1.9 38 54.97 4.76 713
5 0 1.2 31.3 62.49 3.4 773
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 1.3 28 65 4.8 1667
8 0 2.4 35.9 57.76 2.9 206
9 0 2.8 41.5 52.9 2.7 1351
Totals 0.02 1.8 33.5 59.5 4.7 8925

Interesting to note that in ALL regions for this time period there were only TWO (2) rides which scored in the 30s. There were 162 rides which scored in the 40s.

I haven't had time to calculate how many judges total were represented, or how many judges scored in which ranges. I can say that Janet Brown-Foy was represented at one show during this time period, and that was in Region 9. Of the 38 rides in that Region which scored in the 40s, 5 of those rides were influenced (either as a single judge or on a panel) by Ms. Brown-Foy. Also, of the 37 rides in Region 9 which scored in the 70s, Ms. Brown-Foy was involved in 7 of the rides as either a single judge or on a panel. She was not involved in either of the two rides (both of those in Region 1) which scored in the 30s. Those two rides (38.667 and 39.211) were on an Oldenburg and a Dutch Warmblood and the judges were (one for each ride) Renate Lansburgh and Janine Malone.

I haven't examined the data for the 40% range rides yet in that much detail.

But there is a LOT of information out there!

rebecca yount
Jan. 15, 2008, 07:41 PM
PS This is only data and we can't draw conclusions like WHY the rides scored like they did based on what is here. So who knows--but I can tell you that these shows were from October 1 to November 30--so they were not early season rides in the sense of being in the spring when most show seasons start. But some were early season for Wellington...I guess you could look at it that way.

I love statistics!

canyonoak
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:13 PM
....

arnika
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:16 PM
True Rebecca.:yes:

I wasn't thinking, doh! I actually did see the dates when you posted them and should have remembered while I was typing.

Rhiannonjk
Jan. 15, 2008, 08:19 PM
Rebecca, thank you for all of this information!

claire
Jan. 15, 2008, 09:05 PM
Rebecca,

Thanks for all your work compiling the scores. It will be very interesting
hearing the different interpretations.

I love statistics also! :cool:

J-Lu
Jan. 15, 2008, 10:40 PM
PS This is only data and we can't draw conclusions like WHY the rides scored like they did based on what is here. So who knows--but I can tell you that these shows were from October 1 to November 30--so they were not early season rides in the sense of being in the spring when most show seasons start. But some were early season for Wellington...I guess you could look at it that way.

I love statistics!

Ah, yes, but at end-of-year shows, people often get their feet wet at the next level.

Thanks, Rebecca. If you need help with stats, I've got a great program and I also love statistics! I'm thrilled that I'll have actual numbers to quote, which will be useful in my near future.

J.

Badger
Jan. 16, 2008, 08:35 AM
Very interesting stats. It's a pretty similar distribution at each level, so it does not look like there are a bunch of people moving up too early at any given level and getting bad scores and "not getting it."

inca
Jan. 16, 2008, 08:43 AM
Either the judges are not using the scoring system to fairly judge these awful, abusive rides OR there has been much exaggeration of all the abuse out there at shows.

Since a 5 is "sufficient", any ride that scores a 50% or above should NOT be abusive. This is assuming the judges are doing their job and giving accurate scores. So, there are VERY few rides that you could even consider that MIGHT fall into the "abusive" category.

And as someone who has scored a 54% at 2nd level before, I can promise you my horse was not abused in any way, shape or form during that ride. It was my first time showing at 2nd level. I was nervous and didn't have my horse forward enough.

freestyle2music
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:09 AM
A part of the problem about low scores, might be (and we also have this in Holland) that judges take the picture of a Warmblood as the ideaal picture for a dressage horse. Low scores over here (50%-55%) are mostly gained by riders who ride Lusitano's, Andalusiers etc... These type of horses still have to find acceptance by (some) judges. One of the last GP competitions in Holland we had three Friesian horses competing, so it seems that they have been accepted more or less by the judges.

Theo

sm
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:45 AM
Theo, on the same note I sponsor thoroughbred breed awards with USDF. Rest assured, when *my* riders get a score they have very well earned or ridden every single point, no WB-extravagent gaits to aid them through poor riding skills. Add to that equation distant travel and all add'l costs to get to the extra shows proposed, time constraints and family obligations on AAs trying to get past third level, etc.

Kudos to you Rebecca. I am only thinking the data you posted here is already well known by the DC and BOG (USDF keeps impeccable data and can pull many stats, far superior than what USEF keeps track of) and a further break down per level may help see where this new proposal is coming from. Or atleast by doing so you'll have no surprises.

SGray
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:02 AM
......Kudos to you Rebecca. I am only thinking the data you posted here is already well known by the DC and BOG (USDF keeps impeccable data and can pull many stats, far superior than what USEF keeps track of) and a further break down per level may help see where this new proposal is coming from. Or atleast by doing so you'll have no surprises.

since looking at actual statistics seems to indicate that the reasons that we have seen stated are not supported by facts

sm
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:13 AM
Not at all, please don't put words into my mouth.

It did always bother me why propose to wait til Third Level to correct poor riding, why not do so at First Level. Correct and pure basics is what matters, not fixing ingrained problems once the rider gets to Third.

But I digress, as I wrote earlier -- looking at a further breakdown per level might eliminate any surprises. JMHO.

SGray
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:22 AM
no attribution meant

slc2
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:42 AM
Why does anyone thing fancy or extravagant gaits would cover up poor riding? It would do the opposite.

hoopoe
Jan. 16, 2008, 12:28 PM
Region 6... I do not believe there were any rated shows for 10/1 onward. Our season ends with the championships at the end of sept. In my opinion that is one month too late into the foul weather season

One issue to take into account is the show conditions when considering scores. Our championships in 2007 ( region 6 ) met with horrendous weather which many have heard about. many of the rings were unridable resulting in the conversion of one warm up to a performance ring leaving 1 20 x ~50 ring for warm up for 4 rings.

in short the conditions were deplorable as reflected in some of the rides. Footing favored larger horses. My horse muddled along and we finsihed the season with lower than average scores.

Unfortunately weather and footing conditions are not reported in the recorded scores Rebecca has. I do not feel that any one shows score range can adequately reflect that scores represent quality of riding overall. I feel a total years group mean is a more responsible look. Thank you rebecca and unnamed assistant for bringing some of these scores to light.

It is a shame that the USDF does not have this published at the end of the season for all eyes.

I think Rebeccas work shows the "bell curve" and reflects what most of us know. the majority are doing just fine. there is no "astrik" to show that the sub 50% ride is due to horrid human interference or just one of those circumstances we all go thru when involved with a beast with a brain the size of a walnut

freestyle2music
Jan. 16, 2008, 12:35 PM
Why does anyone think fancy or extravagant gaits would cover up poor riding? It would do the opposite.

Good riding and fancy or extravagant gaits always comes together.

I have seen so many clinics of (for example Hans Peter Minderhoud, Edward Gal, and Anky). And when they jump on the horses of their students these horses suddenly seem to have developed these extravagant and fancy gaits.:confused: Maybe these riders (and many more) have found the magic button ? Or should I say the button which results in movements the judges of today want to see

Back to the main-topic :

I truly believe that every country (region) should decide to follow their own path, and if the USA want to be the only country in the dressage-world without a qualification system, they probably have a good reason. In Germany you need 10 good scores, in Holland 8 good scores and in Belgium you only need 3 good scores to climb up the ladder. Time will tell what the best choise have been. But at least let the USA go for a flexible qualification system because as Bob Dylan already sung "The Times they are changing" and "The first one now will later be last" .

slc2
Jan. 16, 2008, 02:01 PM
Yes, the clinician can get on the little horse and make big gaits. No real certainty if the little horse would stay sound making big gaits for long....some would, some wouldn't. If their conformation and balance are not appropriate for that work, if they are not made for it, they will not stay sound working like that. The other side of it of course is, sure the clinician can get on the little horse and make big gaits. The student may be able to do it at the clinic, the question is can he duplicate it at home. Probably not. To expect otherwise I think is not realistic. That's why he is the clinician, and the other one is the student -

Why do you think there is such a big difference between how many scores each country requires?

freestyle2music
Jan. 16, 2008, 03:48 PM
Yes, the clinician can get on the little horse and make big gaits. No real certainty if the little horse would stay sound making big gaits for long....some would, some wouldn't. If their conformation and balance are not appropriate for that work, if they are not made for it, they will not stay sound working like that. The other side of it of course is, sure the clinician can get on the little horse and make big gaits. The student may be able to do it at the clinic, the question is can he duplicate it at home. Probably not. To expect otherwise I think is not realistic. That's why he is the clinician, and the other one is the student -

Why do you think there is such a big difference between how many scores each country requires?


Clinics over here are very different from the clinics in the US. Clinics over here are mostly ( 90%) clinics of trainers with their own students, in which they show the training of students from beginners level to grandprix.

The difference between the European countries, how many scores you need to qualify for the next level, has to do with the amount of competitions you have in these countries. For example; the Netherlands had (the last 5 years)
3.6 million starters in dressage competitions.

Thats also the reason why I stated many times that also in the USA you have to implement this qualification system (or not) per region, and also have to create escape routes.

Theo

Theo

slc2
Jan. 16, 2008, 03:51 PM
it's more than that causing problems here. the country is so big that even where there are a lot of shows and dressage is active, all the traveling required for the 1st proposal was punitive financially.

SGray
Jan. 16, 2008, 03:53 PM
.......
The difference between the European countries, how many scores you need to qualify for the next level, has to do with the amount of competitions you have in these countries. For example; the Netherlands had (the last 5 years)
3.6 million starters in dressage competitions.....
Theo

please elaborate

starters = riders entered in show or riders entered in class?

the last 5 years....3.6 million = 720,000 per year or 3.6million per year?

freestyle2music
Jan. 16, 2008, 04:21 PM
720.000 starts every year. Meaning 14.000 every week(end).

These figures come from the amount of startcoupons which are sold every year to the riders.

Theo

SGray
Jan. 16, 2008, 04:28 PM
and the population of The Netherlands is ____?

freestyle2music
Jan. 16, 2008, 04:51 PM
and the population of The Netherlands is ____?

16.000.000 (16 million) and counting.

SGray
Jan. 16, 2008, 05:07 PM
goodness - can you imagine if we had the same percentage of starts per population

fiona
Jan. 16, 2008, 05:23 PM
720.000 starts every year. Meaning 14.000 every week(end).

These figures come from the amount of startcoupons which are sold every year to the riders.


Yeah but.
How many of them were alters?

( that was a joke not a personal attack for anyone that didn't get it)

Plus if 14,000 rides per weekend is average - why did it take you people sooooo long to beat the Germans?

claire
Jan. 16, 2008, 06:17 PM
Yeah but.
How many of them were alters?

( that was a joke not a personal attack for anyone that didn't get it)

Plus if 14,000 rides per weekend is average - why did it take you people sooooo long to beat the Germans?

:winkgrin: fiona. Poke, Poke. Stir, Stir. :lol:

sm
Jan. 16, 2008, 06:37 PM
I truly believe that every country (region) should decide to follow their own path, and if the USA want to be the only country in the dressage-world without a qualification system, they probably have a good reason. In Germany you need 10 good scores, in Holland 8 good scores and in Belgium you only need 3 good scores to climb up the ladder.

What new qualification system should Ammies in the USA have to achieve, and why? How does the current proposal make things better? Boost the USA qualifiers in the High Performance division for internationally aspiring riders---fine. Put a little more muscle and sponsorship into the Young Riders Program---fine.

I'm not aware of Canada's, Switzerland's or England's qualifying system for Adult Ammies...

canyonoak
Jan. 16, 2008, 07:08 PM
If the US had 14,000 dressage entries per weekend, then we would need a qualification system as well.

That has been my point all along: that a qualification system is necessary in any sport that is OVER-SUBSCRIBED.

But I seriously doubt that the qualification system is what produces athletes with the determination, talent, money and luck to get into the international Grand Prix arena.

If we had enough riders that there was a big pool of hobby-sport AND serious-want-to-stand-on-the-podium-sport, then sure--if both are vying for the same spots at a show, one needs a qualification system.

Considering that many of our shows are UNDER-subscribed, this is hardly a problem.

rosinante
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:01 PM
If the US had 14,000 dressage entries per weekend, then we would need a qualification system as well.

That has been my point all along: that a qualification system is necessary in any sport that is OVER-SUBSCRIBED.

But I seriously doubt that the qualification system is what produces athletes with the determination, talent, money and luck to get into the international Grand Prix arena.

If we had enough riders that there was a big pool of hobby-sport AND serious-want-to-stand-on-the-podium-sport, then sure--if both are vying for the same spots at a show, one needs a qualification system.

Considering that many of our shows are UNDER-subscribed, this is hardly a problem.

Actually a better number is to take the Dutch ratio and apply to the US:

720,000 starters/year in a population of 16 million= 4.5% of the population riding dressage.

The US population ~300 million. Take 4.5% of 300 million=13.5 million. Assuming these 13.5 million people were showing dressage 52 weeks a year, that means that there would be about 260,000 dressage riders every weekend.....perhaps that is why the Dutch need a qualification system.

atr
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:06 PM
Not quite, as I'm sure that each one of those 720,000 were not separate individuals--might make more sense if your divided that number by 4, say, to get the percentage of the population?

rosinante
Jan. 16, 2008, 09:17 PM
Not quite, as I'm sure that each one of those 720,000 were not separate individuals--might make more sense if your divided that number by 4, say, to get the percentage of the population?

Forget 4.....Let's be really conservative and divide by 10.....

So just divide all the numbers by 10...which says that about .5% of the population ride dressage which would equate to about 1.35 million people in the US, which works out to about 26,000 dressage riders PER WEEKEND...every weekend....

I believe the AQHA is the largest horse breed organization and even their membership (not showing population) is ~500,000....the USDF might have one tenth that number.

hoopoe
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:09 PM
and not all of them compete

freestyle2music
Jan. 17, 2008, 08:42 AM
In Holland you need a startcoupon for every test you ride in a competition, these startcoupons cost Euro 17,= (- US$ 22,20). At our national levels
B(eginners), L(ight), L1 (ight +), M(edium), M(edium+), Z1( Heavy), Z2 (Heavy +) you have many competitions every weekend. At the in between level (your level 3 and 4) we have a average of 3.2 competitions a month.
At the FEI level we also have the same 3.2 competitions a month, plus the international competitions like Jumping Amsterdam, Indoor Brabant etc..
Next to this we have many dressage-competitions which are held together with the jumping competitions.

The average time to travel from your home to the competition grounds are 2.1 hours. However people riding at international levels who are not a member of the Dutch A team often have to ride 20-40 hours to show in Hungary, Poland, Russia, Italy, UK, Scandinavia etc..

Our qualification system starts from day one (B-level) all to the FEI-levels. If a rider has trained a horse to GP you can decide to start at PSG-level with any horse you want. If you think that your horse and yourself are capable to start at a certain level you can ask the KNHS for permission, and mostly they will appoint a competition (where there are 2 O- or I-judges) in which you can show your skills, and these judges will advice the KNHS which level these combination can start.

In our qualification system you can earn scoring points and can lose scoring points, and next to this we have a can and must rule. For example when you have scored 20 points you can move to the next level, but when you have 35points you must move to the next level.

My estimate is (based on my clientbase) that at lower (national levels) riders go to competition 20-30 times a year while at the higher levels this is around 10-15 times a year.

This is in a nutshell the Dutch situation.

Theo

rebecca yount
Jan. 17, 2008, 08:56 AM
Thank you, Theo, that kind of information, if accurate and I have no reason to believe that it is not, is very helpful and just what we need to try and address the "problem" (not that I think there is one) here in the US.

Thank you. PS my mother is from Maastricht. I grew up eating appelstroop and black licorice buttons. And sending my grandmother canned corn.

Hazelnut
Jan. 17, 2008, 06:04 PM
In Holland you need a startcoupon for every test you ride in a competition, these startcoupons cost Euro 17,= (- US$ 22,20). At our national levels
B(eginners), L(ight), L1 (ight +), M(edium), M(edium+), Z1( Heavy), Z2 (Heavy +) you have many competitions every weekend. At the in between level (your level 3 and 4) we have a average of 3.2 competitions a month.
At the FEI level we also have the same 3.2 competitions a month, plus the international competitions like Jumping Amsterdam, Indoor Brabant etc..
Next to this we have many dressage-competitions which are held together with the jumping competitions.

The average time to travel from your home to the competition grounds are 2.1 hours. However people riding at international levels who are not a member of the Dutch A team often have to ride 20-40 hours to show in Hungary, Poland, Russia, Italy, UK, Scandinavia etc..

Our qualification system starts from day one (B-level) all to the FEI-levels. If a rider has trained a horse to GP you can decide to start at PSG-level with any horse you want. If you think that your horse and yourself are capable to start at a certain level you can ask the KNHS for permission, and mostly they will appoint a competition (where there are 2 O- or I-judges) in which you can show your skills, and these judges will advice the KNHS which level these combination can start.

In our qualification system you can earn scoring points and can lose scoring points, and next to this we have a can and must rule. For example when you have scored 20 points you can move to the next level, but when you have 35points you must move to the next level.

My estimate is (based on my clientbase) that at lower (national levels) riders go to competition 20-30 times a year while at the higher levels this is around 10-15 times a year.

This is in a nutshell the Dutch situation.

Theo

I think its interesting that you have the can and must points for moving up.

Also, 20- 30 shows a year? That would be alot here.

freestyle2music
Jan. 17, 2008, 08:02 PM
I think its interesting that you have the can and must points for moving up.

Also, 20- 30 shows a year? That would be alot here.

Specially when you consider that we have (modest) price-money for the winners, and it's no fun when a rider who stays for 6 years in the same class take (steel) this money away.

And (allthough not many people will like this), we had a tremendous boost in dressage, some years ago, because of, what we call "the Anky effect" .

dutchmike
Jan. 17, 2008, 08:42 PM
I think its interesting that you have the can and must points for moving up.

Also, 20- 30 shows a year? That would be alot here.

One thing is driving in europe where it takes maximium 3 days to go from one end to another or the US where it takes 3 days to drive from Austin , Tx to Chicago ,Il. Just the distance makes it already not viable if not impossible. Also there is more enthusiasm in countries like Holland or Germany because dressage is our basis in riding even if you end up jumping or something they all started dressage in the beginning and people in the US that want to hunters start doing hunter seat etc from the beginning. You cannot compare the two systems. The US system is closer to the british system then the european continent system

sm
Jan. 19, 2008, 03:33 PM
Thank you, Theo, that kind of information, if accurate and I have no reason to believe that it is not, is very helpful and just what we need to try and address the "problem" (not that I think there is one) here in the US..

Yes, and if I remember Theo from an old thread, Theo's model includes trainers' are not allowed to warm-up students' horses. Well, one can see why!! However, just USEF proposing that trainers' not be able to warm-up a student's horse after a certian level would improve riding skills, put riders in the USA on a more level playing field, and be closer to the euro system.

Regardless, as impressive as Rebecca's and Theo's numbers are: the USEF and USDF already have this data. One might call the BOG many things---but stupid they are not. They want the change anyway.

Badger
Jan. 19, 2008, 07:49 PM
However, just USEF proposing that trainers' not be able to warm-up a student's horse after a certian level would improve riding skills, put riders in the USA on a more level playing field, and be closer to the euro system.

This is one of the things I love about eventing: no one but the exhibiting rider may sit on a horse after 3 p.m. on the day before the official start of competition. Riders have to rider their horses, and it's a much more level playing field than you often see in other disciplines where a trainer tunes up and the rider just takes the horse into the ring. The difference is that in eventing, a horse only competes with one rider during a show. However, in h/j and dressage, a horse may compete under more than one rider during a show...so it's not an easy rule to institute in those disciplines.