Performance Standards Rule: Scoring Data/ProblemDefinition/Statement [Archive]

claire

Jan. 23, 2008, 12:40 PM

update 1/21/08

Now, then, you also said something about 20% of the RIDES being at 2nd level and above.

I think, if this 20% number is accurate at all (and I need to check with USDF to see what their statistic is), it is that 20% of the RIDERS (not rides) are at 2nd level and above.

The preliminary stats I have do not show, and I don't think they'll end up showing overall, that 20% of the RIDES are 2nd and above. Rather, for that 2-month time period in Region 1, for example, there were 1059 (or 46.94% of the total) rides at Training and 1st Level. There were 1197 (53.06%) rides at 2nd Level and above.

I think a question might not be how many MEMBERS this might affect, but actually perhaps how many RIDES it will affect, since the income at shows comes per ride, not per rider.

Even if only 20% of the riders were alienated, they make up almost half of the income per show in terms of rides paid for.

Yes, thank you, that is clearer. I realize that you were talking about USDF members (I am assuming that is members who DO RIDE/compete, correct?--there are actually some USDF members who do not ride so I don't think they should be included in the numbers). So is the 20% you are referring to 20 % of ALL USDF MEMBERS or 20% of THE USDF MEMBERS WHO COMPETE AT ALL? And I see that you were talking about 2nd and below vs. 3rd and above.

So, breaking it down that way, for Region 1, from 10/1/07 to 11/30/07, 1436 of the rides at competitions were at 2nd level or below. That's 63.65% of the total rides.

And 820 of the rides were at 3rd level or above--that's 36.35% of rides.

ToN Farm

Jan. 23, 2008, 01:49 PM

I'm no statistician, but there were probably a LOT more Training Level rides than Fourth Level. 7% of TL level rides under 55% is BAD. I think if the committee wants to be concerned about something, that should be the focus. I can't imagine getting that low of a score at TL. This clearly says to me that these people weren't ready and should be doing schooling shows. IMO, 55% at TL is worse than 55% at Fourth.

I took a look at some other data that Rebecca published; specifically, I was curious to see who got the 30%'s. Since many TL and FL riders do several tests at a 3day show, those same poor scoring riders are affecting the data. The historical data on one of the 30% riders shows that they have been low scoring for a couple of years, not improving.

Eclectic Horseman

Jan. 23, 2008, 01:59 PM

I'm no statistician, but there were probably a LOT more Training Level rides than Fourth Level. 7% of TL level rides under 55% is BAD. I think if the committee wants to be concerned about something, that should be the focus. I can't imagine getting that low of a score at TL. This clearly says to me that these people weren't ready and should be doing schooling shows. IMO, 55% at TL is worse than 55% at Fourth.

Again, our system scores the HORSE more than it scores the rider. TL is usually where horses show for the first time. I've gotten enough low scores at TL on OTTBs right off the track and on 3 or 4 year olds at their first show to tell you that it is usually not the riding that brings the scores down. How do you score a rodeo in the dressage arena? :lol:

Sandy M

Jan. 23, 2008, 03:12 PM

Again, our system scores the HORSE more than it scores the rider. TL is usually where horses show for the first time. I've gotten enough low scores at TL on OTTBs right off the track and on 3 or 4 year olds at their first show to tell you that it is usually not the riding that brings the scores down. How do you score a rodeo in the dressage arena? :lol:

Exactly. At any level, but especially at Training level, unless you were "there", there's no way of knowing whether it was a badly ridden, unprepared test, or a green horse that freaked over something, or a beginner rider, plunking around on a school horse with "1" quality gaits, not on the bit, etc. (but in no way harmful to the horse). My bebe, who isn't even "intro" at this point - I can just IMAGINE what HIS first show will be like. I'll probably be wearing my eventing armor, and my nice soft derby will be at home in its case and I'll be wearing my "skunk" helmet. Success will mean no major meltdowns.....BUT... I'm qualified to ride 3rd level under the proposed qualification scenarious. Ridiculous.

Qualifying for the higher levels of eventing? Damned right. You could get killed out there. But for dressage??

ShotenStar

Jan. 23, 2008, 03:27 PM

Having worked on some of this analysis, I can give you the following numbers:

--For the period 1 Oct - 31 Nov 2007, there 8,888 rides at USDF shows

--these rides included Open, Qualifying, Regional Championship, Young Rider, and Breed Restricted Classes

--These rides were by both members and those non-members who paid the required fees for the show -- the data available does not indicate how of many of either type

--This data is statistically representative of all rides for the 2007, and the distributions of rides across the levels is likely to be typical.

Training Lvl - 2,7334 rides - 30.76 % of total rides
First Lvl - 2,291 rides - 25.08 %
2nd Lvl - 1,230 rides - 13.84 %
3rd Lvl - 1,037 rides - 11.67 %
4th Lvl - 647 rides - 7.28 %
PSG - 514 rides - 5.78 %
InterMed - 327 rides - 3.68 %
GP - 170 rides - 1.91 %

For these rides, a more detailed break down of the scoring ranges is:

Score / Total / Percent
range / Rides / of Rides
30-39 / 2 / 0.02%
40-49 / 158 / 1.78%
50-54 / 737 / 8.29%
55-57 / 1180 / 13.28%
58-60 / 1787 / 20.11%
61-63 / 2152 / 24.21%
64-66 / 1639 / 18.44%
67-69 / 824 / 9.27%
70-72 / 298 / 3.35%
73-75 / 93 / 1.05%
76-80 / 18 / 0.20%

The data lays out in a very nice Bell Curve, skewed slightly right, with a center at the 61-63 % range.

*star*

Ja Da Dee

Jan. 23, 2008, 03:50 PM

The historical data on one of the 30% riders shows that they have been low scoring for a couple of years, not improving.

I think it's also very important to determine if extremely low scoring rider/horse combo's continue to show at the same level, and continue to receive sub-par scores. If the majority of them either move down a level, or the low score is a fluke, then we appear to have fixed the problem by using the scores on the test.

honeydoozy

Jan. 23, 2008, 05:31 PM

7% of TL level rides under 55% is BAD. I think if the committee wants to be concerned about something, that should be the focus. I can't imagine getting that low of a score at TL. This clearly says to me that these people weren't ready and should be doing schooling shows.

Well... if only *7* out of 100 rides scored less than 55%, I'm thinking it's a good day. :) The last *several* shows I've been to (in a rather competitive area) have seen way more than 7% scoring less than 55%. We're talking about skilled riders as well as novice riders... on green horses, schoolmasters, school horses, fancy horses and just "average" horses.

What I HAVE noticed, is that the judging has tightened up considerably and the lower scores are just more common. When I can win a class with a 58% at TL and get high point with a 62%... that's gotta say something about the scores across the board - not necessarily the readiness of the competitors.

claire

Jan. 23, 2008, 06:17 PM

Thanks Shoten Star!

Is the data you posted for ALL regions?
Earlier Rebecca had posted a (preliminary) breakdown of the region #1 range scores by level.

If your data is for ALL regions. Will you be able to give us the range scores by level?

The VERY preliminary data for Region 1 are showing that for 10/1/07 to 11/30/07, percentages of rides BELOW 55% are as follows:

Training Level 7.5% of rides scored below 55%
First Level 8.3% of rides scored below 55%
Second Level 12.9% of rides scored below 55%
Third Level 10.2% of rides scored below 55%
Fourth Level 11% of rides scored below 55%
PSG 10.3% of rides scored below 55%
Intermediare 9.3% of rides scored below 55%
AND---drum roll please....
Grand Prix 14.2% of rides scored below 55%

ShotenStar

Jan. 23, 2008, 06:42 PM

The data is for all Regions except Region 6, which apparently had no shows in the 1 Oct - 31 Nov timeframe.

I do have the data broken down by Levels / Regions, but it occupies several very large Excel spreadsheets. It will take awhile to copy/paste and clean up to make it readable for the BB. Give me some time.

*star*

claire

Jan. 23, 2008, 06:54 PM

Thanks! I know it takes time, and I really appreciate all the effort you and Rebecca are putting in on this project.

I keep reading the new updates and I am always thinking: "But, but, but, what about.... :winkgrin:

Margaret Freeman

Jan. 23, 2008, 08:24 PM

SS-- In those nearly 9,000 rides, no one scored higher than 80%?

Cowgirl

Jan. 23, 2008, 08:34 PM

Since this debate is going to be ongoing until the next USEF annual meeting, is there some way to keep this topic stickied to the top of the page?

rebecca yount

Jan. 23, 2008, 09:04 PM

Margaret, to answer your question: For ALL regions during this time period, there was only one score listed in the 80s, and it was 83.95 but was "Sport Horse Series Final 3 yo Filly". It was in Region 3. For that same region, the 2nd highest score listed was 77, but also was for "Sport Horse Series Final Yearling Filly". I think those two were breed show scores that got in sort of by mistake or were at some type of combined show where breed and performance scores were both listed.

Here are the highest scores for 10/1/07-11/30/07 for all regions:

Region 1--highest score 78, was at Training level. 5 highest for that region were TL
Region 2--highest score 75.938 was a 2nd level freestyle. The two highest scores for that region were freestyles, then two training level tests were next.
Region 3--that was the 83.95 and the 77 both sport horse breed scores, then a 76 at training level
Region 4--76.333, at first level; then 76 at training level and 75.2 at training level. The latter two scores were Breed Restricted shows--Freisian shows to be specific.
Region 5--76.667, 2nd 4; 76.19, 2ns 4; 74.64, TL
Region 6 had no shows listed during that time period
Region 7--76.4, TL; 76.333 1st level; 76.134 3rd level
Region 8--75.714 TL (you were the judge); 72 1st level; 71.628 3rd level freestyle (you were the judge).
Region 9--76.2 TL; 75.789, 1st level; 75 1st level

This is all very preliminary, and we are trying to work quickly, it will all be doublechecked and we are also trying to get more data.

Hazelnut

Jan. 23, 2008, 09:31 PM

Is there something others can do to help? PM me if there is something I can assist with.

Jan. 24, 2008, 10:50 AM

I think it would be helpful to share this information as it develops with our GMO's.

I apologize in advance for any possible derailing of the thread (it's a great thread) but the thought occured to me these results, and a call to action, could be sent out as a press release to GMO newsletters and possibly other media (dressage websites, etc). I do have the excell database for that. In addition I can send out press releases en masse without getting spammed.

The timing is perfect:
March/April: press release to GMOs and etc posting data and asking for a call to action. A plus would be offering other rider-oriented solutions as discussed in several COTH threads
Summer 08: proposal due out
January 09: final vote

If this helps, PM me for press release database (excell) or other assistance such as a professional writer to polish the press release.

Please do PM me, I seriously am not into derailing the thread.

Cowgirl

Jan. 24, 2008, 09:44 PM

bump! This needs to stay at the top!

rebecca yount

Jan. 25, 2008, 08:36 AM

Hazelnut, thanks. I will contact you via pm and/or post on here as more assistance is needed. Right now we have it covered. I really appreciate the offer. ry

ClaraLuisa

Jan. 25, 2008, 10:53 AM

to Rebcca and everyone else working to move this question toward a data-driven solution. I hope a summary analysis addressed to USDF will get a hearing.

SGray

Jan. 28, 2008, 10:26 AM

to Rebcca and everyone else working to move this question toward a data-driven solution. I hope a summary analysis addressed to USDF will get a hearing.

ditto to that sentiment

Eclectic Horseman

Jan. 28, 2008, 12:12 PM

I also support a data driven system, but over the weekend I also had an idea for a relatively painless qualifying system.

In my GMO, riders need to apply for the clinics with BNTs. In order to apply, they have to submit a video. Why not do the same for a qualification test? Riders could use a video from a show, schooling show or even doing a test at home. Send it in with their check for $75.00 or whatever, a certified judge looks at it based on agreed upon criteria and passes or fails the rider.

What on earth is the need for all of these "points" and multiple tests and multiple judges anyway? While a rider may have a very bad day at a show which results in a worse test than usual, it is not common for a rider to have a day where he/she suddenly has skills that he/she does not possess otherwise.

Just a thought.

tartanfarm

Jan. 28, 2008, 03:58 PM

rebecca yount

Jan. 28, 2008, 10:42 PM

Check out this week's Chronicle of the Horse. First, the Chronicle Commentary from the editor, and then on page 12. These stories are about the USEF convention and the buzz about the proposed qualifying standards. Got some press.

On page 4, the editor says, "one of the prevailing topics--which we did cover on page 12--was the proposal to develop qualifications for dressage riders to move up to third level and beyond. But it wasn't necessarily the proposal itself that generated the most discussion; it was the overwhelming, and perhaps unexpected, response from the membership that everyone remarked on in the hallways and the meeting rooms.

Hundreds of US Dressage Federation and Group Member Organization members inundated the USEF and USDF with opinions, both pro and con, regarding the proposal. They sent e-mails, made phone calls, posted online on bulletin boards, and generally made their feelings known in no uncertain terms".

On page 12, there is a bold heading "The Great Dressage Debate". In part, the story says "After the USDF Convention concluded on Dec. 2, an avalanche of e-mails inundated the inboxes of dressage officials, committee members, and USDF and USEF staff regarding the rule-change proposal to develop qualifying criteria for riders to show at third level and above".

I am very proud of us--we made a difference and were heard.

Eclectic Horseman

Jan. 29, 2008, 09:07 AM

most GMO's couldn't afford to pay a judge to sit for days going through tapes, and sending in a cherry picked ride doesn't show the riders actual ability.

But that is the problem with this entire proposal. They are asking riders to show where they've come from, not what they are capable of now. And isn't that what the rider collective mark is for, to tell us where we are now?

(1) I think the riders send the videos (and the checks) directly to the designated judge. If he/she gets to keep $50 of the $75, it is not bad pay for 10 mins. work at home in your pjs.

(2) I don't see anything wrong with the "cherry picked ride." As I said previously, either you have the knowledge and skills or you don't. It might be a interesting idea to have a "special test" which is geared toward the rider's ability to do 3rd level work, and prohibitions on editing or tampering with the videos, etc.

I'm not disagreeing that the data may well show that the "need" for qualifying may be an assumption that is not based on the actual facts. But if a "need" for qualifying is shown, then there are other ways to do it without driving competitors away as the result of huge increases in time and expense.

Of course, the simplest qualifying system of all is to grow some cojones and start giving out "4s" in the riders' collective scores. :lol:

Jan. 29, 2008, 11:11 AM

The system to qualify up the levels is akin to fixing a broke wheel before the wheel has been invented. The USEF/USDF want to emulate the European System but Europe has an “entire” system in place, riding schools, school master’s to learn on, rider certification (before showing), trainer certification, etc. etc. So while I applaud the USEF/USDF for wanting to emulate Europe in hopes of bettering the riding standard here in the United States, I believe it will take more than just creating a qualification system for showing to improve riding.

Has the USEF/USDF looked at the demographics of Europe, #/availability of riding schools, trainers, etc in regards to population and country size then compared it to the US? If they did I think they would start to grasp why the US isn’t like Europe and will probably never be when it comes to riding.

In regards to the scores that have been posted, I suspect over the next year judges will really buckle down on riders/horses and you will see scores drop dramatically, perhaps because they will be scoring appropriately and if for no other reason then to help the USEF/USDF to make their point and push for the qualification system.

slc2

Jan. 29, 2008, 12:05 PM

Very well said!

I don't agree but very well said :)

I don't agree with you that scores will drop dramatically very soon though.

Why? Because I think judges ARE doing their jobs already, the vast majority of them. Sure, there are clubs who don't invite back any hard-scoring judges. But not all clubs do that. In fact, quite a few WELCOME the tougher R, S, O judges, and I think the ones who welcome overly generous judges aren't sending a lot of people off to 3rd, 4th level anyway.

I think people ride a certain level DESPITE scores below 60-62%, for many reasons. That sorta "because it's my dream" thing popping its head up, for one. And a lot of people see no harm in that - and I think that's where the dressage organizations and those riders very abruptly part company.

And I still think the misconception is out there that the qualification system is aimed at really bad riding and really bad scores. It isn't. They've said that very clearly. It is to get rid of scores below 60-62, not 50, not 40, not 30.

It's very clear to me from looking at the results that very few riders make 40 or 30, and that there is a definite group at 3rd and 4th scoring over 55 and under 62. And I don't think people in there are getting a falsely high rider marks at all, I don't think them getting LOWER rider marks is the solution to this problem either.

The damndest thing about it is that if you ask people what their criteria is for moving up, they quote rather high scores, usually well above 60%, to get at a level before they'd move up. Judging from the discussions here you'd think that would mean even the scores of 55 - 62 at 3rd level are ....non existant? EIther that or a lot of people aren't following that criteria for moving up.

There's some sort of very strange turn in the road here, where what people are saying they do just does not match what we see.

Eclectic Horseman

Jan. 29, 2008, 01:30 PM

Jan. 29, 2008, 02:43 PM

In regards to the scores that have been posted, I suspect over the next year judges will really buckle down on riders/horses and you will see scores drop dramatically, perhaps because they will be scoring appropriately and if for no other reason then to help the USEF/USDF to make their point and push for the qualification system.

I actually just threw that out there to see if anyone might think it would happen. It does seem though that Ms. Foy complained that there were a lot of 30% rides but the scores posted don't really show that, so either the judges aren't scoring the poor riders or the poor riders don't really exist. I was curious if some judges might feel more inclined to score lower now if they had previously been generous with scores.

There is an article in DT Oct 06 on the Politics of Showing where several FEI Judges/Riders discuss judging and scoring, although they are talking about FEI level its still interesting to see what they have to say and how they feel about it. They discuss how judges have a comfort zones for scoring, etc. Not necessarily pertinent to the discussion at hand but perhaps there may be some validation to it and the scores that we are seeing. The article wasn't negative about scoring or judges but that scoring isn't always perfect.

eurofoal

Jan. 29, 2008, 05:59 PM

It's very clear to me from looking at the results that very few riders make 40 or 30, and that there is a definite group at 3rd and 4th scoring over 55 and under 62. And I don't think people in there are getting a falsely high rider marks at all, I don't think them getting LOWER rider marks is the solution to this problem either.

The damndest thing about it is that if you ask people what their criteria is for moving up, they quote rather high scores, usually well above 60%, to get at a level before they'd move up. Judging from the discussions here you'd think that would mean even the scores of 55 - 62 at 3rd level are ....non existant? EIther that or a lot of people aren't following that criteria for moving up.

There's some sort of very strange turn in the road here, where what people are saying they do just does not match what we see.

I agree... there are no 30% rides to speak of, very few 40% rides. Yet, 44% of the rides are scoring between 58 and 62%. The bell curve speaks for itself... this is where most people are riding, AND even under the qualification proposals, these scores, even the lower end of the middle, would get a point or more.

J-Lu

Jan. 29, 2008, 09:06 PM

I am very proud of us--we made a difference and were heard.

Woo hoo!

J-Lu

Jan. 29, 2008, 09:32 PM

The damndest thing about it is that if you ask people what their criteria is for moving up, they quote rather high scores, usually well above 60%, to get at a level before they'd move up. Judging from the discussions here you'd think that would mean even the scores of 55 - 62 at 3rd level are ....non existant? EIther that or a lot of people aren't following that criteria for moving up.

There's some sort of very strange turn in the road here, where what people are saying they do just does not match what we see.

If you ask what people? On a BB? As you know, many people here don't show, and the ones who do represent a TINY FRACTION of the people who actually show. You are summarizing the opinions of, what, 20 people? Out of how many people who showed at recognized shows last year? You are also not taking account the level that people are responding about. Most people move from training to first level with a VERY different score than what they'd move from I1 to I2 with. Also, many horses and riders will max out at a certain level because of lack of talent, lack of time, lack of money, injury, health issues, etc. You should understand that the people who elect to post on a given thread do not necessarily statistically represent ALL PEOPLE WHO SHOWED last year.

J.

ShotenStar

Feb. 1, 2008, 02:18 PM

In continuing to work on the analysis of the available score data (as a reminder: this spans 1 Oct - 30 Nov 2007. It was pulled off the posted show results on the USDF website), we have started to get into finer levels of detail and refining the analysis. In some respects, this is a practice run for when/if the USDF provides more data, as requested.

At any rate, I have been looking at the 2nd level test 4 and all 3rd level scores. The impression I have from all the 'official' comments made is that the judges / sponsors of the rule change seem to believe there is a correlation between successful scores at 2nd level test and future success at 3rd level.

At the moment, the answer appears to be 'not so much'.

For 2-4, the average score in the data available is 60.779, with a low of 47.381 an a high of 76.667.

For all 3rd level tests (since riders in the data available did not always ride just 3-1), the average was 60.19, with a low of 43.023 and a high of 76.154.

Specifically, in the data available, I found 15 instances were a rider rode at both 2-4 and a 3rd level test. For this group:

-3 riders rode the same horse at both levels and got better scores at 3rd than at 2-4.
The scores were (2-4 - 3rd): 59 - 60; 61-62; 59-61.

-8 riders rode the same horse at both levels and got a poorer score at 3rd than at 2-4.
The scores were: 65-61; 58-51; 62-60; 62-61; 64-59; 55-49; 65-62; 60-53.
Notice that in this data set, only one rider did not meet any of the possible qualifying scores being suggested.
Four of these riders got 3rd lvl scores that were at or above the average for the level.

-1 rider rode different horses at both levels and got a better score at 3rd.
Scores were: 63-64

-3 riders rode different horses at both levels and got poorer scores at 3rd lvl.
Scores were: 69-67; 64-52; 76-64

What I find interesting in this (very small) sample is that riders do give the impression of self-regulating the tests they enter: only one rider scored poorly at 2-4 (55%) and went on to ride 3-1 for a score of 49%.

Now, I freely admit this is too small a sample to be useful for an analysis about the predictive link between 2nd and 3rd level scores. But I do believe this is a line of thought that needs to be pursued across more data ... possibly several years' worth ... to determine if a predictive value is there and is strong enough to warrant the use of qualifying scores to move up the levels.

*star*

lewin

Feb. 1, 2008, 02:42 PM

I also think it is interesting that the second highest scoring riders did not always get the highest scores at 3rd. There were several riders who barely broke 60% at second and still scored at around 60% at third.

Eclectic Horseman

Feb. 1, 2008, 02:48 PM

I don't find it at all surprising. The flying change is introduced at third. If the horse or the rider is not confirmed in that movement, the horse & rider can get rattled and the test can be blown pretty easily.

That's why I think that the best test of whether a rider is ready to ride at third level is to ride at third level!

Feb. 1, 2008, 03:01 PM

For 2-4, the average score in the data available is 60.779, with a low of 47.381 an a high of 76.667.

Fab stuff, Shoten :) Curious with the excerpt I posted here, out of how many riders surveyed?

The move to accepting 60% (up from 58%) median score to be eligble for any All Breeds Training thru Fourth recognition plays in here. So one's median has to be at least in the middle of the pack to be acknowledged AT ALL in this program...

And isn't that what the rider collective mark is for, to tell us where we are now?

This would do it: there are several ideas posted earlier on enhancing/grading rider collective mark. So, with the same bang for the buck (no add'l shows, travelling costs, no add'l time wasted, etc), rider could get additional info in the very test they are already taking----and fix it for their next test. Which hopefully improves their overall median score that same summer. And, why wait for Third? Why not implement this at First Level?

ShotenStar

Feb. 1, 2008, 04:20 PM

Fab stuff, Shoten :) Curious with the excerpt I posted here, out of how many riders surveyed?

This is based on 198 rides at 2-4
and
462 rides at all 3rd lvl tests.

And remember: this is data is not from a 'survey' ... it is from reported scores at USDF shows held 1 Oct - 30 Nov 2007. A nitpick, I know, but that is part of the reality of dealing with statistical data ... one must be quite precise.

*star*

claire

Feb. 1, 2008, 10:43 PM

ShotenStar,

Thanks for the update. Although these are preliminary results from a small sample, they do point out issues that derserve additional research and analysis.

I found the "self regulatory" aspect especially interesting, considering the stated reason for the Qualification Proposal: Rider's moving up a level before they they are "ready".

Do you think it would be possible to see the number of riders who continue to show at a level after receiving the 30-50% scores?

Thanks again to you and Rebecca for taking on this project!
Looking forward to further updates! :D

ShotenStar

Feb. 2, 2008, 12:19 PM

Following up on this with a more detailed examination of score paterns:

I looked at 58 riders who rode 3-1 two or more times. Of these:

17 had all their scores in the 50's
19 had at least one score in the 60's and one in the 50's
22 had all scores in the 60's

The lowest scores were 50 - 49 and 56 - 49
The best scores were 67 -64 and 68 - 63.

Once again, we see a nice distribution of the population - one third high, one third middling, one third low.

In looking at the scores with the largest variance between rides, the variable was the judge: these were the same horse/rider pairs, with 2 or more judges.

It gets more interesting if we keep going.

Out of this group of 58, 30 went on to ride other 3rd level tests. Here is were a pattern truly emerges:

--of the 17 with all their scores in the 50's, 9 went on to ride other 3rd level tests. All of these scores were in the 50 percent range, with only one 60% reported.

--of the 19 with at least one score in the 60's and one in the 50's, 11 rode additional 3rd lvl tests -- with decidedly mixed results: scores ranged from 45 - 72.

--of the 22 with all scores in the 60's, 10 went on to ride other 3rd lvl tests and the scoring was much more consistent -- if the pair was scoring 63-64 at 3-1, then they earned scores similar scores at other 3rd lvl tests.

Here, the data suggests that success at 3-1 is a much better predictor of success at other 3rd level tests.

*star*

ShotenStar

Feb. 16, 2008, 12:04 PM

In continuing to work on the available data, today's installment of "As The Scoring Turns" looks at the 4th lvl - PSG divide:

For the 4th Lvl to PSG transition, the data was examined in several ways:
--23 cases were the same horse/rider pair rode at least one 4th Lvl and at least one PSG test
--15 cases where the same rider rode two or more horses in 4th and PSG tests

The data was charted using different score pairings, among them:
--Lowest 4th against Lowest PSG and
--Highest 4th against highest PSG.

The highest score a horse/rider pair achieved in any one 4th Lvl test was not a strong predictor of success at PSG.

However, the LOWEST score they received at 4th lvl did map more tightly to the PSG scores.

Same Horse - lowest score at each
Lowest 4th lvl score / Lowest PSG Score
51 51
52 48
53 52
53 55
56 55
56 56
57 61
58 58
58 62
59 58
60 58
60 60
61 57
61 59
61 62
61 65
62 64
63 65
64 62
64 65
65 62
69 67
71 64

For the data where the same rider rode multiple horses at both levels, the data was too mixed to suggested any trends or correlations, other than that the horse's skill / training was more noticeable.

*star*

Feb. 16, 2008, 12:47 PM

amazing stuff ShotenStar!

This is by no means a critism, but I am wondering if the riders are tracked: USEF judge showing the horse; professional although I'm not sure this info is captured to track; ammy; JrYR.

Anyway kudos to you.

ShotenStar

Feb. 16, 2008, 12:53 PM

We have the judge data for each ride, but no additional information on the riders, and we are working with scores from Open classes only to keep more consistency, so the Young Riders are not a factor.

Obviously, there are times when I recognize the names of the riders and know they are professionals, or when you see one rider with several horses that have different owners, you can make a guess that it is a professional. But we are not considering that in the overall review of the data.

*star*

rebecca yount

Feb. 16, 2008, 02:52 PM

Information I have received this past week tells me that the Dressage Committee has asked USDF for some data (all rides from 2007) and have analyzed it. I have thus far been unsuccessful in getting 2007 data from USDF--so far, they seem reluctant to forward it without approval from the USEF Dressage Committee. I am not sure who is "in charge" of USDF data re show results and who gets to say whether or not it is made available to others of us who want to analyze it. Don't want to go there if don't have to...

I am told that the DC members are to have a conference call soon and work on a new draft of the proposed performance standards. They may have a "new interim" one now but I haven't seen it. They indicate that after they get the new draft done they will send it to the GMOs for comment. There is some mention of a "rider test" where horse gaits wouldn't have an influence. Someone from PVDA is supposed to have a timeline for when that will be, but I haven't been forwarded it yet.

I am planning to attend the Region 1 meeting on 3/16, after having had a lesson with Janet Brown-Foy on 3/14 and riding as a demo rider for the USDF L Program session she is teaching here on 3/15. I hope to have a chance to discuss this all with her, but she will be busy that weekend so at least I will certainly discuss it at the Region 1 meeting. I have written to Alison Head and asked to be put on the agenda for 3/16.

Feb. 16, 2008, 03:35 PM

I have thus far been unsuccessful in getting 2007 data from USDF--so far, they seem reluctant to forward it without approval from the USEF Dressage Committee. I am not sure who is "in charge" of USDF data re show results and who gets to say whether or not it is made available to others of us who want to analyze it. Don't want to go there if don't have to...

I am told that the DC members are to have a conference call soon and work on a new draft of the proposed performance standards. They may have a "new interim" one now but I haven't seen it. They indicate that after they get the new draft done they will send it to the GMOs for comment.

Re USDF data sharing that should be in the USDF By-laws.

Re the USEF By-laws: USEF is legally obligated to do more then share info only with the GMOs. The current USEF By-laws January 2008 edition, page ii, article 7 of the Mission Statement
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2008/02-bylaws.pdf :

" 7) Disseminate and distribute, or otherwise make readibly available to equestrian athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials, in a timely manner the applicable rules and any such changes to such rules....."

The thing about non-profits are they are governed by strict federal rules on sharing info with the public, unlike their for-profit counterparts (ex., c-corp, llc) .

Feb. 16, 2008, 03:55 PM

Following up with USDF By-laws, 10.10.07 edition, I didn't find info regarding sharing data per se. Then again, I'm not a pro and a lawyer may come up with something. I did find:

ARTICLE II, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, Item D, page 1:
d) To guarantee fair representation to members from all geographical areas of the United States in forming policies and in the management of the USDF.

ARTICLE XIV, MEMBER INITIATIVE, Section 1, page 23:
Whenever at least 30% of the Participating Members or at least 20% of the Group Member Organizations indicate by written request to the Executive Board that an action be taken, or that an action be discontinued, the Executive Board shall submit such request to the current Presidents of each Group Member Organization and to each current Participating Member by mail ballot. Such ballot shall be mailed not less than fifteen days prior to the last date on which such ballots must be returned.

https://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/Bylaws.pdf

claire

Feb. 17, 2008, 09:06 PM

ShotenStar and Rebecca,

Thanks for the updates and all your efforts!
The preliminary data and analysis is very interesting.

This however, is just :sigh:

Information I have received this past week tells me that the Dressage Committee has asked USDF for some data (all rides from 2007) and have analyzed it. I have thus far been unsuccessful in getting 2007 data from USDF--so far, they seem reluctant to forward it without approval from the USEF Dressage Committee. I am not sure who is "in charge" of USDF data re show results and who gets to say whether or not it is made available to others of us who want to analyze it. Don't want to go there if don't have to...

rebecca yount

Feb. 18, 2008, 08:07 AM

I believe the conference call among USEF Dressage Committee (DC) members is this week.

I am still working on getting the 2007 show results data. We do not yet have any interim draft of a proposed rule change.

Region 1 meeting is 3/16 and this issue is on the agenda. I suggest that other interested persons put this on the agendas of their GMO and Region meetings and be sure your GMO has alerted members, discussed it in their GMO meetings, and is prepared with a plan for how to get member feedback, tabulate it, and communicate it to the DC.

A probable timeline (I am assuming this) is: after this week's conference call, a draft will be put together and distributed to the GMOs for discussion and feedback to the DC. Since the rule change proposal will have to be submitted to USEF by September, working backward from there one would assume that the DC would need all feedback by August 1 at the latest, so they can digest it and make any other changes to the proposal. That means GMOs will need to get member feedback by July 15, meaning that it should get out to the members somehow (newsletters, snail mail, email, GMO websites) by June 15 (most newsletters go out first of the month, I would guess--so that might be June 1). So this should probably get to the GMOs by May or sooner.

Feb. 18, 2008, 01:35 PM

They indicate that after they get the new draft done they will send it to the GMOs for comment.

I am not clear if the DC intends to send to the Presidents of the GMOs for comment or to the newsletter editors for publication? The difference here could be a couple months by the time average riders/membership see it in a newsletter and therefore not work within your projected timetable.

Will DC also release it in the WEEK IN REVIEW section on home page of usef.org? Or even on the USEF NEWS page http://www.usef.org/contentpage2.aspx?id=newsarchive ? This would most easily assure compliance with the "readibly available" obligations:

" 7) Disseminate and distribute, or otherwise make readibly available to equestrian athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials, in a timely manner the applicable rules and any such changes to such rules....." http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2008/02-bylaws.pdf page ii, article 7

rebecca yount

Feb. 18, 2008, 04:41 PM

It is my belief that the USEF Dressage Committee intends to send the draft to the GMO presidents for distribution and comment however the GMOs see fit.

Feb. 18, 2008, 04:57 PM

oh, I see. Here we go:

"... and feedback will be collected from potentially affected affiliates. In particular, the United States Dressage Federation (USDF), the national affiliate for dressage, will develop a communication network through its Group Member Organization (GMO) delegates and USDF Participating Member (PM) delegates this summer, which will allow for a more efficient system of communication and feedback to the Dressage Committee. Opportunities for further discussion of the proposal will be scheduled during the 2008 USDF Annual Convention in Denver, Colorado. " - January 15, 2008 release, para 3, http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/newsdisplay/viewPR.aspx?id=2744

Somewhat circuitous route when it could be first released on usef.org NEWS page as well.

canyonoak

Feb. 18, 2008, 08:07 PM

Circuitous? Well of course!

The USEF DC has already announced that all further communication from the rank and file must be to USDF through GMO's and the like.
This announcement codifies and authorizes that arrangement.

Efficient? I hardly think so.

But it will help prevent the PR nightmare that was created by the DC itself, and shield the DC from expenditures of time and energy spent reading through and replying to email,etc., that is basically in disagreement with their now well-entrenched viewpoint.

Feb. 19, 2008, 11:42 AM

*SIGH* Well then, I guess spending 20 years in Corporate War Rooms taught me something. One course might be to meet Rebecca's timetable in post 47:

1) Compose existing data Rebecca compiled into an article entitled something like, “ reviewing the potential law change.” Content would be entire data and also conclusions.

2) Indicate in article that previously existing data was requested from USEF DC and USDF but never produced. To the best of author's knowledge the data has been triple checked and is accurate, and was submitted for review and correction to USEF DC prior to this article’s publication.

3) Send article to both DC and USDF, asking them for a quote or two from them to be included in article.

4) Hold onto your hat as you wait. Indicate a deadline for article response since it needs to go to press, have deadline after the 3/16 Region 1 meeting date.

5) Be prepared to (a) revise, (b) delete entire article, or (c) release to GMO newsletters on May 1st. May 1st is a reasonable way to get data into June 1st or July 1st newsletters... as per the timetable. With this outline of course you could even be done April 1st.... a month early.

J-Lu

Feb. 20, 2008, 11:30 PM

ShotenStar and Rebecca,

Thanks for the updates and all your efforts!
The preliminary data and analysis is very interesting.

This however, is just :sigh:

The DC is aware of the discussions on the BBs, etc. and realized that they needed to look at the numbers themselves. So they had the 2007 data compiled and analyzed with similar results as what has been discussed here. This is a good thing - they actually looked at the entire year. I think they are not releasing the data at the moment because they don't want "too many cooks in the kitchen". But it may be released in the future. I agree that it's best when everyone openly releases their data upon request, but sometimes people want to get a handle on it themselves before releasing it to the public.

There likely will be a rider test as an alternative for those who don't have the option of attending many shows per year. THe number of "points" are being adjusted to be reasonable. The scores of people on WBs and non-WBs acted as 2007 "test subjects" to get an idea of how long it would take for people to gain scores. Public opinion has made a great impact on the course of this rule change! :yes:

I think they're also aware that GMOs aren't the ideal way to distribute the info, esp. since not every USEF/USDF member is a GMO member.

SGray

Feb. 21, 2008, 10:10 AM

The DC is aware of the discussions on the BBs, etc. and realized that they needed to look at the numbers themselves. So they had the 2007 data compiled and analyzed with similar results as what has been discussed here. This is a good thing - they actually looked at the entire year. I think they are not releasing the data at the moment because they don't want "too many cooks in the kitchen". But it may be released in the future. I agree that it's best when everyone openly releases their data upon request, but sometimes people want to get a handle on it themselves before releasing it to the public.......

or perhaps - as with data compiled by Shotenstar - the #s don't support any need for the rule?

canyonoak

Feb. 21, 2008, 10:57 AM

SGray

Feb. 21, 2008, 11:02 AM

I sincerely believe that ramrodding this rule through would be a breach of fiduciary duty -- $s would be spent without justification nor need

Touchstone Farm

Feb. 22, 2008, 11:27 PM

I sincerely believe that ramrodding this rule through would be a breach of fiduciary duty -- $s would be spent without justification nor need

Very good point.

rosinante

Feb. 23, 2008, 10:35 AM

My guess is that statistics and data do NOT support the premise for the proposal and the DC now knows this.

Incredibly, I think the hubris and egos are such that instead of simply dropping the proposal and moving on to more useful educational matters, the DC will continue to flog this silly and ignorant proposal.

Despite the fact that it no longer bears any resemblance to the original proposal.

Despite the fact that data proves how useless and meaningless the proposal is.

Despite the fact that most people do not want the proposal or see the need for the expenditure of money that surely will be caused by its implementation.

I can only shake my head at this other grandiose instruction to have USDF suddenly be the minion of the USEF DC.

I still believe that direct communication with the DC is the only way to conduct the debate so that it remains open and there is less chance for mis-communication.

This proposal is an EF decision, not a DF decision.

Why should USDF have to be the go-between?

IMHO.

Do not underestimate the power of the press. It was the Internet BB discussions that brought the rule to a stop...ok, postponement. So for the rule change to pass then, if I recall, the USEF rule change protocol says that (1) the problem must be clearly articulated, (2) that all alternatives must be considered and (3) that a rule change may not be the best solution.

So the data says there is no problem....although the USEF has already says "Dressage" can pass a qualifying rule if it so chooses....regardless of the facts.

So use the internet to highlight how the USEF DC is not following USEF rules.....let the discussion continue IN PUBLIC and perhaps someone may realize that perhaps the rule is not such a good idea.

The power of the press......a great thing......

slc2

Feb. 23, 2008, 11:45 AM

I don't think this is realistic. The organization has already said they will pass qualification, and also has said this is the beginning, and that later qualifications will be more demanding, it is only changed to make it easier to implement with less pushback from the members. I also think we're forgetting that they aren't in this to get rid of the 30%'s, 40%'s and 50%'s, but anything under 62%, and that will go up in the future.

rosinante

Feb. 23, 2008, 02:42 PM

ShotenStar

Feb. 23, 2008, 03:42 PM

...I also think we're forgetting that they aren't in this to get rid of the 30%'s, 40%'s and 50%'s, but anything under 62%, and that will go up in the future.

Unfortuantely, they can't "get rid of" poor performances. It is the nature of any performance activity to distribute results in a Bell Curve ... there will always be low, middle, and high performances.

This rule may, over time, shift where the Bell Curve lays out on the numeric scale, but it will not eliminate "poor performance" ... even in the Olympics, someone has to be last.

What this rule will do is stifle the inflow of new competitors to the sport. Yes, those who are left may be better, but there will be so few that the sport may no longer be viable. This is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences .....

*star*

rosinante

Feb. 23, 2008, 04:16 PM

slc2

Feb. 23, 2008, 04:59 PM

I think the organization's idea of this qualification is to keep people who score lower at training, first and second, from doing 3rd and 4th level. "Lower" being...what most people score.

Unfortunately, I don't think the stats can be used to draw the conclusion that the show sizes will diminish, especially if it does what I think it will do - cause a great many MORE people to stay at training, first and second level.

They aren't broken down by open/amateur, and they are just totals of scores for all levels, and I think the scores aren't the same for say, training, first, second and third level.

The statistic '96% of dressage test rides at shows are at training and intro level' comes from a few years ago, but included eventing competitions, and some other types (I don't recall which) that were more at intro and training. Even so, I'm very surprised that the stats show 30 % of rides at training level. It also doesn't include the count of rides at intro level, which I think is really substantial.

When I collected numbers, I wound up with TWO sets - one for 'elite' shows and one for 'small' shows. I also tried to break the numbers down by 'open' and 'amateur', and I feel the picture is a lot more complex than the numbers above indicate. The 'elite' shows had a higher percentage of rides at levels above intro and training, the 'small' shows had a much larger percent of rides at training and into; the amateurs had lower scores, the open ones had higher scores.

I also looked at 'scoring patterns', such as, how often was the winning score more than 10% higher than the 2nd place and third place score, how often were they clustered closely, how much of a spread is there from first to last place, which i think is also important; if there's one really strong score winning and a big gap to 2nd and 3rd and other placings, I think that's important. I also wanted to get the average score per class, instead of individual scores. I think it's really important to look at scoring and placement patterns.

I don't think the qualification will result in smaller and fewer shows, partly because some people just like to show, and they will always show. But also because I think thre are more tests done at intro and training than the above suggests, and that many people never go above those levels...and that this will cause MORE people to not go to third level.

But also because I think the qualification will change the nature of third and fourth level - dramatically.

It can also change the nature of first and second level. The tests may be made more difficult, and more collected movements may be introduced, and their real stepwise connection with the training process may get very blurry.

The judging of them may become very picky and artificial if there are dozens of very similarly-performing horse/rider teams to differentiate between.

Llike training level is now, quite often, with the horse supposed to not even be on the bit or hardly bending, but that not being AT ALL in reality what wins a class.

What qualification basically does, is cut off the connection between showing at the different levels, and progressing in one's training. The levels become more artificial and more cut off from the training process.

Third and 4th I think will become something that "I have a dream" folks simply can't do any more, I think it will wind up being like the FEI levels - sort of an impossible dream for most enthusiasts.

If they want to do it, they will have to contemplate getting alot of coaching, and possibly an already trained horse, to try for it with. I'm not sure what they will do, but they probably won't be able to qualify to do 3rd and 4th. It would become very expensive and only some riders will be able to afford it.

I think trainers will like it. They can lease older horses to people and allow them to show alot and get their qualification. It will become a whole science.

I think it will also make dressage much more of a business. possibly a lot more like the hunters, with a much larger 'captive audience' of riders working under trainers, leasing horses.

rosinante

Feb. 23, 2008, 07:47 PM

Unfortunately, I don't think the stats can be used to draw the conclusion that the show sizes will diminish, especially if it does what I think it will do - cause a great many MORE people to stay at training, first and second level.

They aren't broken down by open/amateur, and they are just totals of scores for all levels, and I think the scores aren't the same for say, training, first, second and third level.

Well...according to the stats provided, about 70% of the rides were Trg-2nd level....if one includes 3rd level you have 81% of the rides. Apply the proportions of the scores which says that about 50% of the rides were below ~61% and simple math says that 50% of 70% = 35%....

So taking this back-of-the-envelope calculation, one can roughly approximate that 35% of the riders would be excluded if the rule was in place....

Anyways you slice it, the future forebodes smaller shows and smaller show income for any organization that makes money off shows....unless it is made up via schooling shows.

Anyway you slice the data, there are the following conclusions:
(1)--The bulk of the competitors show Trg-2nd level
(2)--About 50% of those score below 60-62%

Do the math....it does not have to accurate to the 10th decimal place. The conclusion will be "directionally correct"...eg., the number of competitors qualified to show will go down.

If the DC really wants to send a message to riders, then let them get their own act together and instruct judges to score appropriately. The judges have 4 marks with which to do this: Marks of 0="movement not done", and 3 scores from 1 to 4 for various gradations of "you just don't get it"....let the judges use the judging scale and people will self-select out of levels they are not qualified to ride.

slc2

Feb. 23, 2008, 10:27 PM

rosinante

Feb. 24, 2008, 08:38 AM

I don't agree with that. I don't agree with your math. I don't feel the data looks the same when sliced different ways.

I feel the percentages, 30% at training level, aren't right. I don't feel that you can across the board, say the scoring patterns are the same for all levels, I don't feel you can count up all the scores for open and amateurs at all those levels, and then take your percentages that way, even if you're just talking training - 3rd. I didn't see it when I went thru scores, I also saw different scores for amateurs/open riders and for different levels, and for different types of dressage shows.

I also feel it's a good idea to look at scores per person, rather than per show or level.

"Feel" whatever you want to feel. The numbers are the numbers. Mathematically, you HAVE to take the numbers in their entirety to properly represent the population of riders.

I did not go thru scores, I took what shotenstar had posted. She said the data was normally distributed. I believe her. If so, the math is correct.

Do the math any way you want, the qualification rule will cut off a percentage of riders representing the bottom of the bell curve. Whether 30%, 20% or another % as the cut-off.....the numbers of qualified riders will go down.....slice it any way you want, the conclusion will be the same.....put a hard cut-off and the number of qualified riders will go down.

The question is whether those "unqualified" riders will continue to beat their heads agains a wall by showing below 3rd level or quit showing altogether, or switch disciplines...Maybe breed classes will create another "non-USEF/USEF" dressage classes that don't require qualifications, maybe low level horse trials will bloom....as SS said, there is "The Rule of Unintended Consequences".....and the DC has not taken time to consider their impact.

The DC's is the source of this problem. Let the judges score with 0-4 appropriately and people will self-select out of inapropirate levels. Based on the score analysis, the judges are not doing their job.

If the riding is so crappy that a qualifying rule is required, then the DC needs to step up to the plate and recognize the impact that inapropriate judging has had...it is THEY who are letting crappy riders up the levels.....kinda like giving a high school diploma for showing up.....

Besides, why have a RIDER qualifying rule based on a flawed judging system.....a system which is biased to score the horse's movement and uses only the scores of 4-8, when there is another 50% of the scale available?

slc2

Feb. 24, 2008, 09:21 AM

We seem to agree on some basic points, such that we have negative feelings about qualification.

As far as 'flawed judging system', I don't agree with you, I don't feel it's totally flawed. Judges do use all the marks. They always have. I don't see a problem there, except I think a lot of observers want judges to take off MORE points than they do, for example, we've had complaints here that if a horse drops behind the vertical, he should get a very bad score on every movement - at least 2 points off, with some arguing that every movement should get a zero or 1. And judges don't do that, so judges are bad. I think others feel they themselves don't get scored high ENOUGH....they want tends, nines and eights when they get fives, sixes and sevens. So they conclude judges don't use the full range of scores. I'm not sure that means judging is all bad and no one uses the range of marks.

Respectfully, my business is data, so I may look at it a little differently than other people do. I understand the math that I see, I'm saying the data somehow isn't complete.

I go to shows and have for a long time... and there are so many training level entries at show after show, somehow the numbers collected don't really represent that. I look at show results from other areas in the chronicle, of course, they show scores, but they only show the first few placings; they STILL show training level after training level class. The show results on usef.org results don't show scores any more, only placings, one has to go to a number of different searches to find all the info one needs.

I'll also refer back to the difference between elite and smaller recognized shows, amateurs and pros (and i think open riders at smaller shows are different from open riders at larger shows). I just see it a little differently than you do, I think that's alright, if i wander around in the data for a while i may agree with you then. If I have to agree with you on all points right away, or i get ripped a new one, please let me know. :winkgrin:

rebecca yount

Feb. 24, 2008, 09:40 AM

slc, the data IS complete. The data referred to by shotenstar, which she has pointed out, represents EVERY ride at EVERY recognized show at EVERY level in the US, for ALL regions, from Oct 1 2007 to November 30 2007. This is considered part of the 2008 competition year, which will go until September 30, 2008. The reason what we have now is only from 10/1 to 11/30 is that is what was so far available on the USDF website at the time we started the analysis.

I created the Excel spreadsheets myself.

I got the data from the USDF website. USDF also has this sort of raw data for other competition years. After it was observed what we were doing (which we were not keeping a secret but people come on this BB and then go back and report to the Dressage Committee members), the Dressage Committee instructed the USDF IT person to not send us the Excel spreadsheets for all of 2007, (which already exist because they did it for the DC). I have offered to pay for it.

I can get more data off the website. That is, of course, unless someone decides that we are getting too much information and removes the information from the website. I think that would be a big mistake, don't you?

The difference between what it SEEMS someone observes and what is actually confirmed by data analysis is WHY THIS PROBLEM EXISTS!!!

ShotenStar

Feb. 24, 2008, 10:06 AM

....
Respectfully, my business is data, so I may look at it a little differently than other people do. I understand the math that I see, I'm saying the data somehow isn't complete. .... :winkgrin:

The two people doing the analysis for Rebecca are also in the 'business of data' .... both with many years of working with large amounts of complex data in government and private industry. We, therefore, understand that part of the issue is that the questions to be examined and the data used in the analysis must be well-defined and well-stated. That is why I want to re-direct part of this conversation:

the requirements to achieve qualifying scores start at Third Level

The scoring patterns we have documented for Training and First Level are interesting, but are not relevant to the discussion of this rule proposal, other than to show that the scores of 30% and 40% are more common at Training and First.

The scoring patterns for Second Level are relevant only for 2-4 and its linkage to moving to Third Level.

Under this rule, people can show Training, First, and Second Levels to their hearts content; there is likely to be little impact on show attendance unless riders stage a boycott and refuse to show at all if the rule is implemented.

Where this rule will create noticeable impacts is on Third Level and Above entries. Riders who are currently muddling through 2-4 and taking a stab at Third will be excluded. The data already documents a decrease in the numbers of rides the higher up the levels you go; this will be more so if the rule is implemented. People with horses they want to start at Third Level may chose to drop out of showing rather than go through a series of 2-4 rides to get qualifying scores.

The more relevant question we need to ask the DC is: with half of all riders currently meeting the minimum score requirements, what is the value of the qualifying rule? How does this improve showing?

As for 'the data not being complete' .... the data set we are working on is every score from every Open Class in every USDF show held in Oct-Nov 2007. It includes large shows and small shows. It is a statistically representative sample and is normal, well-behaved data. If USDF were to agree to provide a year's worth of data, the Mean and Median of each level would not shift by any significant amount.

*star*

arnika

Feb. 24, 2008, 10:27 AM

Excellent replies Rebecca and SS.

The more relevant question we need to ask the DC is: with half of all riders currently meeting the minimum score requirements, what is the value of the qualifying rule? How does this improve showing?

Wasn't the conference call/meeting just this past week?

Has anyone heard anything further about it or any conclusions? Such as when the DC is going to actually send their updated proposal to the GMOs for their input and responses. My GMO doesn't meet for another couple of weeks.

slc2

Feb. 24, 2008, 11:15 AM

I disagree that scoring patterns for training, first, second are unimportant, because I think that shows alot about how many people will be able to qualify for third. I don't feel you can total up all scores and just average them out across the levels t-2nd. You do - it's ok for us to disagree. I am not trying to make you change your mind...I am just stating how it looks to me.

That data is collected and presented by the USEF, and includes all rides at all recognized shows? Thanks for describing where the data comes from and how it was created. If I am puzzled, I don't think that's anyone's fault, rebecca and shoten have done a ton of work on this and i haven't kept up with all they've done...i don't think i need to get jumped on about it, either. I'll try to figure out where the difference between the impression vs the data comes from. Maybe I'm remembering the past too much, and there were more training level rides proportionately in the past. I'm on the same page basically, that qualification is going to cause problems. Some feel fewer people will show...i feel that will happen to an extent, but that many will wind up sticking in first and second level...do we think that's what the organization...wants?

canyonoak

Feb. 24, 2008, 11:21 AM

One. Holland: 14,000 rides per weekend on average.

USA : 1 Oct - 31 Nov 2007, there 8,888 rides at USDF shows
rounding off to 9,000/8 weekends=
1125 rides on average

Two. Qualifying in Holland is a way to help shows that are vastly oversubscribed and has little do with improving riding standards.

When the USA is in this position of over-subscription to shows, then Im all for a qualifying standard as well.

Three. I plan to send the relevant data and my feelings to everyone at USEF and the DC,
as well as USDF. If the DC decide not to read the email, then so be it.

ShotenStar

Feb. 24, 2008, 11:30 AM

I disagree that scoring patterns for training, first, second are unimportant, because I think that shows alot about how many people will be able to qualify for third. How many will qualify makes a big difference in how it will affect t-2nd and 3rd-4th.

The scoring patterns for Training, First, and 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are interesting and relevant ... to other questions. Questions of progression up the levels, questions of quality/consistency of judging and training across the country, questions of Open vs Qualifying classes (for specific awards, i.e., BLM), questions of horse breed impact .... data hounds could entertain themselves for years looking at these kinds of questions (but, then, we tend to be easy to entertain ... a pretty spreadsheet is a thing of great beauty.)

This whole issue can turn into a huge (huger?) muddle unless we stay focused on the specifics of the rule, its value and relevance to the problems the DC seems to think exist. Once that issue is resolved in some fashion, we can have a party with the rest of questions ...

*star*

rebecca yount

Feb. 24, 2008, 11:36 AM

I sent you a private message. Thanks. ry

slc2

Feb. 24, 2008, 11:48 AM

Who is keeping data secret from who?

rebecca yount

Feb. 25, 2008, 07:49 AM

Hey Claire.

Can you please, before my head explodes, correct the typo in the title of this thread so it's "Performance", not "Preformance"? I adore the thread, but the title is driving me nuts.

For the love of God. Help me.

RY

Dressage Art

Feb. 25, 2008, 03:00 PM

For the love of God. Help me.
If you insist ;)
I just got the "Dressage Letters" magazine of California Dressage Society, GMO of USDF with more than 3000 members strong. Opposition of the rule will be happy to hear that the CDS board is also opposed to the rule and involved in stopping it.

With all of the work that you did compiling the show data - you might consider emailing CDS board your spreadsheet: http://www.california-dressage.org/html/directors_board.htm

PS: no, I'm still a supporter of the rule and no I have no desire to argue/discuss it, but I am impressed with your commitment and a plea for help ;)

Hidden Pond Farm

Feb. 25, 2008, 04:08 PM

Art, you are a class act:yes:

The web is such a powerful tool....Making the data and discussion about it public in a reputable way would be an interesting way to continue the debate. Perhaps GMOs could actually publish on their websites the data and subsequent discussion on how USDF/USEF could assist in moving their mission forward given the challenges that particular GMOs face based on their location and membership, whether that be judging, participation, facilities, etc.

Touchstone Farm

Feb. 25, 2008, 11:34 PM

I just read the latest issue of Dressage Connection, and I must admit, the steam was coming out of my ears. The comment about the qualifying rule being put in place for "humane" reasons just bugs me. IF this were about horse abuse, the rule would also encompass the intro and training levels. I look back at my beginnings in dressage and frankly it was terrible! My poor horse!! No, it seems to me the DC can't hang the reasons for this rule on being "humane" to our horses. If that truly was the case, as I've said before, it would be much better to put the resources toward education...not a punitive rule that comes into play "after the fact."

So, I'm looking forward to the DC's reason/problem statement. Perhaps I will be surprised and eat my words because they will supply indisputable proof that if we don't put this qualifying proposal in place, dressage and our "poor horses" will be doomed in the U.S. :-) I am someone who is much more persuaded by facts than anecdotes and opinions when it comes to business decisions, so I await their announcement. I'm just very puzzled as to why a qualifying rule is essential to our sport at this time.

Keep up the good work, Rebecca, ShotenStar and others. I'm sure other GMOs besides CDS will be against this as well, if the numbers continue to play out as you have found initially.

eurofoal

Feb. 26, 2008, 02:43 PM

I just read the latest issue of Dressage Connection, and I must admit, the steam was coming out of my ears. The comment about the qualifying rule being put in place for "humane" reasons just bugs me. IF this were about horse abuse, the rule would also encompass the intro and training levels. I look back at my beginnings in dressage and frankly it was terrible! My poor horse!! No, it seems to me the DC can't hang the reasons for this rule on being "humane" to our horses. .

In my letter to the powers that be, one of my points was that any 7 year old on a pony can put in a curb bit (some of them with tie-downs, yeeeks), saddle up and ride off into the sunset. I know that the whole "dressage is an Olympic sport" proponents are getting their panties in a wad over the comparison, but, really, why should medium and upper level riders in OUR sport be the only ones subject to such balderwash?

I competely agree that if the riding is so terrible (which it doesn't appear to be, since a 5 is sufficient and nearly everybody rides above a 50%), then teach us to be better, don't punish in retrospect for those with the temerity to saddle up and show at 3rd or above.

ShotenStar

Feb. 26, 2008, 03:46 PM

I just got my copy of Dressage Connections, and got my jaw locked by this paragraph:

USDF Connections, March 2008, pg 6, para 6
Score requirements increase for year-end awards
by Peggy Klump, Awards Council Chair

"It has become clear to the BOG that the level of USDF award winners' competency is very high. The top 20 ranked horses at all levels and divisions show quite impressive scores. The BOG's approval of the increased scores requirements continues the trend of "raising the bar" as a time-tested way of encouraging and promoting improved performance in the dressage arena."

So, we are doing wonderfully well, so well in fact that the standards for awards have to be raised ..... but we are also abusing horses by getting (mostly non-existent) low scores. Can you say "mixed message?" Of course you can.

I'm all for the year end awards having qualifying score requirments ... got no problem with that at all / think it's a good thing for the individual rider to choose to pursue ..... it's mandatory qualifying scores before being allowed to move up that is making my teeth grind. And this sort of mixed mesage is going to make my head explode.

I think I'll slap the full bridle on and head out onto the trails, maybe chase a few deer. No wait, that's abusive because I don't have the qualifying scores to be allowed to use the double. :mad:

*star*

slc2

Feb. 26, 2008, 06:13 PM

"if the riding is so terrible " i don't think that's the goal of qualification at all, to get rid of really bad scores. That may be said by the organization to get sympathy for their actions...a very ordinary way to get people to agree with one's agenda.

rebecca yount

Feb. 26, 2008, 07:02 PM

CLAIRE---

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! I feel so much better now.

claire

Feb. 27, 2008, 09:05 AM

You are very welcome Rebecca! :lol: (Sorry for the typo!)

You make ME feel a lot better knowing that you and Shoten Star are working on the stastistics to back up the case against the rule for performance qualifications.

From a purely business point, I am just frustrated with how out of touch the USDF and USEF are with their base.

Another example: The e-mail from USDF re: the incentive to re-new membership by March?

"Members who renew before March 31 will be included in a drawing for $100 off the cost to train with Olympic medalist Debbie McDonald at Scotland’s Gleneagles Hotel!!"

Yup, ONE lucky person will receive a $100 off a $6K package! :rolleyes:

No matter, I am sure they feel the majority of the membership who make over $80K would jump at this fantastic incentive to renew. :winkgrin:

rebecca yount

Feb. 27, 2008, 11:50 AM

JUST TO CLARIFY:

Those of us working on data analyses aren't necessarily working "to back up the case AGAINST the rule for performance qualifications".

We are analyzing data to try and look at what appears to be a reasonable statement of the problem and then to address a reasonable solution of the problem, based on data. We also feel it is important to have objective data analysis which will hopefully confirm the correctness of whatever data analysis will presumably eventually be revealed by the Dressage Committee of USEF. If it is at odds with their analysis, we think that's an important piece of information.

If it turns out that the data DO support creation of some type of performance standards, we will say so. Like the good scientists we are, we don't have any pre-conceived ideas of what the data will show. What we have been reporting here are the facts based on data as our analyses are completed.

We wanted to make that perfectly clear.

slc2

Feb. 27, 2008, 11:58 AM

What data would support a qualification system, and what data wouldn't?

claire

Feb. 27, 2008, 12:13 PM

Rebecca,
I guess I should have said that for or against the rule proposal, I am glad that someone is investigating the actual statistics/scores in an objective and open manner to better define the core issue.

Hopefully, due consideration will then be given to the best solutions to address the issue.

Instead of pushing through a rule proposal based on seemingly nothing but a few board member's individual experience, and no consideration for "unintended consequences".

Feb. 27, 2008, 12:25 PM

...pushing through a rule proposal based on seemingly nothing but a few board members individual experience, and no consideration for "unintended consequences".

I don't know what individual experience that would be exactly. Whoever is driving this bus knows what they want, understands the conseqeunces, they just haven't been able to articulate it in public.

So, for me, I have to take a close look at special interests. Certianly there doesn't seem to be intentions of actually producing better riders. Who in their right mind would wait til third level to address poor riding skills and inhumane use of horses? Wouldn't you want to fix that before the rider gets anywhere near a double bridle and a curb chain???

claire

Feb. 27, 2008, 01:08 PM

sm,
Individual experience would be the USDF DC's stated reason(s) for the Performance Standards Rule Proposal, bad riding at Third Level and above which is abusive to the horse.

No supporting statistics, just subjective statements.

I would just like to see the USEF DC objectively define the core issue and then follow the USEF guidelines for submitting rule changes:

How to Submit Proposed Rule Changes GR342

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 many 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.

Eclectic Horseman

Feb. 27, 2008, 01:51 PM

The Dressage Committee is looking and sounding very much like the Bush Adminstration justifying the Iraq war. All they need is a few satellite photos of bad riding at third level. :lol:

Seriously, it sounds as though the decision has been made based on some personal, subjective beliefs, and they are now trying to sell that decision by saying whatever they think will be persuasive. :no:

slc2

Feb. 27, 2008, 03:12 PM

I don't think so. I think they made it VERY clear - and it has nothing to do with really bad scores, horse abuse or bad use of the double bridle. it's not aimed at getting bad, poor or even mediocre rides., out of third and 4th level.

The double bridle, the horse abuse, the rider at too high a level scoring 30, 40, these are emotional arguments that are trotted out to make qualification more appealing and to get people to agree to it - because everyone knows that those subjects are EXTREMELY hot hot buttons for so many people who view dressage as an art.

I don't believe that qualification has anything to do with these things. At all.

SGray

Feb. 27, 2008, 03:17 PM

......So, for me, I have to take a close look at special interests. Certianly there doesn't seem to be intentions of actually producing better riders. Who in their right mind would wait til third level to address poor riding skills and inhumane use of horses? Wouldn't you want to fix that before the rider gets anywhere near a double bridle and a curb chain???

only ones I can see that might benefit would be "r" judges

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:05 PM

hmmmm. This can't be good, I'm missing your point entirely:

requirements for obtaining "r" Status
http://www.usef.org/documents/licensedOfficials/LicenseForms/Dressage-Recorded.pdf

requirements for obtaining "R" Status
http://www.usef.org/documents/licensedOfficials/LicenseForms/Dressage-Registered.pdf

Cowgirl

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:05 PM

Ugh. I remember when they were justifying the rule change to allow the double at third level. There was a hue and cry about potential abuse of the double. The USEF wanted it because the double is allowed in many second level classes in Germany and it was felt that our top riders needed it to become more competitive internationally. There was an article in DT and a little lecture on the "On the Levels" tape, and both said (and I can't remember if it was Cathy Connelly or Anne Gribbons or both) that the double at third would allow some amateur riders who had older schoolmasters to be able to ride their schoolmasters more easily because many of those horses go better in a double than a snaffle.

Now they are saying that the amateurs are abusing the privilege.

A simple solution to this perceived "problem" would be to allow the double at second or third in the Open classes only. That wouldn't cost anyone anything. If an amateur wanted to compete with the double, they'd have to be good enough to compete with the pros.

But I don't think the reasons given for either allowing the double or the qualifications rule are the REAL reasons because the solution for it is simple and their proposed solution is difficult, cumbersome, expensive and burdensome. So there must be a hidden agenda. And yes, I do feel it is fiscally irresponsible to push through such a burdensome system without data to back up why it is needed.

By the same token, they are willing to exempt the young riders from the qualifications rule so that they can leap up the levels and then be the next generation of trainers without having established the basics themselves.

SGray

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:07 PM

hmmmm, this can't be good. I'm missing your point entirely:

requirements for obtaining "r' Status
http://www.usef.org/documents/licensedOfficials/LicenseForms/Dressage-Recorded.pdf

requirements for obtaining "R' Status
http://www.usef.org/documents/licensedOfficials/LicenseForms/Dressage-Registered.pdf

'r' judges might get more jobs if there are more second level and below rides due to restrictions on moving up

that's all I meant

rosinante

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:10 PM

I just got my copy of Dressage Connections, and got my jaw locked by this paragraph:

USDF Connections, March 2008, pg 6, para 6
Score requirements increase for year-end awards
by Peggy Klump, Awards Council Chair

"It has become clear to the BOG that the level of USDF award winners' competency is very high. The top 20 ranked horses at all levels and divisions show quite impressive scores. The BOG's approval of the increased scores requirements continues the trend of "raising the bar" as a time-tested way of encouraging and promoting improved performance in the dressage arena."

Give Ms Klump & the BOG a Nobel Prize for mathematics...based on that logic, then the USDF should just continue to "raise the bar" until the only qualified people will be the 20 riders that she so lauds....talk about small shows....

From Wikipedia
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions,
manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that
furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.--- Garth S. Jowett and
Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion

Propaganda...a stronger variant of marketing or persuasion...that is all the USDF article is doing....say it enough times and so it will be.

So who are the vested powers here? I can't believe that the rest of the DC sits there like potted plants and lets JBF run over them....so who else is pushing this agenda?

ShotenStar

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:28 PM

The Dressage Committee is looking and sounding very much like the Bush Adminstration justifying the Iraq war. All they need is a few satellite photos of bad riding at third level. :lol:

Snort ! Love it !

RY and I have debated the why's of this at length. The explanation that we have devised that best fits the behavior observed is that the DC wants to shift the entire curve to the right: all scores at all shows will be high scores because only 'the best' riders will be competing.

Rather than a nice bell curve that looks like this:

......... ../\
........ ./ .. \
...... ./ ......\
..... / ........ .\
.. ./ .......... . \
./................. \
40-50-60-70-80 %

They want to create one that looks like this:

.............. .../\
................./. \
................/. . \
.............../ ... .\
40-50-60-70-80 %

That's great if you are discussing selection trials for international competition .... but it pretty much cuts out the rest of us, who ride for the fun / intellectual stimulation that dressage represents for us. If they want the sport to be exclusive, they are certainly on the right track with this rule.

*star*
edited because I didn't pay attention to the stick drawing lessons ....

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:28 PM

'r' judges might get more jobs if there are more second level and below rides...

You may be on to something. Also the "R" judges would get more jobs, atleast at third level. Makes sense actually... DC taking care of their friends --- and could account for the clear lack of any lucid explanation to date from the DC. I hope this is not the case, but it does make perfect sense.

ShotenStar and RY have a nice theory going too in Post #97. But I would have to change ShotenStar's observation to only the best HORSES would be competing. I had a great trainer who would score so much higher with WBs then with my TB in the upper level tests... the horses were beautifully trained and ridden by the same professional rider. Nothing to do with the training or the riding skills or prepping the horses well enough.

SGray

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:37 PM

.......That's great if you are discussing selection trials for international competition .... but it pretty much cuts out the rest of us, who ride for the fun / intellectual stimulation that dressage represents for us. If they want the sport to be exclusive, they are certainly on the right track with this rule.

*star*

totally agree

if DC wants to wipe out half or more of the riders and trainers and shows in this country........they are on their way

if the DC is embarassed by low scores at CDIs then they need to institute their precious qualifiers at that level

if the DC truly thinks there is abusive riding at shows then they need to jump on show management, TDs and judges to take action against abusive riders

if the DC has some unknown motive then they should 'fess up

SGray

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:41 PM

ya know, don't shoot the cattle because coyotes killed one of your sheep

I just want to see some emperical evidence to back up the DC's nebulous claims -- and from the defensiveness and/or high-handedness some of the responses from on high have been, I just don't think they have any

rosinante

Feb. 27, 2008, 05:49 PM

Anyone who has studied propaganda....er, marketing.....knows how to manipulate opinions.

Again, courtesy of Wikipedia

Techniques
Disinformation:
The creation or deletion of information from public records....hmmm, bring back memories of the deletion or records from USDF web site?

Argumentum ad nauseam:
This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth.....hmmmm...restatements/repetitions lauding the merits of "raising the bar" by Connections Mag?

And finally when all else fails, when there is no argument to argue, attack the individual....

Ad Hominem:
A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments....we'll see when the personal attacks against Dr. Yount start.

Feb. 27, 2008, 06:03 PM

yes well, as SGray put it, "I just want to see some emperical evidence to back up the DC's nebulous claims. "

rosinante

Feb. 27, 2008, 06:08 PM

yes well, as SGray put it, "I just want to see some emperical evidence to back up the DC's nebulous claims. "

And my point is that there is no empirical evidence, otherwise we would have seen it.....so others means will have to be employed to get the qualification rule to fly.

People don't like to feel like they are being manipulated, so this will be an interesting discussion between now and when this matter gets voted on.

canyonoak

Feb. 27, 2008, 07:19 PM

from Cowgirl:

<<I remember when they were justifying the rule change to allow the double at third level. There was a hue and cry about potential abuse of the double. The USEF wanted it because the double is allowed in many second level classes in Germany.... There was an article in DT and a little lecture on the "On the Levels" tape, and both said (and I can't remember if it was Cathy Connelly or Anne Gribbons or both) that the double at third would allow some amateur riders who had older schoolmasters to be able to ride their schoolmasters more easily because many of those horses go better in a double than a snaffle.

Now they are saying that the amateurs are abusing the privilege.....

...By the same token, they are willing to exempt the young riders from the qualifications rule so that they can leap up the levels and then be the next generation of trainers without having established the basics themselves.>>

Thank you, Cowgirl.

I knew there was some 'exemption' to the use of the double that made me fall over laughing when I read the original proposal.

I know I have prejudice and preconception; nevertheless, all I am getting from the argument over the double is--the EDUCATION in Germany is such that riders have classes at around Second Level which demand use of the double, as well as classes which require the snaffle.

So once again...we are back to education instead of edicts.

claire

Feb. 27, 2008, 07:20 PM

RY and I have debated the why's of this at length. The explanation that we have devised that best fits the behavior observed is that the DC wants to shift the entire curve to the right: all scores at all shows will be high scores because only 'the best' riders will be competing.

That's great if you are discussing selection trials for international competition .... but it pretty much cuts out the rest of us, who ride for the fun / intellectual stimulation that dressage represents for us. If they want the sport to be exclusive, they are certainly on the right track with this rule.

Yet, it seems that the USEF DC feels that it can be an "exclusive club" and still maintain the membership levels and the recognized show participation TL-2ndL. (Especially, with such membership renewal incentives, like the $100 off a 6K clinic in Scotland with Debbie McDonald to ONE lucky winner :rolleyes: )

I just cannot believe they are so out of touch with who/what is fiscally driving their organization. :confused:

At present, many shows cannot support both Amateur and Open divisions in classes 3rdL and above. By limiting rides even further in these classes,
many smaller shows may not be able to even offer these classes.

And while there will always be those who have the $$$/time/drive to continue to show pursuing qualifications to move up...
How many more will decide that enough is enough and they are better served spending their $$$ and time on lessons and clinics and volunteering/showing at local unrecognized shows?

How will this affect GMO's?
How many shows will be cancelled?
How many will not renew memberships?
How many will choose to volunteer at local clubs/venues offering unrecognized shows?

slc2

Feb. 27, 2008, 07:40 PM

I think it's quite possible that the previous posts are right on track. But why do that?

Well, because the USEF wants to have their shows all be elite level shows for professionals and wealthy owners, sort of like show jumpers are in a way. The GMO's can put on local or schooling shows, and let people ride at whatever level they want in those, and administer all sorts of local awards.

I actually think the GMO's would very much like it. They'd stand to make a lot of money. This would cater to the biggest most active GMO's. None of the others would have the resources or man power.

claire

Feb. 27, 2008, 07:40 PM

Re: Unintended Consequences.

worst case scenario:
mass exodus to schooling shows.
USEF no longer allows its tests to be used at schooling shows and copyrights the tests in reverse.
USEF no longer allows licensed judges to judge schooling shows.
USEF eventually expands qualification to include 2nd level (as originally proposed).

best case scenario:
it doesn't pass.
national levels continue as they are.
judges get a little bolder w/ the scoring.
the FEI imposes a worldwide, one-size-fits-all qualification standard for FEI tests, OR, just for CDIs and simply stops allowing use of its tests at national shows."

arnika

Feb. 27, 2008, 10:23 PM

slc and Ellie K may have something here. If they allow the present trainers, judges and YRs to skip the new qualifying requirements yet make it much more difficult for the average ammy or owner to ride their horses up the levels, I can foresee two possible scenarios. One - the ammy/owners desert USDF in droves; Two - the ammy/owners give up on riding their own horses under the tutelage of the trainers and just hire the pro rides. Especially if the USEF makes the tests unavailable. Voila' just like the hunter/showjumper scene.

Much more power, money and influence for the "in" crowd.

Of course, there is the possibility that I'm just suspicious and paranoid!:D

Eclectic Horseman

Feb. 28, 2008, 08:52 AM

You know, in some ways I hate to say it, but although there is a tremendous amount of riding knowledge in the USEF and the DC, these are not necessarily the most intelligent, educated or the most articulate people in general. Whatever their reasons are...not only may they not be supported by evidence, they may not even be rational.

Reading JFB's rants, it is easy to draw this conclusion. Even when backed into a corner, they will never admit the possibility that they are wrong.

On another subject that was hotly debated here, did everyone read Cindy Sydnor's response to letters to the editor of DT regarding her "take out a loan to buy a better horse" article? There was one quote that said it all for me...."I bought every horse that I ever had except for the three that were given to me." :lol: Alrighty then!

My signature line says it all. :no:

SGray

Feb. 28, 2008, 09:59 AM

Yet, it seems that the USEF DC feels that it can be an "exclusive club" and still maintain the membership levels and the recognized show participation TL-2ndL. .........
I just cannot believe they are so out of touch with who/what is fiscally driving their organization. :confused:

At present, many shows cannot support both Amateur and Open divisions in classes 3rdL and above. By limiting rides even further in these classes,
many smaller shows may not be able to even offer these classes........

good point there - perhaps the DCers think that, if the majority of AAs are showing below third level then they can make whatever rules they choose for 3rd+ and it won't hurt the bottom line re membership in USDF/USEF

I strongly disagree but can see a kind of twisted logic there

Hidden Pond Farm

Feb. 28, 2008, 10:15 AM

I believe the conference call among USEF Dressage Committee (DC) members is this week. .....

This has been a fascinating, engaging discussion! Maybe I missed it, but has there been any news about outcomes from this conference call that was supposed to happen a few weeks ago?

rebecca yount

Feb. 28, 2008, 10:32 AM

SGray

Feb. 28, 2008, 10:45 AM

I have today been given the following information re the USEF Dressage Committee's conference call:

"The standards subcommittee has had their call and have worked out a new draft, based on the official statistics. This draft will be given to the entire DC next week. Upon their review, Cindy Vimont at USDF will send the draft and the OFFICIAL statistics out to all GMO President's, PM delegates and Regional Directors."

ahhhh the OFFICIAL statistics

Karnak predicts that they will be quite different from what RY and SStar have shown us (with total transparency and no hidden agenda)

SGray

Feb. 28, 2008, 10:56 AM

Karnak further predicts that the data underlying the Official Statistics will not be released for parsing by non-Official personages

ShotenStar

Feb. 28, 2008, 11:32 AM

Karnak is wise and all-seeing.

*star*

Hidden Pond Farm

Feb. 28, 2008, 11:48 AM

OFFICIAL statistics....too funny.

Well, I'll be staying tuned to see how the interpretations compare. It would be great if the DC would post on the USEF website (it is the USEF dressage committee that has the agenda, right?) the OFFICIAL data along with a discussion of the problem.

A bit offtrack....I'm reminded of a movie my kids used to love...Cool Runnings. Anyone seen it? It tells the story of the Jamaican bobsled team. Part of the plot involves the team captain, Sanka, always comparing their style to the Germans. In fact, he insists they adapt the same count the Germans use to get into the sled, and slap each other on the helmets and even walk in line like the Germans. They fail miserably trying to adapt to the German style of doing all things bobsled. They finally succeed, however, when they embrace their culture and their own country as they also develop in their sport.

As the DC moves forward in it's deliberations, it would be good to keep that story in mind......

SGray

Feb. 28, 2008, 12:09 PM

note - from USDF Policies and Procedures "The USDF Executive Board shall coordinate with USEF.......e)appoint 60% of the USEF Dressage Committee.....

that's for 2008 -- in theory at least, what members express to USDF can make a difference to USEF DC

yaya

Feb. 28, 2008, 01:37 PM

Do you think they would listen if we asked them to appoint a few lower-level ammies to the DC? (Just to get a little different perspective on the committee)

SGray

Feb. 28, 2008, 02:21 PM

I have today been given the following information re the USEF Dressage Committee's conference call:

"The standards subcommittee has had their call and have worked out a new draft, based on the official statistics. This draft will be given to the entire DC next week. Upon their review, Cindy Vimont at USDF will send the draft and the OFFICIAL statistics out to all GMO President's, PM delegates and Regional Directors."

I wonder if the standards subcommittee had the same folks analyze the data as those who gave us "facts and statistics" such as "92% increase in the horses competing at USDF recognized shows " (that is from http://www.usdf.org/press/facts-stats/index.asp -- just hangs out there without any parameters -- come on now, 92% increase since WHEN???)

Feb. 28, 2008, 02:26 PM

GMOs could informally ask for the source and all pertaining data be turned over for general membership review re Official Statistics . If CDS is against a rule change, as mentioned earlier in this thread, maybe their board will do the honors. Then we'd know if it requires a formal vote to get access to source data:

ARTICLE XIV, MEMBER INITIATIVE, Section 1, page 23:
Whenever at least 30% of the Participating Members or at least 20% of the Group Member Organizations indicate by written request to the Executive Board that an action be taken, or that an action be discontinued, the Executive Board shall submit such request to the current Presidents of each Group Member Organization and to each current Participating Member by mail ballot. Such ballot shall be mailed not less than fifteen days prior to the last date on which such ballots must be returned. https://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/Bylaws.pdf

Whisper

Feb. 28, 2008, 03:51 PM

I just joined recently, and haven't recieved "Dressage Connections" yet. I did get the CDS newsletter, and the President devoted most of her monthly column, and a big chunk of her report on the Convention to the issue.

Even if the DC is correct that it is a substantial problem, I disagree that the qualification scheme is a good way to address it. Requiring a sign-off from the judge in 2-3 dressage eq. classes, or 2-3 rider scores of at least 7 would at least relate to the riders' ability. Some excellent movers can score well in spite of a mediocre ride, and that doesn't mean that the rider is now qualified to show a green horse at 3rd.

Night of Songs

Feb. 28, 2008, 04:03 PM

I can foresee two possible scenarios. One - the ammy/owners desert USDF in droves; Two - the ammy/owners give up on riding their own horses under the tutelage of the trainers and just hire the pro rides.

In regards to scenario number two, the end result would be number one. For many the journey in dressage is the progress riding their horse. Trail riding would bring these riders more enjoy then paying to watch on the sidelines.

A decline in membership would result in a loss of shows and decreased judging and possibly clinic assignments. An unrecognized, unintended consequence by the DC?

"The standards subcommittee has had their call and have worked out a new draft, based on the official statistics..... will send the draft and the OFFICIAL statistics out to all GMO President's, PM delegates and Regional Directors."Would not all the GMO's still have in their possession, copies of the results of the scores of their recognized shows for 2007 (and previous years)? Often results are posted on GMO websites for quite awhile.... Is this information considered proprietary by the USDF/GMO's? Would our spreadsheet crunchers/Dr. Y be able to request copies of these results be sent directly to them to complete the 2007 results database?

Just a thought....

ShotenStar

Feb. 28, 2008, 04:23 PM

...

Would not all the GMO's still have in their possession, copies of the results of the scores of their recognized shows for 2007 (and previous years)? Often results are posted on GMO websites for quite awhile.... Is this information considered proprietary by the USDF/GMO's? Would our spreadsheet crunchers/Dr. Y be able to request copies of these results be sent directly to them to complete the 2007 results database?

Just a thought....

The data is actually posted on the USDF website -- by Region and then by show. It is quite tedious to copy-and-paste all the data for something like 850 shows. It would have been so much easier to get one large flat file from USDF, but that's not going to happen. So, we are doing it the hard way. The analysis we have done so far is based on the 1 Oct - 31 Nov segment of the data, which is a statistically representative chunk of data.

*star*

Night of Songs

Feb. 28, 2008, 04:37 PM

Thank you for your hard work *Star*! :yes:

I was hoping some of the GMO's might be able to forward you the Jan-Sept 07 results in excel format. I know about cutting and pasting data.... (where's a barf smiley when you need one...). Ridiculous that the file from USDF cannot be made available for independent verification!

The GMO in our area does not hold recognized shows at all, so the only local effect would be if they eventually forbid use of the tests or hiring recognized judges from doing schooling shows. It seems that the latter would be a restriction of trade though.

NoS

Cowgirl

Feb. 28, 2008, 09:44 PM

[QUOTE=Night of Songs;3041431]A decline in membership would result in a loss of shows and decreased judging and possibly clinic assignments. An unrecognized, unintended consequence by the DC?[QUOTE]

I don't know about your regions, but we have already been experiencing a decline consistent with the economy. Our shows, which used to be oversubscribed, are now very undersubscribed. Making a rule that would burden an already burdened population would likely end up being the death knell for some of our shows. One of the things they should be looking at, in their quest to make small classes even smaller, is whether or not dressage showing has been growing. I personally don't think it has, but I don't have the stats to bear it out.

rebecca yount

Feb. 29, 2008, 07:23 AM

Keep this thread going, but also refer to other new thread entitled PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/Regional Meetings/GMOs.

yaya

Feb. 29, 2008, 08:08 AM

You know, shows are required by USEF to keep all records for three years. Most show managers nowadays are using Fox Village. I believe Fox Village can export a report to Excel.

Maybe you can get your data more easily by going to the show managers? (Many do multiple shows.)

SGray

Feb. 29, 2008, 09:42 AM

another is showsecretary.com

ShotenStar

Feb. 29, 2008, 10:15 AM

Since the Dressage Committee already has their undies in a bunch that we are even daring to do this analysis, I would like to keep the data as 'pure' as possible ... that is, only working from the published information on the USDF website.

FYI: if there are other data hounds out there who want to play in this sandbox, have at it. While the data is tedious to copy and paste, it is do-able. If you do your own analysis, you will in a better informed position to discuss this with your own GMO.

And to repeat what RY has said: we don't have ownership of one particular answer -- what we want is a data-driven review of the current state of affairs and a data-driven decision process, including procedures for re-evaluating the situation one or two years post-rule implementation to determine the impact.

*star*

SGray

Feb. 29, 2008, 10:33 AM

from http://www.showsecretary.com/Results_2004.asp?Year=2007&Show_ID=119&class_Date=01/19/2008

the results of the HDS show the AAs would not be getting from 2nd-4 too quickly under proposed rule

24A
USEF SECOND LEVEL, TEST FOUR - AMATEUR

C: Marlene Schneider

1 56.667%
2 56.429%
3 53.333%
0 scratch
24J
USEF SECOND LEVEL, TEST FOUR - JUNIOR

C: Marlene Schneider
1 65.952%
2 59.762%
3 57.619%
4 55%
5 52.381%
24O
USEF SECOND LEVEL, TEST FOUR - OPEN

C: Marlene Schneider
1 63.333%
2 61.667%
3 61.429%
4 60%
5 57.381%
6 55.952%

canyonoak

Feb. 29, 2008, 10:38 AM

Has anyone pursued requesting the desired show results data from USDF?

Through GMO or other viable means?

WHY and HOW is it possible that USDF can withold requested data?

freestyle2music

Feb. 29, 2008, 11:02 AM

The problem is when you start juggling with results, without being on the spot, you end up nowhere :
Have a look at the ongoing International Youngster Competition at Roosendaal
Holland these days.

http://www.thomputer.net/paardensportnederland/2008/Roosendaal2/results/021-res.htm

and it will get worse at the Youngriders.....believe me.

This all has to do with Marriette Withages magic word "globalisation" . Offcourse judges from banana-republics have to get a chance, but please don't base your mathematic schedules on it. Make sure you be on the spot yourself.

rebecca yount

Feb. 29, 2008, 11:46 AM

I have requested the complete 2007 show results data several times from USDF, and have offered to pay for it (because it cost someone time to put the data from show results into Excel--it's time-consuming).

It just is not going to be given to us right now. I have been told that the draft of the proposal that is going to GMOs pretty soon will have statistical information in it.

jgrass

Mar. 1, 2008, 01:53 PM

For what it's worth, I've got complete show results for VADA/Nova Licensed (or "Recognized") shows and Schooling Shows from 2004-2007 posted online at:

http://www.vadanova.org/show/Archive/index.html

and there are partial results from 2000-2003 (missing some shows). Formats vary. Recent years are in PDFs, going back some there are HTML and MS Word files. Download and analyze to your heart's content.

I've been handling all of these files while reworking the site. I can't say anything in particular has jumped out at me in the scores over these years. There isn't anything obviously different in the number of entries or spread of the scores that your see from casual observation. You'd have to do the actual statistical analysis.

I've also had to handle all the file pertaining to the chapter's Year End Awards and there the differences do leap out at you: http://www.vadanova.org/membership/awards/index.html

It takes a lot higher average score now than it did a few years ago to actually get a Championship or Reserve Year End Award at either Schooling or Licensed shows than it did a few years ago, and there are a lot more people applying for those awards. I don't know why things have changed here. It could be simply a matter of how the chapter has publicized the awards.

So: If you'd like more data... here it is for at least one corner of the Area I world.

rebecca yount

Mar. 1, 2008, 02:02 PM

Thank you, jgrass.

All of it helps.

ec412

Mar. 2, 2008, 10:58 AM

Rebecca, Thanks for all your work and bringing this to the forefront. I must admit though I am still confused about the concern over the rule proposals. I have read every posting here, and the new one you started. I know that many of the people concerned are ones that all ready are qualified, so it is apparent it is not just sour grapes. I have looked at the statistics presented although I am no statistician, I am still not making the connection on the problem and want to understand.

Isn't showing supposed to "confirm" the rider and horses progression?
Are we not supposed to "show" one level below what we are training at?

The double is being left in at third level as an option, and as long as the rider is using the bridle appropriately then it is fine-It is my understanding that the judges are asked to use the rider score section to punish a rider not ready for the double.

It appears that some are concerned about not having flashy horses that receive higher scores due to their gates, however won't most of that just show up in the collective marks? Doesn't correct training and proper execution of the movement improve all horses gaits to the best of their abilities?

If the stats are correct and show a large portion of the AA's are showing at training through second level, then this proposal should not affect the attendance or "stifle the inflow of new competitors" as suggested by some.

Quite honestly, there are a few riders in my region that are showing at first scoring low 50's, and then showing at 2nd, scoring 40's and 50's. They have a really nice horse, so it is not the horses issue or problem here. I am sure I will see them next year at third level. My question to the rider (and well known local trainer) would be why? If you are not scoring at mid to high 60's why are you moving up?

I personally instituted the qualification system for myself. I am not talking about one or two bad rides because your horse blew up in the arena and you lost the rest of the test. I am talking about consistancy in the scores received. Why would anyone continue to show at a level where they are getting 30's and 40's???

Is there concern over the judges being tougher on us AA's? I saw the post regarding Marlene Schneider- it appears from the scores that she was tougher on the AA's, however is it possible, the rides deserved the scores given? I have personally riden for MS many times, and did not see that type of discrepancy.

This year, it might be interesting for me to enter in the AA and open divisions to see if there is a big difference in my score-if it goes up, or goes down-of course the rides would need to be similar.

The only riders I see this hurting or impacting is ones that spend the big bucks on a made horse and want to compete at the higher levels without ever learning the basics or going through the levels? This would prevent new people to the sport that buy their way to the upper levels.

I find it interesting that I can receive my bronze medal by riding two 3rd level tests and receiving a 60%. It only has to be at 3-1, I would think that at least one of those rides would need to be at 3-3. I certainly plan on taking advantage of it this year though-one more score to go!

I am not trying to start an argument, just truly trying to understand the concern about the rule change, as I know it will affect all of us, and before committing to a decision about it, would really like to understand the full impact this would have on the sport.

rebecca yount

Mar. 2, 2008, 11:27 AM

What we want is for the problem to be defined according to valid and reliable DATA, and the proposed solution to be based on that. What we have seen so far is no clear problem statement and no clear statement of a solution based on data.

We have a problem with rules that are based on what people "think" or "feel" they see. Yes, of course everyone sees crappy riding from time to time. But how often, how crappy, by what sort of people and then what do those people end up doing about it? Do they keep showing? Really? Then there should be data to back that up.

I think most USEF and USDF members would agree that 0.02% or even 0.2% of rides in the entire country that score in the 30s or 40s just doesn't justify making up all kinds of complicated rules and qualifying criteria (and there ARE already rules in place to address crappy and abusive riding, anyway--they just need to be applied) that will limit all of us.
Punish the people who are abusive by throwing them out of the show and apply reasonable consequences like low scores to people who are crappy riders. That's what this is supposed to be all about.

Look at what you wrote above:

"Quite honestly, there are a few riders in my region that are showing at first scoring low 50's, and then showing at 2nd, scoring 40's and 50's."

We realize that these kinds of scores exist. They will always exist if the judges use the whole range of scores. If someone is consistently scoring in the 70s or even low 80s, should they also be not allowed to show anymore at that level? If we are saying you can't go there or stay there if you are scoring too low, shouldn't we also be saying you can't stay there if you are scoring too high?

What we want to know is HOW MANY, exactly WHICH SCORES, HOW LOW in the 50s? Do you mean 50.001% or 59.999%? They are both in the 50s but obviously mean different things, right? Why is 50 a problem, exactly? (I'm not saying it ISN'T a problem, but why?). It (before this year) was described as "sufficient". It's one thing to base reactions on personal observation--but observations notoriously are inaccurate because people might remember the last thing they saw, or the flashiest horse they saw, or the shortest rider on the biggest horse, or something like that. The only way to have accurate information is to use DATA.

We don't know yet how or whom a rule change will impact, since we don't know what the proposal is. We just want it to be based on data with results that are replicable. If it supports the statement of the problem and the proposed solution, that will tell us something. If there is no data that supports this, then that tells us something, too.

ShotenStar

Mar. 2, 2008, 11:54 AM

And I would add a second part to this:

-if a performance score rule is enacted, there MUST BE a provision to evaluate its impact on scores and show entries one, two, and three years post-implementation.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is going to kick in on this and USEF needs to have a plan to evaluate the impacts.

*star*

claire

Mar. 2, 2008, 12:03 PM

-If the stats are correct and show a large portion of the AA's are showing at training through second level, then this proposal should not affect the attendance or "stifle the inflow of new competitors" as suggested by some.

-The only riders I see this hurting or impacting is ones that spend the big bucks on a made horse and want to compete at the higher levels without ever learning the basics or going through the levels? This would prevent new people to the sport that buy their way to the upper levels.

-I am not trying to start an argument, just truly trying to understand the concern about the rule change, as I know it will affect all of us, and before committing to a decision about it, would really like to understand the full impact this would have on the sport.

First, the statistics ARE correct (according to J-Lu the DC ran their analysis with similar results).

Second,
"Unfortunately, they can't "get rid of" poor performances. It is the nature of any performance activity to distribute results in a Bell Curve ... there will always be low, middle, and high performances.

This rule may, over time, shift where the Bell Curve lays out on the numeric scale, but it will not eliminate "poor performance" ... even in the Olympics, someone has to be last.

What this rule will do is stifle the inflow of new competitors to the sport. Yes, those who are left may be better, but there will be so few that the sport may no longer be viable. This is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences"

And, after looking at the Yount/Star data, (refer to posts #33 and #39 on this thread)
As ShotenStar states: "The more relevant question we need to ask the DC is: with half of all riders currently meeting the minimum score requirements, what is the value of the qualifying rule? How does this improve showing?"

"The two people doing the analysis for Rebecca are also in the 'business of data' .... both with many years of working with large amounts of complex data in government and private industry. We, therefore, understand that part of the issue is that the questions to be examined and the data used in the analysis must be well-defined and well-stated.

The scoring patterns we have documented for Training and First Level are interesting, but are not relevant to the discussion of this rule proposal, other than to show that the scores of 30% and 40% are more common at Training and First.

The scoring patterns for Second Level are relevant only for 2-4 and its linkage to moving to Third Level.

Under this rule, people can show Training, First, and Second Levels to their hearts content; there is likely to be little impact on show attendance unless riders stage a boycott and refuse to show at all if the rule is implemented.

Where this rule will create noticeable impacts is on Third Level and Above entries. Riders who are currently muddling through 2-4 and taking a stab at Third will be excluded. The data already documents a decrease in the numbers of rides the higher up the levels you go; this will be more so if the rule is implemented. People with horses they want to start at Third Level may chose to drop out of showing rather than go through a series of 2-4 rides to get qualifying scores.

As for 'the data not being complete' .... the data set we are working on is every score from every Open Class in every USDF show held in Oct-Nov 2007. It includes large shows and small shows. It is a statistically representative sample and is normal, well-behaved data. If USDF were to agree to provide a year's worth of data, the Mean and Median of each level would not shift by any significant amount."

ec412

Mar. 2, 2008, 12:58 PM

Rebecca, Shorten Star & Claire,

Thank you! I get it now. Just so you know, I was not questioning your data! I appreciate you taking the time to explain your concerns.

Robin

canyonoak

Mar. 2, 2008, 02:16 PM

There is one other point to be made, I think, and that concerns the old adage, "Show me the money!"

Implementing this qualification proposal will cost USDF and USEF members more money.

Someone has to pay for the database to be created and maintained and updated.

This will not be a trifling amount of money either, judging by the success/failure rate of the organizations to actually maintain useful databases of other information so far.

EDIT: yes, success/failure does make a teeny bit more sense than success/ailure...

rebecca yount

Mar. 2, 2008, 02:22 PM

Canyonoak: While we might agree that some things about these organizations are "ailing", you must surely mean the "success/failure" rate, right??

Mar. 2, 2008, 02:44 PM

Implementing this qualification proposal will cost USDF and USEF members more money.

Someone has to pay for the database to be created and maintained and updated.

Not picking on you CanyonOak, but there is a lot of concern about USDF data that seems to be moot to addressing DCs Proposal:

1) I can't speak for every USDF-recognized show result, but USDF already tracks in detail for the All Breeds Program. There riders also have a change to verify their scores before the awards are finalized. And yes, riders do catch errors and the data is corrected. So if one is looking for accuracy the All Breeds results is probably the most reliable. And, IT'S ALREADY PAID FOR.... NO NEW FEES.

2) What I meant by "moot" is virtually no one knows what DC is going to propose this time around. Or what fraction of data will be presented and we will most likely be informed that's all we need to know. So, I offered a suggestion earlier (post 120 on this thread) to ask to have the specific source data the DC is reviewing released to general membership for review.

And the best news is: if the DC comes up with a proposal that their own source data doesn't support, proposal can hopefully be thrown out. But GUESSING what data they are looking at isn't going to help.... so I'm back to Item 2 here and post number 120.

canyonoak

Mar. 2, 2008, 05:21 PM

USDF will soon be charging for much of the information that heretofore has been available for free.

rosinante

Mar. 2, 2008, 05:42 PM

True....from the USDF Strategic Plan
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/StrategicPlan.pdf

Financial:
• What does USDF need to do to generate a steady source of additional income outside of dues increases? How can USDF deal with competition from other groups or associations for dressage education dollars?
• What will USDF need to do to provide consistent support for USDF’s National Education Endowment Fund so that the organization’s educational programs can be expanded and improved?
• How can, or should, USDF support the fundraising efforts of The Dressage Foundation?
• How can USDF find ways to attract elite riders on their way to international success and recognition and acquire their support?

poltroon

Mar. 2, 2008, 05:58 PM

1) I can't speak for every USDF-recognized show result, but USDF already tracks in detail for the All Breeds Program. There riders also have a change to verify their scores before the awards are finalized. And yes, riders do catch errors and the data is corrected. So if one is looking for accuracy the All Breeds results is probably the most reliable. And, IT'S ALREADY PAID FOR.... NO NEW FEES.

The time and trouble needed to add up scores at the end of the year is pretty different than the time and trouble needed to add them up and track them and report back for every possible show entry at 3rd level and above.

Touchstone Farm

Mar. 2, 2008, 10:19 PM

Cowgirl

Mar. 2, 2008, 11:31 PM

I just got my "certificate" from the USDF that I qualified for the regional championships in our area ... five months (!!!!) after the championship and at a mailing cost of roughly $1.30.

Hence, my doubt about the USDF and its record-keeping and the decision on how it spends its money. (I mean, really, a "certificate" because I qualified for regional championships??!! How goofy. I just threw it away.)

I got that too and had the same reaction as you! I wish they had asked me before sending that to me. I'd rather they saved the money that cost to generate and used it for educational opportunities for the amateurs who they claim don't ride very well and abuse their horses. ;)

Ellie K

Mar. 3, 2008, 12:15 AM

(I mean, really, a "certificate" because I qualified for regional championships??!! How goofy. I just threw it away.)it's too bad yours is not the predominant attitude, or they could do away with a lot of this silly "recognition" which is a huge part of their raison d'être. People DEMAND to be recognised and feel they are getting membership value from it. USDF buys into this to a degree that I have never seen anywhere else, in any other sport. For every one person who thinks it's goofy, there are more who want to be made to feel important and accomplished. That's why there are what…2000 "awards" annually? It's ridiculous.

Also, in order to budget for the certificates, their mailing cost, and the staff time to process them, a committee composed of USDF members had to make a decision that that was what the membership wanted/needed. Sometimes it's a committee member who has the idea; other times it's other members who forward such a suggestion via various channels, for the committee to consider/decide on. And that decision was approved by the USDF membership in the form of the GMO and PM delegates who comprise the Board of Governors, which approves the program budgets and has the opportunity to question the committee/staff liaison on any line item. There are definitely flaws in that system, but it's not some arbitrary unaccountable administrator deciding on how to spend your money, not by a longshot. It's other USDF members. And enough of those USDF members, at some point, believed that those who qualified for the RC should be "awarded" a goofy certificate. And THAT is why you got the goofy certificate.

This is the same organisation that "awards" people for attending educational programs with more goofy certificates. Not for demonstrating that they have learned something, mind you, but just for paying a fee and sitting their ass in a chair. It's pathetic.

Commander Cody

Mar. 3, 2008, 07:17 AM

Mar. 3, 2008, 09:06 AM

I just got my "certificate" from the USDF that I qualified for the regional championships in our area ... five months (!!!!) after the championship and at a mailing cost of roughly $1.30.

Hence, my doubt about the USDF and its record-keeping and the decision on how it spends its money. (I mean, really, a "certificate" because I qualified for regional championships??!! How goofy. I just threw it away.)

Instead of throwing it away you should have returned it to the USDF and ask why it was sent 5 months after the championship and also told them you think the certificates are a waste of effort and money, especially if they can't be sent in a timely manner.

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:00 AM

The time and trouble needed to add up scores at the end of the year is pretty different than the time and trouble needed to add them up and track them and report back for every possible show entry at 3rd level and above.

That hasn't been my experience and since every show and judge is tracked regardless, sorting out third level rides is easy. Of course we are talking about usdf-recognized shows --- not unrecognized re "every possible show entry at 3rd level and above"...

In the past not only has data been collected on All Breed horses, but these horses also have been ranked (first, second, fifty-seventh) against all horses showing that year in their category. Which tells me *all* show results have automatically been recorded in the past, this means training level through GP and onto DSHB categories. Pulling third level data to support the DC *anaylsis* (analysis for lack of a better word) is one small section of the overall data already captured.

Last I heard most of this was manual input, yes it is tedious work, but not EXTRA work indicating a need for additional fees. The move is towards more electronic data transfer and phasing out manual input, so it should in theory become easier... less time intensive.

SGray

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:32 AM

.......Last I heard most of this was manual input, yes it is tedious work, but not EXTRA work indicating a need for additional fees. The move is towards more electronic data transfer and phasing out manual input, so it should in theory become easier... less time intensive.

Karnak predicts that the organization that gets the task of tracking scores for eligibility to move up to the next level will NOT see it that way and WILL impose new fees for the 'service'

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:51 AM

Karnak's darn good at this :)

Touchstone Farm

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:10 PM

it's too bad yours is not the predominant attitude, or they could do away with a lot of this silly "recognition" which is a huge part of their raison d'être. People DEMAND to be recognised and feel they are getting membership value from it. USDF buys into this to a degree that I have never seen anywhere else, in any other sport. For every one person who thinks it's goofy, there are more who want to be made to feel important and accomplished. That's why there are what…2000 "awards" annually? It's ridiculous.

Also, in order to budget for the certificates, their mailing cost, and the staff time to process them, a committee composed of USDF members had to make a decision that that was what the membership wanted/needed. Sometimes it's a committee member who has the idea; other times it's other members who forward such a suggestion via various channels, for the committee to consider/decide on. And that decision was approved by the USDF membership in the form of the GMO and PM delegates who comprise the Board of Governors, which approves the program budgets and has the opportunity to question the committee/staff liaison on any line item. There are definitely flaws in that system, but it's not some arbitrary unaccountable administrator deciding on how to spend your money, not by a longshot. It's other USDF members. And enough of those USDF members, at some point, believed that those who qualified for the RC should be "awarded" a goofy certificate. And THAT is why you got the goofy certificate.

This is the same organisation that "awards" people for attending educational programs with more goofy certificates. Not for demonstrating that they have learned something, mind you, but just for paying a fee and sitting their ass in a chair. It's pathetic.

EllieK, you may be right, but after years of being a GMO delegate and attending those committee meetings, I missed that members were demanding to get a certificate about qualifying for regional championships. Awards, awards, awards, yes. Our GMO also struggles with how everyone wants an award, so I jokingly said at one of our meetings, tongue-in-cheek, that when people sign up for membership, they should indicate whether they want an award, and if so, please send $X in and your award will be mailed to you upon receipt of payment! :-)

Plus, things change. Perhaps the awards committee should be proactive and ask members (thru delegates and GMO presidents) what awards/certificates are still meaningful and what, in the interest of cost containment/expense management, would the membership not mind if they went away?

There's definitely a balance with awards, establishing standards and demonstrating competence/understanding. I just don't happen to think a qualifying rule is the best way to help members learn, establish a competency -- or really establish a standard. The standards are there; they just need to be enforced.

ltw

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:17 PM

Concerning Awards.... Qualifiying for USDF ABIG Qualification awards -it is not important to me or most people. I do not care if I get a certificate, I have lots of these and usually they are thrown away.

The point is, the database is enabled such that a member should be able to print this award on line if this is important to them. There are alot of online processes enabled through web services and SOA these days (Service Oriented Architecture) that allow members to print this information without staff intervention. This saves time and money.

If the software application is in place and the data base is accurate, staff is not needed to do any of this. From what I have observed, USDF and USEF have gotten alot better recently at implementing these services. This should not increase cost or staff, it should reduce staff time.

Touchstone Farm

Mar. 3, 2008, 10:27 PM

rosinante

Mar. 4, 2008, 06:06 AM

Good point, ltw. We could be sent an email notifying us of the availability of our certificate...and we could shave the couple of days of mailing time and the print time from the 5-month timeline. :-)
Actually just change the word "certificate" to "rule change proposal" and you might have something....

Why does anything have to be communicated thru GMO's? Why not post key communications issues on the web site under a section of proposed rules? And actually ask for feedback PRIOR to when the rule will be discussed or voted on....what a concept!!!!

....actually it seems someone was also thinking about this in their Strategic Plan....
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/governance/StrategicPlan.pdf
USDF will be branded for having an identity and image of leading edge programs and services supported by operational effectiveness, membership intimacy and representational effectiveness.

The fact that someone is still thinking of communications via snail-mail or thru controlling communications channels indicate the organization is either:
1-out of tune with the times, or
2-heavily into power and control....eg., control information to retain power....or both....

They obviously haven't read the latest philosophies on "learning organizations" as the prefered structure for corporations to adapt quickly such that they can remain relevant and competitive.

canyonoak

Mar. 4, 2008, 09:50 AM

Wondering how USDF will start paying for the database?

see this thread:

"usdf fees for score checks "

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=137122

Yes.

Show me the money (trail)

Ellie K

Mar. 4, 2008, 03:49 PM

But Ellie K, people (members) seem to WANT the University Program - TONS of them do it, and the GMOs seem to like it to (not that I don't see your point - I personally don't sign up for it if available). So what are we to do? Seems like one way we are wasting paper/time/money and the other we are ignoring our grass roots members/not giving recognition etc... Where is the balance?? All we can do is try to figure out what the most people want that is possible to do.
And BTW I threw out my certificate also, FWIW.did you not read my post? :confused: You are 'disagreeing' with me whilst simultaneously putting forth the very same argument I already made, in describing the "why" of the existence of this 'goofy' certificate. The university thing was a second example of the same phenomenon I already described WRT the RC certificate.

I repeat:
it's too bad yours is not the predominant attitude, or they could do away with a lot of this silly "recognition" which is a huge part of their raison d'être. People DEMAND to be recognised and feel they are getting membership value from it.

:confused::confused::confused:

however, it should be remembered that much of the cost is covered by fee-for-service. and the budgeting of both orgs has become increasingly accurate over the years, so it could be a wash. I just think it's stupid. But like I said,
For every one person who thinks it's goofy, there are more who want to be made to feel important and accomplished.

ltw

Mar. 4, 2008, 10:59 PM

Concerning score checks and previous year's score checks....

I believe the web services software could be enabled to support the following: Paid members with user id (membership number) and password sign in and request on line score check by year.

If the software is not enabled to support this application, this may require a software upgrade or SOA application. If this is required, we may see the cost to provide this type of software enhancement reflected in our membership fee increase.

I believe most of us would not mind a small increase to enable us to access all data via the web. Overall, the Return on investment would be quick. Less staff required to deal with all of the repetitive membership requests.

So in essence, there may not be a membership increase because once the software enhancement is activated you could reduce headcount in the membership services department reducing overall staff/salary General Administrative expense.

slc2

Mar. 5, 2008, 06:46 AM

ShotenStar

Mar. 8, 2008, 01:49 PM

We have continued to beaver away on the score analysis, mostly in preparation for the Region 1 meeting, but also to be ready for whatever the next version of the proposed standard will look like.

Along the way, the following issue occurred to me:

Since the lower level scores are not strong predictors of performance at the next level, what will the long-term impact be on dressage .... 5, 10 years post-rule implementation?

There are modeling and simulation tools out there that could make such projections ... unfortunately, they are expensive and a proper simulation would take months to set up and validate. Not sure USDF / EF would be willing to spend the money for such a thing.

So, instead, I did a little thought experiment:

1 - the lower level scores have some relationship to future scores/performance. The correlation is not strong, I believe primarily because the different levels have different skill-set requirements: the single change and the extended canter at 3rd being part of the set.

2 - is there another real-world situation where reliance on a restricted selection criteria has been used? What was the impact?

The real-world situation that came to mind was the focus on conformation scores ONLY has a selection criteria for breeding stock, rather than a broader look at functionallty through the use of movement scores and/or performance tests. The breeds where this narrow/single selection criteria have been applied are Quarter Horse and Arabian halter horse breeding and dog breeding, specifically Cocker Spaniels and German Shepherds.

I believe there are many who would say that these breeds have gone in undesireable directions because of the focus on a restricted selection criteria.

3 - So, if we except the concept that a restricted / single selection criteria can lead to unexpected/unwanted outcomes, what might we expect the outcomes to be if a restricted selection criteria were put in place in for dressage?

Some possible outcomes for your consideration:

--many riders compete through 2nd level, fail to meet the performance criteria, and drop out
--those riders who do meet the performance criteria do advance, but do not do well at 3rd level; they drop out
--the poor scores at 3rd level cause the USDF/EF management structure to decry the lack of talent at 3rd level. Therefore, they up the criteria for transition.
--fewer riders are able to achieve the new criteria, leading to a higher drop-out rate
--show sizes begin to fall; shows are cancelled due to lack of entires
--the entire pipeline of new riders begins to dry up because people feel it's too difficult to advance

Your thoughts?

*star*

Mar. 8, 2008, 02:31 PM

We have continued to beaver away on the score analysis, mostly in preparation for the Region 1 meeting, but also to be ready for whatever the next version of the proposed standard will look like.

I'll just address one point: as I posted on another thread the DC is required to provide the performance analysis, and that includes both the first the second/forthcoming proposal. If RY or a GMO can't access the supporting performance analysis data, then that is a problem. USEF BYLAW 102, Objectives, Section Two, Mission Statement excerpts:

(10) Provide effective and timely communication to every level of athlete, official, and organizer within the sport.

(11) Develop interest and participation in equestrian sport throughout the UnitedStates and work with affiliate associations, breed and discipline organizations, and other organizations to encourage participation.

(23) Provide and coordinate technical information on physical training,equipment, its design, coaching and performance analysis.

use of bold font is mine. Source: pages 2 and 3 http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2008/02-bylaws.pdf

ShotenStar

Mar. 8, 2008, 03:00 PM

sm -

We have noted your quote from the rules and have that in our minds for the next round of however this turns out. But, being the data hounds we are, we have a strong desire to see for ourselves and run analysis tools according to our own perceptions of the data. The biggest example of why there is a need for a second review is, I believe, going to be in the regression analysis, which determines the relationship between 2 variables (2-4 and 3 lvl scores, for example). I'm willing to bet lunch that the DC does not do this .... why? because I don't believe their minds work that way.

And as they used to say during arms negotiations: Trust But Verify

*star*

eurofoal

Mar. 9, 2008, 12:38 PM

I guess that they implemented a rule change such as this in Canada. Any Canadians out there to venture an opinion? A former Canadian team member told me that it caused "a bottleneck" at 2nd level. No surprise there! People will be locked in below 3rd.

What exactly was the percentage of 3rd level and above riders? How about 3rd level and above ammys? Isn't it a very low percentage of riders anyway?

ShotenStar

Mar. 9, 2008, 01:00 PM

Jill

The numbers from our sample were:
Level........... N.......Mean
Training.......1954...62.316
1st..............1585...61.739
2nd...............888...60.591
3rd...............690...60.198
4th...............453...61.313
PSG..............274...60.339
Intermediare..157...60.122
GP Version B....64...59.116

Just a reminder: this was sample from 1 Oct-30 Nov 07; for the analysis, we used only scores earned in Open classes. Therefore, these numbers represent about 20% of the total population of Open classes for a year.

Yes, I see a choke point coming at 2nd lvl, with an even bigger drop-off at 3rd and above.

I also see 60% becoming "the New 50%", and lots of whining in future years that scores in the 70s are needed to advance.

*star*

rebecca yount

Mar. 9, 2008, 03:34 PM

I am currently trapped in Florida. I was here for a conference and because of weather (thanks, Ohio) my flight out was cancelled and I can't get home until tomorrow. Working on things from my laptop. I got this in an email from one of my cohorts. I think someone posted it or a reference to it in one of the threads re this topic. (Touchstone, I see it was you!!! I didn't get the press release, and I thought what you were referring to was some score report or something! I should have paid more attention.) Anyway, she went to the USDF website and found this (which I assume is what you are referring to, Touchstone):

USDF | Press Center | News Releases
<http://usdf.org/press/news/view-news.asp?news=219>

Release dated 4 Mar 08. Note this paragraph:

/Category Three reports must be directly requested from the USDF
office. These reports are defined as *custom reports, queries, or
statistics,* with fees assessed at $80 for members and $125 for
non-members for up to thirty minutes of staff time. Individuals will be
charged $35 for members and $55 for non-members for each additional
fifteen minutes of staff time to compile the reports.
Director of IT Services Chad Compton added, "As we continually
add to the amount of information available on the site and expand its
functionality, we hope to make many more commonly requested reports
available with the click of a button."

These are the people I have been asking (and offering to pay for) data since February 20 or so. Interesting the timing of this press release.

Anyhoooooo...we will now request directly from USDF the data we need and pay for it and presumably will get it, so our analysis can be extended to all of 2007.

More info, reports, etc. coming soon.

Thank you to all who have been helping.

SGray

Mar. 10, 2008, 09:56 AM

I would gladly contribute $s to the costs of data requests -- just pm me with how I can help

rebecca yount

Mar. 13, 2008, 10:07 PM

Touchstone Farm

Mar. 13, 2008, 11:30 PM

Well, yesterday I spoke with USDF to be sure that when PVDA requested data per the press release, they asked for the correct thing (I thought that the already-prepared spreadsheet which went to the Dressage Committee might have a "name").

Imagine my surprise when I was told that that PARTICULAR information, or anything to do with it, would NOT be available until the Dressage Committee said it would be.

PVDA requested it anyway, now we are waiting to see what, if anything, we will be given.

The USDF just continues to disappoint. Its lack of transparency and customer service is appalling. I can't believe Sam Barish and George Williams aren't a little bit embarrassed by these decisions. It just is not any way to address member concerns.

Hidden Pond Farm

Mar. 14, 2008, 09:45 AM

I would like to add my sentiment of disappointment and lend support to everyone who is trying to understand the logic of the problem so that productive solutions or programs can result. I've already written two letters to the USDF. One related to this issue. Both letters suggest to the DC that productive agenda can only come with first a well-defined mission/purpose. With that in place, programs and policies can be developed that can move the agenda forward in the context of the mission/purpose. But transparency is important, and the motive for change needs to be pure.

Rebecca, I would like to ask a question. DId the PVDA ask specifically for the spreadsheet given to the DC or did they ask for a general format as was dictated by that press release? I can see USDF responding defensively if the request was for the former. But if you were just asking for scores in general, for a defined period of time, I just don't get why they couldn't provide it. Sad. Disappointing.

And to the more general population out there following this thread, have any other GMO's made a request for scoring data? If you have, could you share with us the response you got?

I was speaking with a friend of mine about this a few weeks ago. He is since retired from a very successful job (VP of Hospitality services or something like that, with an international hotel chain). We had a heated discussion (Touchstone Farm was at the table too!), about the proposed qualifying system. But more interesting to me was listening to his thoughts about the current USDF leadership, and how a company might respond to those same decisions in for-profit setting.

THe bottom line was, if the leadership can't follow the by-laws, and can't move agenda forward productively, and seems sneaky and secretive while making decisions that the management or investors or customers can't understand, then major house cleaning would ensue in a for-profit setting. And while he used this as an example of questionable leadership in the USDF organization, it was not the only example he brought to the table.

Change is hard. But change can be a good thing.

SGray

Mar. 14, 2008, 09:47 AM

Mar. 14, 2008, 11:31 AM

THe bottom line was, if the leadership can't follow the by-laws, and can't move agenda forward productively, and seems sneaky and secretive while making decisions that the management or investors or customers can't understand, then major house cleaning would ensue in a for-profit setting. And while he used this as an example of questionable leadership in the USDF organization, it was not the only example he brought to the table.

Major house cleaning would ensue in a not-for-profit org as well. Both/all entities need to operate legally (within by-laws) on both the state and federal level to stay in business and reap the rewards, in this case, of non-profit status.

State laws differ on what is required from entities (which is why many corps want to incorporate in Delaware, which is another conversation altogether), federal laws are the same.

As I've alluded to before, this *problem* is really not much more than a Paper Tiger: upper mgt will ditch or eliminate as incompetent certian committee members rather than be held into account for wrong doing at a state or federal level. Expect this to be done behind closed doors, as in upper mgt asking for a resignation and the person leaving with their "good character" intact. Most often with a press release to the effect of said person wants to spend more time with their family...

canyonoak

Mar. 14, 2008, 12:12 PM

Perhaps it is time to start contacting the Executive Board of USDF, and with copies to the BOG of USEF.

I do not see any other way to get past the DC.

swgarasu

Mar. 14, 2008, 12:28 PM

purchasing or developing an SOA application and making it fit into an existing architecture isn't usually or even often, the most economical way to go - software, licenses, maintenance, etc are not at all cheap and take much higher paid staff to maintain than having someone (or someones) to answer a phone and look on a screen.....- getting SOA into an organization isn't cheap....there are much cheaper ways to go....it depends on what applications they have and how they are set up.

it's quite conceivable that the search ability is already in their software and just isn't presented to the users, it's also possible that the data architecture and hardware doesn't allow for hundreds or thousands of online users to simultaneously search it - adding some additional search capability and opening it up to the public could bring their hardware and software to its knees - their hardware may simply not be able to support that.

many systems get to a 'camel's-back' kinda situation where adding one more bit of functionality is going to break its back. it's called creeping featurism (feeping creaturism is where people try to make the software too human....)...it just gets to a point where you CAN'T add another feature or another piece of software without getting a whole new computer system or some major hardware, a different server, a different much more costly internet provider, something major. hardware is (relatively) 'cheap', software is not - nor are the people to work on it - and no - really, it doesn't just run itself once you set it up - a'tall. databases and their software require CONSTANT work from a usually rather highly paid army of technical people, especially if they are to support all sorts of 'ad hoc' users searching the data 24/7/365 with some very heavy peak load times.

what solution is right all depends on what software and hardware they have. one can't say what would work for them without having a very good understanding of exactly what hardware and software they have, how many new uses and users would be involved, how much new load would be involved, and how the db, software, hardware are set up.

SLC2- I really think the technology issues are not as insurmountable as you make them seem. A SQL database with a web front end should be able to handle a lot of queries and a lot of data. What people are asking for is not that resource intensive nor would it take a lot of bandwidth, and I doubt that there would actually be that many actual simultaneous requests. Today's servers are juggernauts- 64 bit hardware, multiple quad core processors, and being able to put 16 GB of ram on a server, along with GB nics mean hardware is rarely a concern for applications these days. Big, fast hard drives are not that expensive and can hold a ton of data.
As for licensing, usually software licensing is yearly and fairly simple to renew. You have your O/S, and probably 2 application licenses. That's not a lot.
As for maintaing the system- if it's set up well, the vast majority of work is the data entry, which is generally quite easy- prompt for this info, type it in, save the record.

Coreene

Mar. 14, 2008, 12:51 PM

I am doing sign language in horror re the DC. Guess which finger?

slc2

Mar. 14, 2008, 12:53 PM

A 'jugernaut sever' of 'today' is not cheap. NONE of 'Today's servers' are cheap, if they actually do anything at all.

Taking care of those 'go by themselves' and 'handle all those queries' servers is what a whole army of very highly paid people do, when a web site sits on top of the database, that job is 24/7, 365, and they get paid a hell of a lot to do it.

Those boxes don't run themselves. Anyone who thinks they just push a button and bingo, it's all done, doesn't understand the business, or thinks that every database is as simple as creating an Excel spreadsheet.

There is not one REAL database out there that doesn't require maintenance, upgrades, installation, configuration and constant baby sitting. Same for the hardware they run on. That is in ADDITION to entering any data into them.

And they aren't cheap.

And you're right. It isn't surmountable. Nothing is insurmountable, with enough money.

A database isn't a magical, self running thing. It just isn't. People seem to think that once the data is in there and the web site is up, it magically just goes along without any maintenance, oversight or anything. It just doesn't. That's all there is to it. A database is a living, breathing thing, but it very quickly turns into a living, breathing pile of **** that no one can get any data out of if it doesn't get some very expensive babysitting.

Organizations like the USDF tried for years to survive on inadequate databases and servers that were totally inadequate to the task of serving as the backend for a busy website. I have no idea what sort of condition their databases, hardware or software are in at this point, but I would not assume that it was just infinitely extensible and anything can be added to it for free. That's just completely illogical.

But don't misinterpret me - I am NOT saying that it is ok for them to not provide information - so don't try to accuse me of that. For once, it would be nice to try to stick to beating me up for what I'm saying rather than a whole bunch of stuff i never said and don't support.

What I AM saying is that databases aren't just magical, self operating, self perpetuating bingo-type things, that providing that information isn't always an instantaneous thing that you can just have a tantrum and it will appear (despite watching 25 years of business users doing so, that still doesn't work). And the fact that an organization DOESN'T provide some information quickly or willingly doesn't ALWAYS mean there's a plot afoot to hornswaggle the membership.

In this case...I think the organization has been extremely high handed and very unwilling to listen to the members, and this has been getting worse the longer this qualification battle draws out.

I think alot of that is that they have their butts pushed up against a wall, a lot of people are putting a great deal of pressure on them about this qualification thing, and they are getting purely pissed off.

I think if you watch, you will see in the future months that they will get MORE pissed off, not less.

They want it, alot of members don't...I am very sure they will try very, very hard to go ahead with this no matter how many members it alienates. It would take a Revolutionary war to stop this. Even starting a rival organization will not stop this...guarantee (and i would STILL support a rival organization, so don't accuse me of not supporting it).

What I DON'T agree with is that providing that information requires no appropriate resources. It does not happen by magic.

...but I don't think you can assume that it is perfectly easy, simple and cheap to provide information 24/7, 365 on a web site. It is NOT.

I KNOW this brings up the issue of additional fees, as every organization, business etc always says 'No Tickee no washee', and wants to charge us more if we ask for anything it isn't currently convenient and easy for them to provide. I KNOW that.

swgarasu

Mar. 14, 2008, 01:22 PM

rosinante

Mar. 14, 2008, 02:24 PM

Perhaps it is time to start contacting the Executive Board of USDF, and with copies to the BOG of USEF.

I do not see any other way to get past the DC.

My vote is to wait and see what the folks at USDF / USEF Dressage Committee come up with. We got their attention. Now the ball is in their court.....oh, to be a fly on the wall and hear the discussions going on.

We're all waiting on the edges of our chairs to see what their next best alternative is. Patience............

Ja Da Dee

Mar. 14, 2008, 02:30 PM

I would hope that since TPTB are planning on a qualifying system, the USDF (I assume the USDF would be maintaining the database) would have a robust enough database to churn out the information that's being looked for.

rebecca yount

Mar. 14, 2008, 03:11 PM

Re asking the Executive Board of USDF:

Asking the President of USDF, both verbally and in writing, would qualify as asking the Executive Board, right? Or at least one member.

We are just going to wait and see what develops next.

slc2

Mar. 14, 2008, 03:41 PM

well, swgar., i think you're wrong too, though i'm not going to try to make yu change your mind or tell you you're making a molehill out of a mountain, though if your job is to fix servers granted that can be cut and dried, but it still ain't free either. my point is that it takes money to run a database and a web site. i just do not think it's free. and if it's underpowered and limping along - making it better can cost some bank.

canyonoak

Mar. 14, 2008, 08:39 PM

<<Asking the President of USDF, both verbally and in writing, would qualify as asking the Executive Board, right? Or at least one member.

We are just going to wait and see what develops next.>>

I meant maybe it is time to send a concerted email to EVERYONE at the same time, like you did when you got everyone to send their viewpoints to the USEF BOG...so no one person gets to misrepresent your request in a USDF Board meeting.

OTOH, you have been quite successful so far, so whatever you think best.

SGray

Mar. 17, 2008, 10:14 AM

forgive me if it has been stated and I missed it - was there a time-frame given by the powers-that-be for the new information from the DC to be disseminated to the masses?

ShotenStar

Mar. 17, 2008, 11:41 AM

forgive me if it has been stated and I missed it - was there a time-frame given by the powers-that-be for the new information from the DC to be disseminated to the masses?

That is unclear at the moment .... some people think within the next 2-3 weeks, others say not until after the Dressage Committee's summer meeting.

*star*

rebecca yount

Mar. 17, 2008, 11:54 AM

Yesterday, 3/16, Shotenstar, Pluvinel, and I attended the USDF Region 1 meeting which was held in Maryland. Among many other topics, the USEF Performance Standards proposal was discussed. Two USEF Dressage Committee members were in attendance at the meeting. We will be posting a report shortly with highlights of the discussion.

I also rode in a lesson with Janet Brown Foy on Friday, 3/14, and was a demo rider for the USDF Learner Judge session she taught on 3/15. IMO, what is being taught to judges has relevance for the Rule Change Proposal issue.

SGray

Mar. 17, 2008, 12:22 PM

who on the DC is NOT a judge?

Ellie K

Mar. 17, 2008, 07:48 PM

who on the DC is NOT a judge?not 100% certain but I think: George Williams, Sam Barish, Kathy Connelly, Lendon Gray, Jan Ebeling, Lisa Gorretta, Scott Hassler, Debbie McDonald, Elisabeth Williams. 9/19 so nearly half the committee.
http://www.usef.org/contentpage2.aspx?id=committee

yaya

Mar. 18, 2008, 12:14 AM

Kathy Connelly is an "S" judge.

SGray

Mar. 18, 2008, 01:38 PM

several times in these discussions the idea has been brought up that perhaps there should be more emphsis on getting the judges to USE LOWER MARKS FOR BAD RIDING

perhaps the USEF DC (and even the BOG of the USDF) - being made up of judges, competitors, TDs, coaches, trainers and friends - don't want to rock that boat

PennyRidge

Mar. 18, 2008, 07:27 PM

several times in these discussions the idea has been brought up that perhaps there should be more emphsis on getting the judges to USE LOWER MARKS FOR BAD RIDING

I've already seen what many people do when the judge gives them bad marks and says they can't ride well enough. They cry, they go throw the test in the trash can (been there done that), they blame the horse, their coach tells them that the judge sucks and they pick better judges to show under, etc. Worse than anything...sometimes they quit, they give up.

Judges know how demoralizing it is to the rider and I don't think they want to cause people to throw in the towel and quit. I think that if all judges started nailing bad riders, those riders would more quickly give up in defeat than try to figure out how they can improve. Getting bad scores is heartbreaking for all of us.

Judging is too subjective and always will be for certain sports. Carol Lavell tells the story of how she got a 48 percent the first time she rode 3rd level with a tough comment from the judge...so you know what she did? Found a new instructor who could help her.

If riders have to start qualifying, I think it will cause instructors to see the need to improve what they are teaching,...and riders might be more enticed to develop their seat and riding skills and less enticed to get in to the ring with that top hat and tails!

anne

Touchstone Farm

Mar. 18, 2008, 11:08 PM

claire

Mar. 18, 2008, 11:28 PM

Judges know how demoralizing it is to the rider and I don't think they want to cause people to throw in the towel and quit. I think that if all judges started nailing bad riders, those riders would more quickly give up in defeat than try to figure out how they can improve.

And if the Qualification Rule goes through, maybe these sympathetic judges will be inflating the scores rather than handing out a score just below the qualification cut-off?

So, what has the "bad rider learned"?

Or maybe the "bad riders" with the funds will learn that they simply have to purchase a schoolmaster of the appropiate level and shop the shows for a "sympathetic judge"?

So, what has the "bad rider learned"? And how is that fair to the horse: showing and showing to get their scores to move up?

Some of the consequences of the Qualification Rule may well be unintended.

Wouldn't it be good to have an open discussion to define the core problem(s) then brainstorm the best way to address the problem(s). No?

I think Rebecca and ShotenStar should be commended for their efforts: objectively pulling together the statistics needed to start research into the core issues.

Have YOU read their report? :confused:

J-Lu

Mar. 19, 2008, 12:01 AM

I've already seen what many people do when the judge gives them bad marks and says they can't ride well enough. They cry, they go throw the test in the trash can (been there done that), they blame the horse, their coach tells them that the judge sucks and they pick better judges to show under, etc. Worse than anything...sometimes they quit, they give up.

Judges know how demoralizing it is to the rider and I don't think they want to cause people to throw in the towel and quit. I think that if all judges started nailing bad riders, those riders would more quickly give up in defeat than try to figure out how they can improve. Getting bad scores is heartbreaking for all of us.

Judging is too subjective and always will be for certain sports. Carol Lavell tells the story of how she got a 48 percent the first time she rode 3rd level with a tough comment from the judge...so you know what she did? Found a new instructor who could help her.

If riders have to start qualifying, I think it will cause instructors to see the need to improve what they are teaching,...and riders might be more enticed to develop their seat and riding skills and less enticed to get in to the ring with that top hat and tails!

anne

Spoken like a judge on the DC!

With all due respect, I have NEVER seen anyone get really low scores who didn't already know that they were getting really low scores. I have not seen masses of crying people crinkling up their tests and throwing them away while their trainers exclaim how much the judges suck. This is NOT THE NORM. Sure, people complain, but almost everyone understands that they usually deserve what they got plus or minus a few points. If these people quit due to low scores, they will quit whether or not there's a qualification system in place.

It is not the job of the judge to worry about what is heartbreaking for the rider. It is the job of the judge TO JUDGE what is in front of them. Period. Any judge giving inflated scores to make a rider feel confident is proving that they are not competent to judge.

If the judging is this subjective, then there is a problem with standardization of judges. I'm somehow sure that you are aware that there is an effort to standardize judging... Your Carol Lavell story does not make sense, as it seems as though she agreed with th 48% and found a new instructor???

slc2

Mar. 19, 2008, 06:33 AM

It does sometimes happen that people cry and throw away their bad tests, of course it does. But these people tend to be too fragile to endure the ups and downs of competition and they aren't around for long - there's the rare person that gets all emotional right after the class and then goes home and gets really mad and works like crazy to improve. But most of those fragile egoes wind up doing something else and are probably much happier.

But I think as this discussion focuses on really bad scores - 48% and down...they're missing the big picture - the many riders that score 61%-55%, and simply ride like most amateurs ride, and would be out of the game because they have to score higher to qualify.

To be honest...I'm not really sure most amateurs routinely score above 61% at training, first and second. Yes, the top 2-3-4 of the class may, but that still isn't 'most people', that's only a small part of the class. This is what one misses when one looks only at the top of the class. Especially where classes are large a great many people do not score over 61%.

The discussion brings up a peculiar point - that to protect their clientel and trainer buddies, judges could simply raise scores so people qualify. Scores are already much higher at most shows than I used to see 10 yrs ago...and simply scoring people higher would keep more amateurs 'on the hook'. There's a possibility that could happen, too. And it may be something the 'better' (more affluent) customers get, rather than the more average people.

So that conceivably, qualification could wind up benefitting - well - those wealthy people with nice horses...that aren't strong riders. Woudln't that be completely odd?

Eclectic Horseman

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:01 AM

So that conceivably, qualification could wind up benefitting - well - those wealthy people with nice horses...that aren't strong riders. Woudln't that be completely odd?

I don't think that it is odd at all considering that so many of the "powers that be" and their friends benefit directly or indirectly from horse sales.

This rule will certainly put an end to really good riders on a budget moving up the levels on their inexpensive horses.:cry: Let's face it, the non-WBs are more apt to consistently score just around or under 60%, no matter how good the rider is that is showing them. So if those people are "serious" about dressage, maybe they will start getting second mortgages and buying more expensive horses so that they can move up.

That's music to the ears of the breeders, the sellers, the agents, the trainers on commission, etc. Ka-ching.

slc2

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:09 AM

rebecca yount

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:12 AM

I am exhausted from all the work that has gone into this and so, I am sure, are Shotenstar and Pluvinel. We appreciate the support we have had from the dressage community. Right now I am feeling pretty misunderstood and misquoted by TPTB. They clearly have connections in the press and while our suggestions as to objective, published articles have been rejected, I am kind of discouraged by the sound of the Dressage Today article. More later, because I need to actually do some of my OTHER work and earn some money. But really quick, I wanted to address one small point:

There were two members of the Dressage Committee at the Region 1 meeting on Sunday, 3/16. Neither one was a judge. One was a very active, well-known, well-respected trainer (and competitor) and the other was a TD who is also in a position of "control" in USDF. Both are VERY influential.

We still don't have a "draft" and probably won't until summer. More about that later, too. So we really don't have an "official" statement of what the Dressage Committee thinks is the "problem". We are assuming, from other statements and the first draft, that one thing they would like to address, is "bad riding". This was discussed at the Region 1 meeting.

Among many other things, the trainer/competitor (while wearing his "trainer/competitor" hat and not his "Dressage Committee" hat) who was present said that this qualification rule will NOT get rid of bad riding. He said that he sees as much or more bad riding from professionals as from amateurs.

Again, there was a lot more said than just that. We have extensive notes from the meeting and as soon as we can catch our breath we will try and catch up on those. We definitely got a message of "stop the negative rudeness on the bulletin boards", by the way. I am not saying that is reality, but that is what people at the Region 1 meeting admonished us for, correct or not.

Eclectic Horseman

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:19 AM

No, I don't agree that a badly ridden warmblood gets a good score all the time JUST because he's a nice warmblood. Our judges are not that stupid or that incompetent.

What I feel happens is they mark the rider off, and they mark the horse off for what he has problems with...the horse may still show a little more freedom and activity than the horse shuffling along...and may occasionally get a better score than that one...but I do not feel our judges are quite so incompetent that they just look at the horse's name, think, 'it's a warmblood, start with a 61', that's just not the norm.

I think people who don't ride warmbloods or those who simply resent those who can afford nicer horses, have a pretty danged warped view of reality at times. And in fact, 30 yrs ago, the SAME thing was said about our judges - only then, it was thoroughbreds.

"Oh, Mary has a Thb, no wonder she wins. And those damned judges just GIVE her the scores for NOTHING, just because it's a thoroughbred."

We REALLY have got to just STOP thinking about our judges like they're all corrupt, blind, unfair and idiots! I am SO sick of this pervasive attitude here! It STINKS!

We need to actually post real tests with their videos, and show how the scoring breaks down. People's opinions of 'well it was a really nice test and i was robbed' aren't usually realistic - at all....we would actually need to see the video and compare it with the scores for each movement, and discuss it at THAT level of detail if we really want to understand it. And a couple peculiar tests from less senior judges that don't quite make sense isn't a fair way to get a general idea of what goes on.

Who said that they were "corrupt, blind, unfair idiots?" :confused::confused:

Horses with expensive gaits (especially those with expensive training) with average riders score better than off breeds trained by their AA/owners who are average riders.

Don't you think they should?? I do! They are more suitable horses with better training and usually put in a better test.

That is not the issue. You asked whether it would be an unanticipated consequence of rule changes that wealthy people who were not strong riders might advance more easily. My response to you is that it is probably not unanticipated--to the contrary it may be seen as an advantage for professionals in the sales end of the business. People who are in business are doing it for their livelihood. It is just silly to think that they are philanthropically motivated. I know that I'm not at my jobs!

Take a chill pill! :lol:

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:38 AM

..........Judging is too subjective and always will be for certain sports. Carol Lavell tells the story of how she got a 48 percent the first time she rode 3rd level with a tough comment from the judge...so you know what she did? Found a new instructor who could help her. ..........

Isn't that exactly the point?

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:44 AM

......There were two members of the Dressage Committee at the Region 1 meeting on Sunday, 3/16. Neither one was a judge. One was a very active, well-known, well-respected trainer (and competitor) and the other was a TD who is also in a position of "control" in USDF. Both are VERY influential.

We still don't have a "draft" and probably won't until summer. More about that later, too. So we really don't have an "official" statement of what the Dressage Committee thinks is the "problem". We are assuming, from other statements and the first draft, that one thing they would like to address, is "bad riding". This was discussed at the Region 1 meeting.

Among many other things, the trainer/competitor (while wearing his "trainer/competitor" hat and not his "Dressage Committee" hat) who was present said that this qualification rule will NOT get rid of bad riding. He said that he sees as much or more bad riding from professionals as from amateurs.

Again, there was a lot more said than just that. We have extensive notes from the meeting and as soon as we can catch our breath we will try and catch up on those. We definitely got a message of "stop the negative rudeness on the bulletin boards", by the way. I am not saying that is reality, but that is what people at the Region 1 meeting admonished us for, correct or not.

sooooo - members of the DC showed up not to clarify or explain but to browbeat - now that's leadership (needing sarcasm icon)

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:52 AM

A more positive way to improve dressage is to improve the education of riders and their instructors. Instead of fostering a punitive system like a qualifying proposal, the efforts and resources should be put toward education. Perhaps if people knew WHY they got the scores they did and HOW to go about improving their riding, it would be better all around. A qualifying system is after-the-fact. Learning can and should be interesting and fun (putting the resources toward education) -- not humiliating and expensive (qualifying proposal). Judges need to continue to do their jobs in the show ring; the USDF and its GMOs should put their efforts in a more positive, educational direction.

Quite true. Let's say the judge feels the rider needs a wake-up call, and gives a 5. There is nothing stopping that from being an educational and positive experience by noting specific comments on what needs to improve. And elsewhere pointing out something more positive. Constructive comments are what is important.

If the rider can't handle it, show in front of friends for positive reinforcement... Not a big deal!!!

Eclectic Horseman

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:58 AM

I just read today’s Message from USEA President Kevin Baumgardner regarding the tragedies at Red Hills Horse Trials over the past weekend. He said in pertinent part:

“We seem to be in an ever-spiraling loop in which the aspect of cross-country that attracted most of us to the sport in the first place, the joy and thrill of galloping rhythmically over jumps across country, has been replaced with questions of extreme technicality and a proliferation of combinations taken at show-jump speed. It appears that the driver behind this emphasis on increased technical difficulty is the need to challenge and sort out the elite combinations competing at the highest levels of the sport. The net effect of this shift in emphasis, however, has not been confined to the upper levels. Rather, because of the need for each level to serve as preparation for the next, the sport has been altered all the way to the novice and training levels. This has left a large proportion of our core USEA membership-the 90-plus percent of Eventers who will never compete above preliminary-asking whether there is a place left for them in the sport.”

The USEA has “beefed up” qualifications for entering Preliminary Level events that will go into effect on Dec. 1st. But as Baumgardner noted that doesn’t answer the question regarding the large core of average low-level competitor members in all olympic equestrian sports—who is serving our needs?

I wonder whether there is a parallel here? Is the DC qualifying rule proposal serving the needs of the majority of the membership? Or is it a rule adopted to sort out the elite combinations at the highest level of the sport? Will there be a place left for the average dressage rider?

Mar. 19, 2008, 10:34 AM

I wonder whether there is a parallel here?

One parallel is the directive to go short format was without any supporting data indcating these short format changes would, in fact, be safer for horse and rider. It was broadcast it would be, yet no studies were done. Not unlike the DC trying to ramrod the first proposal through without adequate study or data/consequence review.

canyonoak

Mar. 19, 2008, 10:58 AM

I am about to make negative comments.

The DC has functioned for a long time as an autocratic maker of decisions--as have ALL the USEF (and formerly AHSA) committees.

Autocratic and anonymous--and, basically concerned with the minutiae of rule change.

It just so happens that we now live in a time and place where public anonymity is nearly non-existent and instant communication is almost everywhere.

It is THIS particular DC's situation that they chose to try to pass the first sweeping, radical, sport-changing rule proposal at a time when it would necessarily be discussed in public.

The problem for THIS DC is their view that they will make policy for us without consulting us, let alone recognizing that they exist in order to serve our needs, not make policy that conflicts with membership input.

This proposal was misguided from the start, no matter what the revisions, no matter how watered down, no matter how useless it has now become and continues to be.

Why the DC cannot just be adult and recognize that this proposal needs to be put away and brought out when applicable is beyond me.

Once again, I would like the DC to put their energy towards improving education of rider and trainer rather than making negative comments about the riders they themselves work with and judge.

slc2

Mar. 19, 2008, 11:28 AM

When did the organization make it their sole mission to serve the average rider? Did they ever? no.

Commander Cody

Mar. 19, 2008, 12:19 PM

Sgray wrote:
sooooo - members of the DC showed up not to clarify or explain but to browbeat - now that's leadership (needing sarcasm icon)

I have tried and tried to stay out of this as much as possible, but this I have to respond to:
The two members of the DC to attend the meeting were Scott Hassler and Sam Barish. Sam, because he is a Region 1 resident and long time PVDA member, has attended EVERY ONE of my meetings since I became Regional Director. He comes to support the process of having regional meetings for the GMO members, to support me and to make himself available to attendees for questions and comments about USDF. Scott was there because he generously donated his HOME for our meeting, provided us with a wonderful educational activity the day before, and gave up his time on Sunday with his family to speak not only on behalf of the DC but as a nationally recognized trainer/rider/coach. Neither came because of this discussion or to advance any agenda of their own or the DC. To say so is exactly the unfounded negativity that makes me crazy. Why suggest bad motives when you don't know the facts?

I'd like to point out that this was a USDF meeting to conduct USDF regional business (such as selecting sites for the Championships, working on projects like the Adult Clinic with Jane Savoie or the Adult Team and Youth Team shows etc...). While I had intended to put this topic on the Agenda for the benefit of the GMOs, at Rebecca's request, I allotted 75 minutes to permit everyone to speak, allowed handouts to be distributed etc.. Rebecca spent much of that time at the front of the room responding to questions and comments from the group. NO ONE was brow beaten, and all opinions were considered.

I was actually the one who made the initial comments about negativity and internet sniping, so have at me if you want. I completely understand that many here are vehemently opposed to this rule change, hate the way it was presented and have, through all these many threads on the topic, done a great job of getting the DC's attention and getting a new proposal in the works. That's great. But where I really have a problem is the personal comments that creep in to the discussion throughout - the DC is motivated by all kinds of personal agendas with questionable ethics (these are some of the very same people that in other contexts many say they admire greatly); the Executive Board of USDF is either motivated by the same lack of ethics or a bunch of morons; and perhaps the worst that the volunteers who chair and work on the Committees and Councils of USDF (or USEF for that matter) are a bunch of idiots that "can't make a decision". I fail to see how any of this advances the discussion. I think we can all have respect for eachother and our differing opinions. It's not about negative comments, it's about personal attacks and comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Alison Head
USDF Region 1 Director

slc2

Mar. 19, 2008, 12:41 PM

that is right alison. it helped me to find out some of the background of the proposal -but people may have been more positive if that background had been brought out earlier. i can't shake the idea that this is going to price many competitors out of showing (assuming it will eventually apply to all levels and that the requirements will continue to increase, which is what i was told). that's my main objection. cost.

but at the same time, i'm not sure if 'representing the interests of the members' is the sole responsibility of the organization, especially if that means never passing a rule unless everyone likes it. some rules may not be welcomed but may still be necessary and they may look more necessary than individuals realize?

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 01:03 PM

sometimes what is intended is not what is perceived

and there is undoubtedly a 'halo-effect' on members of DC because of public comments previously made by other members of the DC

I applaud that the PVDAs scheduled time for discussion and Q&A on this proposal

I also trust the writings and efforts of SS, RY and the others that have put great effort into establishing a factual basis on which to judge the proposal given the reasons publically given for it

Commander Cody

Mar. 19, 2008, 01:03 PM

Totally agree that the proposal was neither ready to be presented in January (or at the USDF Convention) nor presented with any kind of explanation that helped any of us understand the motivation behind it. Do I wish it had been done differently? Absolutely. Do I wish a different proposal had been made? Absolutely? Do I agree that education of riders, trainers and judges is the best way to improve riding? Of course. Anyone who knows me knows that I LOVE running educational activities. But, we still all love the same sport and shouldn't tear it all apart to find a solution. Many of us on "the other side" do have similar goals and motivations.

slc2

Mar. 19, 2008, 01:54 PM

alison can you give your feelings about why there is such a big dichotomy between the organization and the membership on this issue?

Mar. 19, 2008, 02:52 PM

But where I really have a problem is the personal comments that creep in to the discussion throughout - the DC is motivated by all kinds of personal agendas with questionable ethics (these are some of the very same people that in other contexts many say they admire greatly); the Executive Board of USDF is either motivated by the same lack of ethics or a bunch of morons; and perhaps the worst that the volunteers who chair and work on the Committees and Councils of USDF (or USEF for that matter) are a bunch of idiots that "can't make a decision". I fail to see how any of this advances the discussion. I think we can all have respect for each other and our differing opinions. It's not about negative comments, it's about personal attacks and comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Alison,

With all due respect you won't find the charge on these BBs, ".... are a bunch of idiots that 'can't make a decision'. " However, if one did, one might appreciate the level of emotion The Other Side feels when informed they not only ride poorly at third level, are then too stupid to realize it, and fundamentally too inept do what's right for either their horse or their sport. Let's not forget, these are adult women that hold their own jobs, raise families, and are responsible members of their communities.

Let's also remember moderators are here to keep conversation fair. And upon request, I am sure they will delete entire passages that are unfair attacks against ANYONE.

Having said that, I appreciate you sharing the efforts of Scott Hassler and everyone else. I do have one request. I was somewhat saddened you "sniped" at SGray --- yet didn't respond to a very positive post by SGray.

I don't know if you saw this very positive and helpful post. Can you forward SGray's comments along to the powers that be for further debate, I thought it was a brillant solution:

I believe that the issue remains with the judging. TPTB made an attempt to address rider problems in previous years by raising the coefficient on Rider from 2 to 3.

BUT - large but - judges have stated that as long as the horse gets the jobs done, even if despite the rider, they have been instructed that they should give a 6....that 5's and below only come into play if the rider is grossly interfering with the movements of the horse.

So, that change in coefficient, while well intended, did not have the desired effect. Leading to the current rule change proposal.

Perhaps, instead of raising the coefficient, they might have split the “Rider” section.

Currently: Rider (position & seat; correctness & effectiveness of the aids) X 3.

So – problem to be addressed is bad riding – split “Rider” into two scores, each with a coefficient of 2.

“Rider Connection” (seat, reins, legs) -- this part would address bouncing butts, jabbing hands, banging legs, ....

“Rider Effect” (use of aids and execution of test) -- this part would address the outcome of the test....that the rider knows how, when, where to ask the horse for the various movements.

Instituted for the national level tests this could let judges better pinpoint where problems lay.

THAT is my rule change proposal

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 03:19 PM

......I completely understand that many here are vehemently opposed to this rule change, hate the way it was presented and have, through all these many threads on the topic, done a great job of getting the DC's attention and getting a new proposal in the works. That's great. But where I really have a problem is the personal comments that creep in to the discussion throughout - the DC is motivated by all kinds of personal agendas with questionable ethics (these are some of the very same people that in other contexts many say they admire greatly); the Executive Board of USDF is either motivated by the same lack of ethics or a bunch of morons; and perhaps the worst that the volunteers who chair and work on the Committees and Councils of USDF (or USEF for that matter) are a bunch of idiots that "can't make a decision". I fail to see how any of this advances the discussion. I think we can all have respect for eachother and our differing opinions. It's not about negative comments, it's about personal attacks and comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Alison Head
USDF Region 1 Director

What I oppose is a proposal that will add additional expense to members/competitors but which, it seems from looking at the data, does not address the issue which was stated as the reason for the rule change.

Since, with a dry, objective look at data, it does not look like the stated reason for the proposal holds up, some have speculated that, perhaps, there may be other underlying, unstated reasons. Human nature. I posit that with more, clearer communication between DC and the public there will be less guessing.

As far as my comment that upset you earlier - I'm sorry that it did so. I was responding to another poster whose veracity I have no reason to doubt. Your report on the meeting added valuable information and thus insight and I thank you for that.

I must agree with another poster here that some long-time members of various committees within both USEF and USDF may be a bit discomfitted at the realities of the internet age but I think that they will adjust and we will all benefit.

Thank you for your thoughts.

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 03:20 PM

.......I don't know if you saw this very positive and helpful post. Can you forward SGray's comments along to the powers that be for further debate, I thought it was a brillant solution:

gosh thanks sm - I blush

Commander Cody

Mar. 19, 2008, 03:23 PM

SM -
with all due respect to you, nothing I mentioned has not been said at some time during all these many threads. I know, I have read them all even though I rarely post. And I will continue to stand up for all the people that work behind the scenes as volunteers, even if I don't always agree with them.

I am not sure why so many are so insulted by the idea of qualification standards (yes, I know all the arguments, but I am just not sure I get them). Several of my students are directly affected by these proposals (and these are not riders with expensive, fancy WBs either) and they don't feel that they have been told they are terrible, ignorant riders. In fact, I think (I speak for them here) that they look at standards as a way to measure their progress and a goal to strive for. As long as the goal is reasonable, then we are OK with it.

As for not responding to sgray's other ideas - I am not sure how other good posts are relevant to the one I responded to. Each post stands on its own points and merit, does it not? However, I do think there have been a LOT of great ideas that have come out of this discussion. I do know that the judges/test writers have (at least in a theoretical discussion) talked about breaking the rider score into two (or even 3) parts. I believe one of the FEI tests (not the ones we use but another used internationally) does in fact do this already. It certainly is a possibility that deserves consideration. Hopefully, many of the suggestions will be considered in the years to come.

Mar. 19, 2008, 03:38 PM

SM -
with all due respect to you, nothing I mentioned has not been said at some time during all these many threads.

I just did a keyword search on every thread for "bunch of idiots" and then "idiots." The only posts that came up using the word "idiots" started with yours---on this thread. Any mean spirited posts will be deleted by moderators to protect all individuals against unfair attacks. Feel free to contact a moderator (red triangle, upper right corner by post number) if you ever see one.

Which country uses the FEI test you mentioned?

Thank you for staying at the table.... TO answer your question on why the opposition, it is an Artifical Standard that, as far as we can tell, will never yield the desired result. Which calls into question if there is a darker purpose than the stated goal of better riders.

rebecca yount

Mar. 19, 2008, 03:51 PM

WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE AND REMEMBER THAT I HAVE NEVER NEVER MADE INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS REGARDING MEMBERS OF THE DRESSAGE COMMITTEE.

In fact, I have, many times, requested that people keep things courteous and professional. I am much too busy to go back and (again, because I did this once already) copy and paste all of my constructive, factual comments into a thread or email. If it comes down to it, I will do that but what a waste of time.

I am VERY TIRED of being the identified problem child/ "nay sayer". I am opposed to any rule change made without the appropriate research. I am opposed to decisions and problems and solutions being stated that are NOT supported by data. I am opposed to the way rules used to be made, where a few concerned volunteers decided something, argued about it for a while, and then it was passed in a huge blob with all the other USEF rule changes. It may be, as I have clearly said, that the data will support the need for a rule change--but for pity's sake, we don't even know what the PROBLEM is seen to be yet, because the draft isn't out yet.

I think it is RIDICULOUS and a HUGE problem that USDF continues to refuse to send us a simple spreadsheet. It gives the IMPRESSION that there is something to hide. Will someone please say why that can't be given to us? I haven't heard a reason. The fact that it has not been given to us makes me suspicious and angry. I'll survive.

I DID NOT use the word "browbeaten". I felt that we were admonished, yes. Scott's presentation elicited that feeling in me, and so did yours, Alison. Oh well. I am sure you and he were not only talking about me, but I was one who was there and "negativity" was clearly noted as a problem. As I said, I have no control over what people write on bulletin boards. If you will please notice, I am, I believe, the ONLY ONE in all these discussions who posts with my full, real name. I am aware that as a "ringleader" I will bear the brunt of the reactions by individuals whose views I oppose--and of course then I will be easily identifiable because my NAME is in posts. I'm tough, I can take it.

As I said at the Region 1 meeting (and by the way Alison did a VERY GOOD job of getting through a lot of business and allowing ample time for this discussion)--this has been and will continue to be a difficult process. This is a BIG issue. And it's not going to go away no matter how long it takes.

J-Lu

Mar. 19, 2008, 05:43 PM

I am not sure why so many are so insulted by the idea of qualification standards (yes, I know all the arguments, but I am just not sure I get them). Several of my students are directly affected by these proposals (and these are not riders with expensive, fancy WBs either) and they don't feel that they have been told they are terrible, ignorant riders. In fact, I think (I speak for them here) that they look at standards as a way to measure their progress and a goal to strive for. As long as the goal is reasonable, then we are OK with it.

You mentioned that you have read all of the posts so you have read many articulate and logical reasons why various people do not support the rule change. Which of these logical and articulate arguments don't you understand?

I am happy that your students view the proposal as something to strive for. Many others do not feel the same way, and again, their rationale has been outlined in logical and articulate arguments in these threads.

At this point, I don't see how anyone can say "I read all of the posts and still don't understand why people oppose the rule change". The numerous reasons have been outlined so very many times. I can accept "I don't agree" with a rational argument as to why, but not "I still don't understand". Is this unreasonable?

ETA: Further, as I've posted before, what is now missing is DISCUSSION. As much as "the other side" is unhappy with discontent in GMOs and bulletin boards, the GMOs and bulletin boards are unhappy with the lack of a response directly addressing the issues. I have yet to read anything in print without thinking that some committee has again skirted the main issues. Lets face it, members of both sides have sniped each other both publically and behind the scenes so neither pot can call the other kettle black. But with even mediocre PR the DC could have avoided many of the issues that are currently the source of alot of tension. I mean, you could see this coming a mile away!!

SGray

Mar. 19, 2008, 05:53 PM

Cowgirl

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:17 PM

How quick will the turn-around be (i.e. if I showed this weekend and obtained the final score necessary to move up under the criteria, how long would I have to wait before I could show in the next level? one week, one month,....?)

This one really jumped out at me. The reason that it did is because where I live the show season is very short and we have to get our entries in for shows about six weeks in advance. So we tend to have our shows close together and you would have to send entries in well in advance of knowing whether you were moving up or not. You might be able to change your entries for the next show, but it would cost you a big fee to do so.

I got my new Dressage Today last night and read the article on the Rule Change Proposal. They quoted quite a number of Big Names in the article. I'm curious as to what kind of impact it made on other people. One comment that struck me is someone who said that the inability to qualify to move up will get the person to seek better instruction. If a person IS getting instruction but is UNABLE to move up (presuming the current instruction is incorrect or faulty), and the burden is placed on the student (who has an incorrect knowledge base) to DETERMINE what is better and more correct instruction....well isn't that a little bit Catch-22?

And no, this article wasn't based on data either--it was based on the opinions and observations of the people they relied on for the article's content.

Whisper

Mar. 19, 2008, 09:37 PM

I haven't seen any data indicating that scores below 50% are common at any level. If the qualification requirements were the same as for championships (2 scores > 62% for ammies, IIRC), or if they focused specifically on addressing bad riding by requiring 2 or 3 *RIDER* scores of at least 6 or 7 at the previous level before moving up, I wouldn't object. 10 classes, or the 20 they started out with, is just absurd though. It doesn't affect me right this moment - I am fortunate enough to be leasing a schoolmaster (through I-1 and YR, not GP) who's more than capable of doing well at 2nd and 3rd, but I recognise that I'm not ready to show at that level yet, without the DC telling me so. :rolleyes:

I don't see how Carol Lavel's story about her 48% ride has anything to do with requiring qualifications. If anything, it supports the idea that people with bad scores will self-regulate and seek help. If she said she requires all of her students to go to 10 or 20 shows at a level before moving up, then it would be relevant.

Eclectic Horseman

Mar. 20, 2008, 08:38 AM

One comment that struck me is someone who said that the inability to qualify to move up will get the person to seek better instruction. If a person IS getting instruction but is UNABLE to move up (presuming the current instruction is incorrect or faulty), and the burden is placed on the student (who has an incorrect knowledge base) to DETERMINE what is better and more correct instruction....well isn't that a little bit Catch-22?

And the answer is.....buy a more expensive well trained horse. Of course. Duh. That's the easiest way to do it, isn't it?:(

slc2

Mar. 20, 2008, 09:49 AM

The trouble is, that won't do it. If JUST buying a horse would do it, that would be cheap compared to what it DOES take, which is much more long term and a program of much more concentrated training with a much better trainer.

A qualification system would be like regionals, which are virtually out of reach to people who don't have more money to spend on their development. Many people in my region LAUGH at the idea of themselves EVER going to regionals or even of earning a medal - any medal, including a bronze. Because it is expensive. The reality is that amateurs don't, and never have, as a whole (yes there are exceptions, but again, as a general rule), earned medals, regional qualification or anything else unless they have a very large chunk of change to devote to it. It is EXPENSIVE. Travel, lessons, clinics, and just the time to show.

A fifty thousand dollar horse is nothing compared to the long term expense of years of training with an expensive instructor and frequent showing, to say nothing of the time off work - twice weekly lessons for a few years will quickly add up to fifty thousand dollars.

Many jobs these days, people get 2wk or less of vacation, part of which family may lay claim to, and they can get it canceled at a moment's notice if 'something comes up' when they're going out the door.

It's therefore nearly impossible for alot of people to get to more than a couple shows a year - I used to RESIGN from jobs just to get a day to go to a clinic or a little time off to go work with the trainer daily and then attend a show.

To say nothing of the basic fact that alot of those really capable trainers simply do not TEACH evenings and are gone weekends when the 'working class' can take lessons, so that many students rely heavily on shows to be tolerant of their learning process, because that's often one of the few times they can get ANY guidance.

It can take that many shows a year just to get familiar with the rules and get comfortable in the ring, and it can take many MORE a year to get the scores to move up for riders in less than ideal situations. People actually can ride quite well and still blow it at shows simply because they don't show enough - they are nervous, they are not used to the routine, or they're running around like a skinned cat trying to get to the show friday night after they get out of work and can't show their horse the grounds or school them in the rings before their tests...there are a lot of things that the folks with more time and money don't realize 'the rest of the world' has to do. And that's why I've always liked not having qualification, because it helps the less wealthy people to progress and learn and be exposed to far better guidance. And quite frankly I think the reason the basic quality of dressage riding has improved so much and so quickly in america (in 15 yrs, say) is because people DO learn by showing.

JennNC

Mar. 20, 2008, 11:00 AM

I hesitate to get too involved in these discussions because the threads develop faster than I can keep up with and I also feel like I have to be careful not to put my own personal opinions in print when I am the president of a GMO as well as a Regional PM rep. Given my position, I want to represent my membership, not my personal opinions. I know that Commander Cody (Alison) feels the same way.

However, I agree with Alison that it is tough to read comments from posters who hurl certain accusations at the DC and USDF leadership. Especially uninformed exaggerations and misinformation coming from people who aren't involved enough to know what actually is going on.

Rebecca, you worry about being lumped into a category of being a trouble maker, but the postings of others that probably cause you to cringe yourself are what make bulletin board conversations somewhat futile. It's like being in a room with a bunch of people all talking at the same time. It's hard to separate who is saying what. Those of you with well-thought out comments are often lumped in with those who rant and rave about the evil DC members who are out to kill off the adult amateurs.

I would like to add that Rebecca and Shotenstar were well-received at the Region 1 meeting. Rebecca was given the floor by Alison and was given MORE than ample time to make her comments and answered questions that were tossed her way by those in attendance. Their "data report" was also well-received. Shotenstar gave some great explanations as well and some insight into what the data report reveals. Some of those in attendance actually found the data actually SUPPORTS the need for qualifying standards. (I guess data can be open for interpretation.)

There were plenty of people there who spoke up in favor of qualifying standards.

Before the agenda was open to the performance standards issue, we spent a great deal of time at the meeting discussing educational opportunities, the running of championships, youth programs, adult programs, scholarships, judge training, etc, etc.

For those in leadership who actually sacrifice countless hours running educational programs and going to meetings where discussions DO occur and input IS given, it's got to be hard to hear the griping and complaining that there isn't enough done for education and there's not enough discussion.

Don't forget that when the proposal was presented at the USDF convention, many of us WERE THERE to participate in discussion and to give the DC our input. We then came home and shared the information with others and it lead to the DC going back to the drawing board. I don't know how those of you who complain that the DC members aren't interested in what the "masses" have to say have a leg to stand on. Of course they are listening! Rebecca has tried to make that clear, but it's just way too much fun for those of you who like to just "let 'er rip" on the bulletin boards, isn't it?! :eek:

One last thing...I recall reading a post a while back that said something like, "The DC should listen to us...that's what we pay them for!" I want to remind everyone that the DC members who are working like the dickens to come up with a plan that will be more suitable now that they have heard our responses are all volunteers!

Jennifer Mitchell
President, NCDCTA

JennNC

Mar. 20, 2008, 11:13 AM

Performance Standards Rule Proposal questions

Who will administer the tracking system?

How much will it cost to set up and later to monitor the system for tracking the necessary scores?

Who will pay for the set up and monitoring of the system? If, as has been assumed, this will be done by the USDF, what will the added costs per member be? Will the cost be borne by all members or only those who are attempting to qualify for the next level?

How quick will the turn-around be (i.e. if I showed this weekend and obtained the final score necessary to move up under the criteria, how long would I have to wait before I could show in the next level? one week, one month,....?)

I realize that the proposal is currently in flux - just wanted to throw out a few things that had come up in discussion

These are all things that have been mentioned to the committee already. These questions will be asked and answered again, I'm sure, before a final decision is made. Once they come back with the revamped proposal, I expect plenty of those involved within the organization will be asking these questions. As has been pointed out, the DC will share the information through the appropriate channels and they will receive questions and input via appropriate channels.

Jennifer Mitchell

Mar. 20, 2008, 11:42 AM

Rebecca, you worry about being lumped into a category of being a trouble maker, but the postings of others that probably cause you to cringe yourself are what make bulletin board conversations somewhat futile. It's like being in a room with a bunch of people all talking at the same time. It's hard to separate who is saying what. Those of you with well-thought out comments are often lumped in with those who rant and rave about the evil DC members who are out to kill off the adult amateurs.

Again, inflammatory and highly inaccurate: there are no posts regarding "evil" DC members "who are out to kill off the adult amateurs." It is also quite easy to tell who is saying what, the software programmers went out of their way to have that happen.

Again, there are moderators: You don't like the job the moderators are doing as well?

SGray

Mar. 20, 2008, 12:04 PM

These are all things that have been mentioned to the committee already. These questions will be asked and answered again, I'm sure, before a final decision is made. Once they come back with the revamped proposal, I expect plenty of those involved within the organization will be asking these questions. As has been pointed out, the DC will share the information through the appropriate channels and they will receive questions and input via appropriate channels.

Jennifer Mitchell

I reiterate that I believe there should be better communication between DC and public

as a current member of the unwashed masses (having previously been on Board of GMO; Volunteer Coordinator of Championship Show; TD -- for those that care about participation in the various organizations as a qualifier for opinions) I had seen no mention of questions/answers to/from DC regarding the proposal

any assistance in locating records of said discussions would be greatly appreciated

yaya

Mar. 20, 2008, 01:06 PM

Don't forget that when the proposal was presented at the USDF convention, many of us WERE THERE to participate in discussion and to give the DC our input. We then came home and shared the information with others and it lead to the DC going back to the drawing board. I don't know how those of you who complain that the DC members aren't interested in what the "masses" have to say have a leg to stand on. Of course they are listening!

I think the point is that they were FORCED to listen. They put forth a proposal that, to their minds, was a done deal. Only when a large number of people stood up and shouted HELL NO did they even think of consulting "the masses". They were quite surprised that people didn't just take the proposal as they fed it. They even admitted that there were some things they didn't even think of, such as the unintended effect on GMOs of the original proposal. Now, since several members of the Executive board of USDF are on the USEF Dressage Committee, this is SHOCKING to me that they didn't bother to think of the effect on their own GMOs!

In addition, the absence of communication from the DC since then is disturbing, as well as the unwillingness to allow USDF members access to USDF data. (USDF can't release show statistics until the USEF DC says it's okay? What are they hiding?)

It does not give people a good feeling about our leadership or so-called representation.

ShotenStar

Mar. 20, 2008, 01:23 PM

...

I would like to add that Rebecca and Shotenstar were well-received at the Region 1 meeting. Rebecca was given the floor by Alison and was given MORE than ample time to make her comments and answered questions that were tossed her way by those in attendance. Their "data report" was also well-received. Shotenstar gave some great explanations as well and some insight into what the data report reveals. Some of those in attendance actually found the data actually SUPPORTS the need for qualifying standards. (I guess data can be open for interpretation.)...

Just a minor point:

ShotenStar sat quietly, taking notes.
Pluvinel was the one who did the statistical analysis and discussed it.

And those who felt the data supports a qualifying rule need to dig deeper into the data / focus on more than just one chart/number:
--those riders who get the low scores at 2nd Lvl generally DO NOT also try to ride 3rd lvl tests.
--many of the riders turning in poor scores at 3rd Lvl had good (i.e., qualifying scores) at 2nd lvl

The issue I have with a rule based on obtaining scores at one level as proof of ability to ride at the next is that the regression analysis does not show this to be a true statement: Scores at 2-4 are NOT good predictors of future success at 3rd level and scores at 4-3 are NOT good predictors of future success at PSG.

The use of the wrong qualifying criteria is far more dangerous to the future of dressage than is no criteria at all.

*star*

Coreene

Mar. 20, 2008, 01:37 PM

I think the point is that they were FORCED to listen. They put forth a proposal that, to their minds, was a done deal. Only when a large number of people stood up and shouted HELL NO did they even think of consulting "the masses". They were quite surprised that people didn't just take the proposal as they fed it. They even admitted that there were some things they didn't even think of, such as the unintended effect on GMOs of the original proposal. Now, since several members of the Executive board of USDF are on the USEF Dressage Committee, this is SHOCKING to me that they didn't bother to think of the effect on their own GMOs!

In addition, the absence of communication from the DC since then is disturbing, as well as the unwillingness to allow USDF members access to USDF data. (USDF can't release show statistics until the USEF DC says it's okay? What are they hiding?)

It does not give people a good feeling about our leadership or so-called representation.AMEN.

lorik

Mar. 20, 2008, 02:00 PM

Eclectic Horseman

Mar. 20, 2008, 02:07 PM

Just a minor point:

And those who felt the data supports a qualifying rule need to dig deeper into the data / focus on more than just one chart/number:
--those riders who get the low scores at 2nd Lvl generally DO NOT also try to ride 3rd lvl tests.
--many of the riders turning in poor scores at 3rd Lvl had good (i.e., qualifying scores) at 2nd lvl

The issue I have with a rule based on obtaining scores at one level as proof of ability to ride at the next is that the regression analysis does not show this to be a true statement: Scores at 2-4 are NOT good predictors of future success at 3rd level and scores at 4-3 are NOT good predictors of future success at PSG.

The use of the wrong qualifying criteria is far more dangerous to the future of dressage than is no criteria at all.

*star*

AMEN.

JennNC

Mar. 20, 2008, 04:02 PM

Just a minor point:

ShotenStar sat quietly, taking notes.
Pluvinel was the one who did the statistical analysis and discussed it.

*star*

Oops, sorry. I think I met you, too, ShotenStar? It was nice to meet all 3 of you!

Jennifer Mitchell

Mar. 20, 2008, 04:29 PM

Two other things came up in the Region 1 meeting that are worth noting. One was that the process for making changes needs changing and this might just be the catalyst for that change. Another was that USEF is going to set up a way that membership can have an open dialog by way of their website. This way when the next itteration of the standard is ready, we can all have our own voice.

Instead of through the GMOs -- or in addition to? I rather trust a third party like the GMOs, after suffering through so many conclusions not based in fact. On providing fair, factually accurate, and equitable communications, well how can I put it nicely.... the current DC has set the bar pretty low.

rebecca yount

Mar. 20, 2008, 04:48 PM

sm, you have a private messaage. thanks ry

rebecca yount

Mar. 20, 2008, 05:02 PM

I was trying to hold off a while on reporting in detail concerning this issue as it was discussed at the USDF Region 1 meeting. However, since Alison and Jennifer and Lori K (maybe others, I'm not trying to exclude anyone) have come on and given names of who was there and who said what, here are notes from this portion of the USDF Region 1 meeting on 3/16/08, graciously hosted by Scott and Susanne Hassler:

RY had requested of Alison that this be put on the Agenda for the Region 1 3/16/08 meeting via email on 2/15/08. She replied that she would, but that discussion had to be balanced and limited, only ½ hour, hearing both sides, etc. She reminded me, Mary, and Ana of this several times subsequently, making it clear that we were not going to be allowed to do a “presentation”. There was also inquiry into my, Mary’s and Ana’s membership status 1.5 weeks prior to the Region 1 meeting.

Just before lunch, Alison said we could discuss it. She pointed out:
-there was lots of discussion at the USDF convention
-the USEF BoD tabled the rule change - sent back to DC to be looked at some more

(here Sam Barish interjected that the new proposal is due out of the DC in the next week or 2) Then Alison went on:
-the DC heard the comments that were made (in December and January) and took them into consideration
-keep the discussion on the high side—the BB discussions were too negative

Passed out summary of prelim data analysis, questions/answers re our "agenda", our brief bios (ry, shoten, pluvinel) during Alison’s comments

Alison then called on Scott Hassler (member of USEF Dressage Committee) to give an update from the Dressage Committee. He spoke as a member of the DC, and first read the USEF press release of 1/14/08. He continued with comments:
-expressed fairly strong displeasure for the negative comments on the BBs
-everyone needs to work as a unit to better the sport
-it is a big change that is being proposed
-the DC doesn't want to discriminate (against anyone) nor to exclude anyone
-not elitist
-discussion of "What is Better?" Achievement of a standard. Protection of horse
-USEF is creating a page on the website for feedback/comments on the next version of the rule change
-will market better (Sam Barish said it would come out very shortly e.g. 1-2 weeks)
-Scott was very clear that it would be “summer”--may not see until after the DC's summer meeting (Linda, another PVDA member, thinks he said before summer)
-said that they made a mistake in rushing so fast the first time and trying to get something ready quickly
-the new proposal is VERY different, not take effect until 2011, be easily
attainable

Col Clarence Edmonds' Comments:
-he was one of the founders of USDF
-psychology of the rule change is a Very Bad Thing to do -- one group of ladies telling the rest of the ladies that they are not good enough to ride here
-we all have (should have) an opportunity to try and fail - this is not Deutschland—this is the United States of America
-source of the rule change is upper level judges trying to aggrandize themselves, a few people telling 30,000 people they can’t ride where they want to

Emmett's Turner/ Shelli's comments:
-this is a reality that is coming - see eventing and steeplechasing for similar rules
-Shelli—now the process has been clarified and improved so the DC is listening

When called on by Alison, Rebecca's comments:
-appreciate Scott’s remarks and the DC’s willingness to hear member comments
-appreciate creation of website page
-needs to be a data-based decision
-why we undertook analysis
-we are not necessarily opposed—want the problem to be stated clearly, based on
data, with a solution based on problem and data
-PVDA will post info and poll members
-suggested that other GMOs disseminate information to members, be ready to
comment, feedback to DC

Sam Barish:
-the USDF appoints 60% of the DC
-working with the eventing folks for wording that will address the eventers who want to show at 3rd level

General comments from floor:
-people tended to support Scott—generally saying BB discussion was too
negative
-one person said she thought the idea of forming a different organization as discussed on the BB was bad
-why are we criticizing these people who VOLUNTEER their time
-someone said maybe data was not the way to determine the problem/solution
-said they would welcome qualifying standards to protect horse
-talked about personal experiences with students showing before ready/buying double bridle (Jennifer Mitchell)
-some questions about analysis—then said ok, so, if almost half (43.1%) of
2nd-4 riders scored below 60%, then that’s pretty bad and we DO need a qualifying standard
-discussion about judges feeling supported in scoring correctly
-RY told of her experience yesterday as demo rider at L program (hi scoring encouraged)
-Kristen who rode in L program on Saturday said she also thought JBF was
encouraging people to score with full range
-woman in front row said she thought fault was with the instructors
-discussion of more education for instructors, requirements so they won’t turn
out poor riders
-some discussion of problem re hi scoring being encouraged by L program

Ana's Comments re: analysis:
-what is the problem
-the threshold eliminates the defectives without solving the underlying problems
Scott, as competitor/trainer, not in DC role, said:
-this will NOT eliminate bad riding but will show that they don’t support it in shows (ry said okay so say it that way, not say something unproven by data)
-said he sees more bad riding by professionals than amateurs
-this is about improving the SPORT, supporting the SPORT of dressage

RY:
-made it clear that we are not necessarily opposed to qualifying standards, just
want the problem to be clearly stated (e.g. have heard 30% rides, jerking on curb
bit at 3rd level, banging on horse’s back) and supported by data
-maybe data will show that qualifying standard is solution, but also maybe there are already rules in place to address poor/abusive riding (td, judges)
-empower judges to score the way they want—we have all had too low scores
and too high scores—it balances out—it’s a game
-although this has been a difficult and sometimes contentious process (we have
no control over what others say online), it is working (now) the way it is supposed to—with everyone being allowed to give his/her opinion even if others don’t like it
-BB got info out fast (Jennifer M) and has resulted in DC realizing that it should follow USEF procedure in place for rule changes, particularly getting member
feedback and researching possible solutions

lorik

Mar. 20, 2008, 05:38 PM

sm
In addition to. I think that USEF realizes that not all dressage enthusiasts are members of GMOs (at least I hope they do). BTW GMO representation is not the only way one can be represented at USDF. There are PM delegates in each region too. If you are a Participating Member of USDF, you are represented by the PM delegates. Write or talk to the PM delegates from your region to help in the governance of the organization.

rebecca yount

Mar. 20, 2008, 05:59 PM

On the Eventing forum here on COTH, there is a discussion about a letter from USEA President Kevin Baumgartner. Certainly there is great sadness right now in the Eventing world given the tragedy of the past weekend at Red Hills. Please understand that I am not in any way disrespecting or trying to detract from the unimaginable despair some in Eventing are facing right now. While I believe the letter was written in part as a response to what happened in Tallahassee, it doesn't just deal with safety issues or the things that happened there. The discontent in Eventing has been building for some years. Over there, they are talking about GETTING INVOLVED and LETTING TPTB IN THEIR SPORT HEAR THEIR VOICES.

As has been alluded to in some discussions of the Dressage Performance Standards Proposal, there have been controversial changes over the past couple of years in the Eventing world. I am not an event rider and don't pretend to understand what happened in Eventing. However, part of Mr. Baumgartner's letter perhaps may be applicable to the current discussion re Dressage performance standards. Here is the excerpt from Mr. Baumgartner's letter:

"We seem to be in an ever-spiraling loop in which the aspect of cross-country that attracted most of us to the sport in the first place, the joy and thrill of galloping rhythmically over jumps across country, has been replaced with questions of extreme technicality and a proliferation of combinations taken at show-jump speed. It appears that the driver behind this emphasis on increased technical difficulty is the need to challenge and sort out the elite combinations competing at the highest levels of the sport. The net effect of this shift in emphasis, however, has not been confined to the upper levels. Rather, because of the need for each level to serve as preparation for the next, the sport has been altered all the way to the novice and training levels. This has left a large proportion of our core USEA membership—the 90-plus percent of Eventers who will never compete above preliminary—asking whether there is a place left for them in the sport."

RY here again. And that, ladies and gentlemen, was most probably one of those "unintended consequences" of changes in the Eventing rules (some of which were done for safety reasons and that is a noble cause. Speculating about the future of dressage, however, if I may edit Mr. Baumgartner's statement somewhat:

"We seem to be in an ever-spiraling loop in which the aspect of DRESSAGE that attracted most of us to the sport in the first place, the joy and thrill of TRAINING ONE'S OWN HORSE AND COMPETING AT WHATEVER LEVEL WE THOUGHT APPROPRIATE, has been replaced with THE NEED TO QUALILFY AT ONE LEVEL BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT. It appears that the driver behind this emphasis on increased QUALIFICATION SCORES is the need to challenge and sort out the elite combinations competing at the highest levels of the sport. The net effect of this shift in emphasis, however, has not been confined to the upper levels. Rather, because of the need for each level to serve as preparation for the next, the sport has been altered all the way to the TRAINING AND FIRST LEVELS. This has left a large proportion of our core USDF membership—the 90-plus percent of DRESSAGE RIDERS who will never compete above SECOND LEVEL—asking whether there is a place left for them in the sport."

Could that be what we will be saying about dressage in a few years? I really hope not.

rebecca yount

Mar. 20, 2008, 06:06 PM

Whoa.

The Dressage Committee has it EASY with us. We are extremely well-behaved.

Over on the Eventing forum they are talking REVOLUTION!!!!! Check this thread out:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=139460

Here's some of the proposed t-shirt designs:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s95/seeuatx/graphics/horseclip11.jpg

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s95/seeuatx/graphics/buckstop.jpg

I think we dressage rabble-rousers need to rethink our tactics!

claire

Mar. 20, 2008, 09:52 PM

Col Edmonds makes the case. Short and to the point! :cool:

Col Clarence Edmonds' Comments:
-he was one of the founders of USDF

-psychology of the rule change is a Very Bad Thing to do -- one group of ladies telling the rest of the ladies that they are not good enough to ride here
-we all have (should have) an opportunity to try and fail - this is not Deutschland—this is the United States of America
-source of the rule change is upper level judges trying to aggrandize themselves, a few people telling 30,000 people they can’t ride where they want to

canyonoak

Mar. 20, 2008, 09:52 PM

<<However, I agree with Alison that it is tough to read comments from posters who hurl certain accusations at the DC and USDF leadership. Especially uninformed exaggerations and misinformation coming from people who aren't involved enough to know what actually is going on.

... but the postings of others that probably cause you to cringe yourself are what make bulletin board conversations somewhat futile. It's like being in a room with a bunch of people all talking at the same time. It's hard to separate who is saying what. Those of you with well-thought out comments are often lumped in with those who rant and rave about the evil DC members who are out to kill off the adult amateurs. >>

Could someone please cite an example of the above kind of post.

<< I would like to add that Rebecca and Shotenstar were well-received at the Region 1 meeting. Rebecca was given the floor by Alison and was given MORE than ample time to make her comments and answered questions that were tossed her way by those in attendance. Their "data report" was also well-received. Shotenstar gave some great explanations as well and some insight into what the data report reveals. Some of those in attendance actually found the data actually SUPPORTS the need for qualifying standards. (I guess data can be open for interpretation.)>>

Is there some reason that the data report prepared by Rebecca and others is inside quote marks?

It is a data report. A data report that to the best of my knowledge proved that several of the reasons offered for the Rule Change Proposal were specious if not entirely invalid.

Putting the words "data report" in quotations suggests that the report is itself not as represented or somehow invalid.

And--could someone explain how the data from the "data report" SUPPORTS the need for qualifying standards?
(Of course, in this instance, I guess the "data report" is now considered highly valid.)

thank you.

J-Lu

Mar. 20, 2008, 10:23 PM

However, I agree with Alison that it is tough to read comments from posters who hurl certain accusations at the DC and USDF leadership. Especially uninformed exaggerations and misinformation coming from people who aren't involved enough to know what actually is going on.

Rebecca, you worry about being lumped into a category of being a trouble maker, but the postings of others that probably cause you to cringe yourself are what make bulletin board conversations somewhat futile. It's like being in a room with a bunch of people all talking at the same time. It's hard to separate who is saying what. Those of you with well-thought out comments are often lumped in with those who rant and rave about the evil DC members who are out to kill off the adult amateurs.
Jennifer Mitchell
President, NCDCTA

Jennifer, from what I have heard from individuals and from what you have just posted, you are being as unconstructive and ill-willed as those you are condemning. How can you criticize one group when you are doing the same thing?

You may not be aware, but very few posts here stoop to the level you describe. Many people have expressed concerns, but very few stoop to the level that you describe. I challenge you to find posts similar to what you describe, and then I challenge you to calculate the ratio of posts that describe the DC as "evil" to those airing legitimate concerns.

It is this very language and word useage that contributes, in my opinion, to the spread of rumors that the bulletin boards are so "belligerent" and negative. Putting such phrases into other peoples' mouths is unproductive and destructive, especially in light of Scott's comments about the sport acting as "one unit". People must practice what they are preaching.

Lastly, I cannot accept that readers of these many threads are incapable of separating the thoughtful and concerned posts/posters from the negative posts/posters. Very much UNLIKE a crowded room, the viewer necessarily has to read one post at a time. At any time, the reader may hit "quote" and compose a message addressing one post/poster at a time.

BaroquePony

Mar. 21, 2008, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by JennNC

"However, I agree with Alison that it is tough to read comments from posters who hurl certain accusations at the DC and USDF leadership. Especially uninformed exaggerations and misinformation coming from people who aren't involved enough to know what actually is going on.

Rebecca, you worry about being lumped into a category of being a trouble maker, but the postings of others that probably cause you to cringe yourself are what make bulletin board conversations somewhat futile. It's like being in a room with a bunch of people all talking at the same time. It's hard to separate who is saying what. Those of you with well-thought out comments are often lumped in with those who rant and rave about the evil DC members who are out to kill off the adult amateurs.
Jennifer Mitchell
President, NCDCTA"

I know that I am not going to meetings, so I can't possibly know everything that is going on, but I have been involved in USDF and USCTA (that dates me!) state and regional orginizations before, and I remember a lot of strange ideas and not much getting done that truly promoted correct riding.

I see a lot of incorrect riding at all levels. A lot. I am embarrassed to tell most horsepeople that my focus is on dressage. I do have a jumping background and I got addicted to riding correctly in a classical manner. I am bothered by the lack of correct dressage understanding and schooling that I see. I do know there are some very proficient dressage riders and instructors, but there are far to few of them.

I love the BBs because I can walk away and think about what I read.

I can't understand why USDF would care about what is being said on BBs.

poltroon

Mar. 21, 2008, 01:32 AM

However, I agree with Alison that it is tough to read comments from posters who hurl certain accusations at the DC and USDF leadership. Especially uninformed exaggerations and misinformation coming from people who aren't involved enough to know what actually is going on.

I have been the volunteer president of two nonprofit organizations, been on their boards for many years, and I am well acquainted with how it feels when you're working hard for free and doing the best you can.

However, I think it would be very helpful if those of you feeling attacked would recognize that many of us amateurs also feel that we are reading comments about us that are exaggerated and misinformed. Maybe they're not about me - but the overall population you're discussing happens to include me, and that makes it feel very personal.

So, we stand with you feeling that you're being told you're corrupt and in it for the money, and I'm feeling that I'm being told that every score I've ever gotten is a pity score and that I'm a terrible rider whose been abusing my horse, but no judge has ever quite had the heart to break it to me.

In real life, I expect that you are trying to make dressage a better sport, and that I'm trying to make dressage a better sport, and that we both pursue it to the best of our abilities. :)

And, I appreciate you posting here, and I think it helps if we have everyone in a virtual room where we can discuss it together. The reality is that each of us sees only a small part of the problem. Scott Hassler (for example) is I'm certain a lovely person - but I imagine he has no idea what it's like to pursue dressage in Montana or even far northern California while also holding a full time non-horse job. Similarly, though I have shown and scribed, I don't have nearly the breadth of experience of a judge. A rule of this scope and ramification which affects riders in the entire country needs to be discussed - and while I'm glad it's being discussed now, I wish the Dressage Committee had been willing to bring it to the membership themselves. It's not like you don't know where we all live. :)

There are a lot of good ideas and very smart people here. I think frustration will go away on both sides if we can have a constructive, engaged discussion. I applaud Rebecca and sm and star and pluvinel who have been willing to compile data, which can only help not only this process, but understanding the state American dressage as a whole.

poltroon

Mar. 21, 2008, 01:43 AM

I am a database professional, and I worry that (among other issues) this new qualifying proposal could cost as much as $50-$100k a year in additional reporting and data tracking requirements, between the USEF and the horse shows.

If the issue is incorrect riding, maybe we could instead spend that money on establishing a riding academy at the Kentucky Horse Park that had a qualified trainer and a handful of 3rd-4th level schoolmaster school horses. It might only be usable for locals and for people with the time and money to fly in - but it would be another resource. You could set up scholarships/riding camps for young promising dressage riders. Or you could set up grants and scholarships to send young professionals to Germany. Set up high school foreign exchange setups for juniors.

poltroon

Mar. 21, 2008, 02:01 AM

I'm going to use my imperfect memory to try to summarize some of the concerns that have come up on the bb discussions:

1. We are using a test meant to evaluate the HORSE to determine the skill of the RIDER. Judges have expressed that it's not fair to give a horse that's performing well despite a terrible ride a bad score.

2. The proposed rule does not account for geographic differences, where some people travel 4+ hours, longer, to get to the nearest show, and may not have more than one or two show opportunities per year. Extensive travel is hard on horses, families, and pocketbooks, and does not itself create quality riding.

3. We are concerned that a qualifying rule will increase pressure on judges to award a qualifying score, regardless of the ride.

4. We are concerned to hear that judges are reporting widespread 'abusive' riding, when there are so few scores below 50%. We are concerned that perhaps the judges are not communicating clearly with the riders.

5. We are concerned that the rule will cause riders to react 'inappropriately' - by buying a fancier horse, by judge-shopping, by cranking-and-spanking - rather than by learning the skills that are thought to be lacking.

6. The riders currently yanking on the curb rein are likely already qualified to ride in a double even under this rule.

7. All dressage riders will suffer significant extra cost and extra wear and tear to allow the committee to feel like they are doing something but avoid directly addressing a tiny handful of problem riders.

slc2

Mar. 21, 2008, 06:47 AM

If a person does not know how to score better, they aren't going to make good choices in the name of scoring better. How could they? They don't know how. If they knew what it took to score better, and were physically able, they'd already be doing it.

But this whole business of getting rid of abusive riding, I don't think that really has anything to do with having a boundary of 62 percent. I don't think the 55-62% rides are abusive - ever. They're for the most part, lacking impulsion and accuracy...something the horses probably thoroughly enjoy.

I think trying to convince the membership that a cut off of 62% is to protect the horses is - well - I think it's simply not true. If you want to get rid of abuse, you chuck everyone off the show grounds that has a temper tantrum on horseback and you put a limit on classes per day and shows per year, you get rid of 'points', 'mileage' and 'qualification', and you drug test more. These areas of abuse are much more frank and pain horses far more than some clueless little amateur plopping slowly around on their horse.

I think the purpose of the qualification is to improve scores, to raise them up. I think the 'abuse' argument is an appealing and emotional one, but if it were the true goal, again, I think the above changes would be the way to do it.

DC and organizational members may feel attacked, but they need to understand, many members feel attacked too. They are basically being told that the organization needs to stop them from abusing their horses, that they ride so badly the judges have to get them out of the ring...please understand...that stings a bit.

At any job I've ever had, when people have freedom of choice taken away from them that they've had for a long time, they react in a very predictable way - badly. I think the membership may feel even more attacked than the organizational members, frankly.

There are people who are ALWAYS bitching about judges, and bitching about the organizations, they never stop, they are always unhappy about something. Judges suck, organizations suck, heck even riding sucks, dressage riders mostly stink, the horses aren't collected, they're all unhappy and violating all the divine laws of riding, and they're so embarrassing to those who are so much more enlightened.

I think that using them as an example of 'mean members' cannot EVER remove the fact that people DO have legitimate concerns and are voicing them politely without getting personal and without calling prominent people in the organization names, which is childish, pointless stuff.

What about the argument that judges are to blame? Nonsense, if a person is flopping around at the sitting trot or yanking on the horse's mouth, that somehow becomes the judge's fault by their logic...fascinating process of logic, maybe, but impossible. Riders are responsible for how they ride.

Dressage judges, for the most part, are already devastatingly clear in their remarks and their scoring. They always have been. In my experience none of them are particularly shy about using all the marks. I think people who charge this have pet peeves that if they see, they want the horse to score a zero for the movement...this is a lack of understanding of the priority points and balance of what the judge looks for.

Comments like 'Get some riding lessons!' and 'Should not be showing at this level' appear quite often on tests. There are, some, riders that simply don't listen. Most are devastated if a judge reads them the riot act and crawl back home to work til they feel they are ready, and try again.

And there are, in fact, trainers who say, 'You are not ready to show at this level' and there are riders who say, 'I a, going to do it anyway', and if their trainer doesn't like it, they get another trainer and spread it all around that the old trainer stinks. No matter WHAT, no matter WHAT YOU DO as an organization, you are NEVER going to get these people straightened out.

You're going to chase them all over hell's half acre and never catch them. They'll lease a schoolmaster and get qualified...they'll learn how to work around any rule. There are people like this in every sport and no matter what the organization does they get around it, all that does is punish the other members. The only thing you can do is bar them, and that could never be done completely fairly - people would petition to bar someone who sold them a crappy horse. It just wouldn't work.

No, nothing like this will be without concerns from the membership, and people in the organization may not like a pushback when they want to pass a new rule, but PLEASE - do not try to give the impression that ALL are just mindlessly attacking individuals in the organization!

canyonoak

Mar. 21, 2008, 10:51 AM

A small point, but perhaps useful for further discussion:

Can we agree to use "opposed" and "for" in describing our positions on this rule proposal, instead of saying "negative" and "positive".

I do not feel that those of us who are opposed to the Rule Change Proposal are in any way negative or not in favor of our sport.

I feel strongly that we are questioning the intent , usage and implied results of said proposal.

Poltroon gave many reasons why we are questioning the need for this Rule Change Proposal.

I will add the following:

In Holland Germnay, the models for this proposal, the qualification standard exists to help keep shows from being over-subscribed.

In Holland, there are approximately 14,000 rides per show weekend.

The U.S. does not have that many rides per month, IIRC.

In Holland, even at local CDNs, riders win substantial prizes: money; racing bicycles; saddles, etc.
Riders pay about $25/class in toto
Judges get a per diem ,a nice hotel, and a hearty thank you.

When any of the above conditions come into -play in the US, I will be in favor of a qualifying standard.

I think the DC may have confused the TRAINER LICENSE with the purpose of a Qualifying Proposal.

Because in order to be a trainer in Germany, one needs to have gone through rigorous examination and qualification. I have to check on the set-up in Holland.

Honestly, I do not think the DC is interested in discussion, but rather desire all of us to simploy accept their directives.

I hope they prove me wrong.