Bravo! HDS keeping members informed on proposed rule change! [Archive]

rebecca yount

Apr. 9, 2008, 11:03 AM

Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.

We think posting them on the websites is an excellent idea, so that members can be informed as to background on the proposed rule change.

We are really not sure when the next draft of the rule change proposal will be released by the USEF Dressage Committee. But we feel that it is important for people to be ready to respond when/if it is released.

As can be seen by reviewing the documents (click on links above, that'll take you to HDS website and there are links to the actual docs on there), a GREAT DEAL of work and analysis went into preparing this.

Most of the credit for the stats and analysis goes to Shotenstar and Pluvinel. I am just the leader of the gang. (Even in Kindergarten they said I had "leadership qualities". That was their way of saying I was bossy. I have two t-shirts courtesy of Star: one says "She Who Must Be Obeyed" and the other says "Teamwork: A Whole Lot of People Doing What I Say").

PS: There's a 3rd t-shirt, but I can't post on here what it says...

Jealoushe

Apr. 9, 2008, 12:09 PM

Wow, impressive. Thanks for all the hard work:cool:

Apr. 10, 2008, 06:58 PM

also Oregon Dressage Society

scroll down to third item
http://www.oregondressage.com/news/

enjoytheride

Apr. 11, 2008, 05:14 PM

I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?

ShotenStar

Apr. 11, 2008, 05:18 PM

Enjoy

what is the source of that information?

If true, we need to pounce on the right people.

However, at the Region 1 meeting, Sam Barish and Scott Hassler, both members of the USEF Dressage Committee, stated that the next version of the proposed standard would be made available for review and that website 'voting and commenting' would be set-up to get member input. So, is it possible that your information refers to the possible timeline for this?

*star*

enjoytheride

Apr. 11, 2008, 05:38 PM

The source sits on the USEF board.

Elisha

Apr. 11, 2008, 11:20 PM

Thanks for the compliments. We sent those documents to all GMOs to do with what they please.

Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.

ShotenStar

Apr. 12, 2008, 08:00 AM

The reports were sent to GMO presidents or preferred points of contact if that was what was listed. The sender was 'sm' of this board, who used her professional email software through Summit Marketing to help us do this.

Please check with your GMO officers to see which one received it. If we missed you, or the email address rejected the attachments, or there was some other delivery problem, let us know and we will send copies directly.

*star*

arnika

Apr. 12, 2008, 08:56 AM

I overheard this week that the performance standard rule change will be voted on in June and not later in the year as some people think, possibly in an effort to pass it without protest?

So has anyone here actually seen or been told what the new version of the standards will be?

I seem to recall that the USEF DC stated that after their March meeting they would send out the new proposal to the GMOs and take public comment through them, then have discussion at the summer meeting with a vote to follow. Is the meeting this June for board/committee members only? Or open to the public. And where will it be held?

Elisha

Apr. 12, 2008, 02:27 PM

PennyRidge

Apr. 12, 2008, 04:43 PM

Who sent this to the GMOs, and who in the GMO was this sent to? I'm the newsletter editor for a GMO in Texas, and I have not received this information.

Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.

I am not at all surprised that the report may not have been disseminated by all who received it.

It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.

Personally, I think it is presumptuous to expect GMO officials be required to share a data report that is clearly meant to persuade the readers of that report that there is no need for "Performance Standards". Especially when there is NO qualification system proposal on the table yet.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am glad the data was collected and that this information is available, but the conclusions and summary of the data as it is written in the report are certainly biased in one direction as to how the data was perceived.

Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.

ShotenStar

Apr. 12, 2008, 04:52 PM

....
Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.

Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.

And for the record: the conclusions are where the data took us, not where we took the data.

If the data had indicated a broad pattern of problems, say with lots of low scores at 3rd and 4th level, or a track record by individual riders of moving up levels with low scores at the previous levels, then the conclusions would have been much different.

*star*

PennyRidge

Apr. 12, 2008, 05:22 PM

Go for it ... the data is on the USDF website. Pull it out for yourself. Do your own analysis with the tools of your choice. That is what data is for ... to be examined from different perspectives.

You miss my point... IF the GMO officials/representatives are supposed to be neutral, and IF they are supposed to represent the views of their membership and not their own..then it would seem unwise for them to post a report on their website or in their newsletter that clearly states a strong position AGAINST A QUALIFICATION SYSTEM of any kind. The report says this!

I have read on another bb and even a few posts here where folks ARE IN FAVOR of a qualification system. It seems that even some trainers are in favor of one because it will help them keep their students from showing above their abilities, etc. I imagine that there are riders, instructors and
judges who support a qualification system who are also members of a GMO. Shouldn't the GMO leadership take their opinions into consideration as well?

Are these GMOs who have posted the data report on their websites trying to lead their membership down a particular path? It would seem that way to me.

Your data report is more than just a sharing of statistics and information, it is intended to spread the gospel to the nation that a qualification system is not needed and ill-advised. Those who choose to publish that report on their websites and in their newsletters are sending a strong message out to their membership that a qualification system is NOT NECESSARY. It speaks out against a proposal that is not even on the table anymore. And you surely know that many GMO members have NO clue what is going on with this qualification system and when they read the report they will start making assumptions that are incorrect.

I think it is a mistake for GMO officials to start spreading fear that a qualification system is going to hurt your average rider. To me, this is what that report does. For those of you who WANT TO STOP such a system from taking place, then this is a fine thing...but for those of us who believe that a form of qualification system is needed, it is very unfair propaganda.

PennyRidge

Apr. 12, 2008, 05:38 PM

PennyRidge

Apr. 12, 2008, 05:51 PM

pluvinel

Apr. 12, 2008, 05:52 PM

Elisha, I have no answer for the Texas question you have, but I find it rather frustrating that some posters think that there is a responsibility for GMO or USDF officials to get this data report out to the members. While the data itself is very interesting....the report summary is certainly NOT unbiased and there is no question that the report draws conclusions that are meant to steer people down a certain path.
.....

The data is the data. I, author Diaz in the report, did the bulk of the Minitab statistical analysis. Given the length of the report, the analyses were actually very simple...there was no particularly sophisticated use of statistics. The conclusions arrived at in the report are just summary words for what the data represents:

1-There are few scores below 40%
2-The regression analysis showed NO CORRELATION between 2nd4 and the average scores for 3rd level.
3-The data is "bell shape curve" perfectly suitable for analysis and represents ALL SCORES from open competition. No "representative samples" were done...it is the whole population from the dates the data was available.....the population in its entirety.

It would make more sense to me to share the data AFTER the new proposed qualification system comes out. This data report may not even be relevant to the new proposed system for all we know. I think the data report may INDEED be very helpful to those who are currently devising a new proposal, and I'm glad that there were those who were willing to do all the work on this.
......

Thanks for the compliment....There was probably 1 man-month (person-month) spent on the analysis between ShotenStar and me. The data is the data. It is enshrined in history. It will not change. The analysis is appropriate to ANY qualification rule proposal that may come out in the future as the data represents the current state of competition scores.

...........
Another person might look at all of the statistics and data and form a very different "summary" as to what it means.

I challenge anyone to look at the data and come to a different set of conclusions. As a volunteer, I was willing to donate my time and skills to the effort of understanding the data. I offered Sam Barish to help the USDF with the analysis. I personally did not care how the results came out. I just wanted there to be some analysis behind the qualifying rule proposal. Also, if not me, I offered referals to an unbiased, "non-horsey" PhD statistician....who would, of course, charge for their time. The offer still stands.

If anyone has any questions about how the data was analyzed, how conclusions were arrived at, or any other questions about methods, etc., our e-mail addresses are all in the report. This includes the PennyRidge.

We are available and willing to answer any questions. We have nothing to hide. The data is the data. It was analyzed by 2 professional analysts with standard statistical tools, nothing particularly exotic (ANOVA, regression, statistical summaries), very plebian analyses that anyone who has taken Stats101 would be familiar with.

ShotenStar

Apr. 12, 2008, 06:25 PM

I just looked at PVDA's website and was surprised to see that the President of that GMO is asking members to vote on whether or not they support or oppose the "rule change" for performance standards! Do I understand this correctly, Rebecca? Are members still under the impression that the old proposal is still on the table? Why is that polling thing even there? How can members decide whether they are for or against something when the details of that something aren't even known?

If you read the website carefully, the referendum is on the 'concept' of performance standards, not the specifics of a particular scheme:

The referendum (http://www.pvda.org/Documents/Referendum%20on%20Rule%20Change.aspx) posted on our PVDA website is an opportunity for YOU, the individual GMO member, to have a voice and comment regarding what YOU think of performance standards and what suggestions you would like us to share with the Dressage Committee. Only if YOU are involved can we make a difference.I see this as a major GMO being responsible and responsive to its members, by providing data and an opportunity to comment on the issue.

And as pluvinel said, the data is the data is the data -- the Bell Curves will not change when the new proposal is published; the mean and the median scores will not change. This data will be valuable to members to review when the new proposal makes its appearance. The only part of the analysis that might need to be re-run is if the DC comes up with a different set of tests to use for qualifying: the current report looks at 2-4 > 3rd lvl and 4-3 to PSG. If they decide to use something else, we will have to set up to see what the validity of that relationship might be ... good, bad, or indifferent.

And please understand: we are not blanket against performance standards in all cases for all times.

We are FOR standards and rules that make sense, are relevant and reliable, and that address a SPECIFIC PROBLEM in a manner that directly relates to the problem. So far, we have not seen that.

*star*

ShotenStar

Apr. 12, 2008, 06:33 PM

...
Personally, I think it is presumptuous to expect GMO officials be required to share a data report that is clearly meant to persuade the readers of that report that there is no need for "Performance Standards". Especially when there is NO qualification system proposal on the table yet.

No one is expecting or requiring anything.

We offered it, no strings.

GMOs may do with it as they think will benefit their members. They may write their own newletter articles, stating their own positions / views.

What is important is the dialog .... between members and GMOs, between GMOs and the USDF, and between the USDF and the USEF DC.

*star*

J-Lu

Apr. 12, 2008, 09:37 PM

I'm actually getting pretty riled up about this now. As I look at the websites of a couple of GMOs who have posted this report, I am more concerned than ever.

Amongst GMO news about pizza partys and volunteer efforts is this statement included with the data report:

More Info & Statistics Relating to Proposed Establishment of
USEF Performance Standards
These detailed reports (click here for Handout and Score Analysis) are provided to help inform members regarding issues involved in the upcoming USEF proposed rule change. If you have specific questions on the content of these documents, please contact Dr Rebecca Yount, dryount@yahoo.com

For crying out loud...GMO members who don't read this bb and aren't in the know about this issue will read the above statement and assume that this data report is some sort of official report coming from USDF or USEF or something. And then to have DOCTOR Rebecca Yount as the contact makes it sound even more official and important.

I'm sorry...I'm really letting loose on my thoughts here..but what would be more appropriate for GMO websites to say in the statement about the report is something more like:

Here is a report that was compiled and analyzed by people who oppose any form of qualification system for dressage riders. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this executive board.

And then...the GMO website should put videotape of 3rd level riders slamming around on their horses' backs, jerking on their faces and spurring them (with their faces blotted out of course) and say something like:

Here are video clips that supply the anecdotal evidence that supporters of a qualification system find very compelling.

As a member of HDS, let me offer you my perspective. I think my opinion represents one or two members.

First, a statistical report offered by DOCTOR Rebecca Y and colleagues who do statistics for a living makes it MUCH more believable to me. These are people formally trained in statistical methods and analysis. I want people formally trained in statistical analysis to do the stats and derive conclusions. I have a copy of the report and am satisfied with their methods and conclusions. When done correctly, statistics don't lie. I encourage you to look closer at their methods. If you examine the methods then you will see that their conclusions would be the same regardless of their stance. Please point out where their statistical methods are flawed or lead to flawed conclusions.

Second, the beauty of statistical analysis is that it is NOT anecdotal. Anecdotes are stories and are biased, and have no place in policy making. Anecdotes are what were offered by the DC to support the performance standards rule change. This is exactly why Dr. Yount and colleagues decided to perform UNBIASED analysis. If you can find overt bias in their methods, I'll eat my words. I'll eat their report!

DOCTOR J.

claire

Apr. 12, 2008, 10:01 PM

But wasn't the purpose of the data analysis to objectively define the stated problem?

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.

J-Lu

Apr. 12, 2008, 10:43 PM

The authors can answer better than I can, but...

I believe the driving force for the analysis was to determine if some of the statements offered in press and in private emails as rationale for the Rule Change Proposal was accurate.

For example, one reason offered was that (I paraphrase) there were so many riders scoring in the 30s and 40s at third level bouncing around on their horses' backs. People asked "how many is "so many""? The authors provided the answer. Less than 3%.

Thus, the authors showed that IF riders scoring in the 30s and 40s were so numerous that a rule change was required, but less than 3% of riders scored in the 30s and 40s, then administering a rule change to 100% of riders in order to address 3% of riders is inefficient and "a burden" to 97% of riders.

I think this is where they're coming from with the report.

Good point - what exactly IS the official definition of the problem that requires a rule change?

ShotenStar

Apr. 13, 2008, 12:09 AM

...
Good point - what exactly IS the official definition of the problem that requires a rule change?

This was / is an issue: the DC has not provided a clear problem statement.

Therefore, at the beginning of the report, we state the questions we examined as part forming the report:

1. What is the current state of dressage performances, as measured by test scores? Are there a significant number of low-scoring tests?

2. Is there a clear linkage between scores achieved at lower level tests and those later achieved at the next / higher levels? I.e., are scores at lower levels adequate / accurate predictors of future success at upper levels?

If there is no clear linkage between success at one level and success at higher levels, is there an alternate method that could be established to verify a rider’s readiness to advance? 3. If qualifying scores are mandated, whether for moving up the levels in competition or for entry to over-subscribed shows, what are the best ‘break points’ for determining which horse/rider pairs should move up/be permitted to enter? (Since all available data is framed in terms of horse/rider pairs, we will need to discuss the information in those terms.)

The data analysis examined these questions and the report provides the answers. As we have told the DC and anyone else who was interested, if there are other questions they want examined, ask away ....

*star*

PennyRidge

Apr. 13, 2008, 03:09 PM

[QUOTE=ShotenStar;3141984]If you read the website carefully, the referendum is on the 'concept' of performance standards, not the specifics of a particular scheme:

One doesn't have to read carefully to see what the referendum is about. When you click on the link to the PVDA referendum, it clearly asks, "Do you support the proposed rule change?" and then there is a link next to the voting form that says "Link to proposed rule change". When you click on the link, it details the ORIGINAL rule proposal that has already been nixed.

Surely most people who read this are going to be under the FALSE impression that they are voting on whether or not they support the original proposal. If you have any influence over the PVDA website content, I would urge you to have it updated by having the original proposal removed from the website and the referendum to be reworded and recounted or better yet...removed until there is a NEW proposal to consider.

Once again..I think the data report is most interesting and am hoping that the DC used the information from the report as they came up with their new proposal or proposals. That is who the report best served, in my opinion. But to think GMOs should be responsible for sharing this report to their membership is not reasonable.

And please understand: we are not blanket against performance standards in all cases for all times.

That is NOT what I gathered from the report. The conclusion drawn by those who interpreted the data is (and I quote) that: "no qualification rule be implemented".

The data report was ABSOLUTELY meant to persuade and steer the readers of the report into opposing a qualification system.

Granted...the report did make some very good observations and offered the DC some great alternatives as it makes quite a few recommendations with a lot of "should" and "would" thoughts, but again... for GMO officials to send this report to their membership at this time is pure propaganda.

It serves to tell the reader that "there doesn't seem to be evidence of poor riding".

We've already had discussion here after a recent horse show that people are starting to open their eyes to the fact that there IS indeed a problem with bad riding and that horses are getting the raw end of the deal.

So, even if the "data" didn't show that there is a problem because of the interpretation of the score statistics...that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem!

Data is data.

And reality is reality. Horses are being hurt by those who are riding above their skill level.

ShotenStar

Apr. 13, 2008, 05:43 PM

[quote]

Granted...the report did make some very good observations and offered the DC some great alternatives as it makes quite a few recommendations with a lot of "should" and "would" thoughts, but again...

This is the heart of the matter ... there ARE ALTERNATIVES that will BETTER ACHIEVE the (presumed) goals of the DC. These alternatives need to be part of the discussions. Yet, without the analysis of the scoring patterns, these alternatives might never have been recognized, by the DC or anyone else.

As for the PVDA website, I will forward your observations to the PVDA Board to make them aware of your concerns.

*star*

pluvinel

Apr. 13, 2008, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE]
.......
Once again..I think the data report is most interesting and am hoping that the DC used the information from the report as they came up with their new proposal or proposals. That is who the report best served, in my opinion. But to think GMOs should be responsible for sharing this report to their membership is not reasonable.

Why?

To say that the report is good enough for the DC to incorporate into their thinking, but is not appropriate reading matter for the people that are going to be affected by a rule change that the DC introduces seems a little contradictory.

[QUOTE]
.......
Granted...the report did make some very good observations and offered the DC some great alternatives as it makes quite a few recommendations with a lot of "should" and "would" thoughts, but again... for GMO officials to send this report to their membership at this time is pure propaganda.

It serves to tell the reader that "there doesn't seem to be evidence of poor riding".

We've already had discussion here after a recent horse show that people are starting to open their eyes to the fact that there IS indeed a problem with bad riding and that horses are getting the raw end of the deal.

So, even if the "data" didn't show that there is a problem because of the interpretation of the score statistics...that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem!

Data is data.

And reality is reality. Horses are being hurt by those who are riding above their skill level.

And the geek in me would say "show me the money"...eg., quantify for me how much and how bad is it....and WHO is doing "it".

I don't dispute any of your statements above. What the data does do is raise questions about the judging system and its use. Given the conflict between the "bad riding" people are commenting on and the lack of scores to reflect the extent of that "bad riding" points problems with the judging scale/system and a topic called "inter-rater reliability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability
Inter-rater reliability, inter-rater agreement, or Concordance is the degree of agreement among raters. It .... If various raters do not agree, either the scale is defective or the raters need to be re-trained.

I did not want to raise this point in the report on score analysis as it would have brought in a topic that was not on the table as part of the original discussion.

Yes, obviously we all see bad riding at shows. How bad is bad? What is the extent of bad? Is it only 1%...2%...3%...5%...10% or the riders? It certainly is not 50% of the riders.

What data allows one to do is to properly frame and quantify the problem. It allows one to explore questions such as:
-->>> Is a rule that affects all riders necessary?
-->>>Would the "bad riding" be eliminated by training and education?
-->>> Would a query into who-what-where-when is doing the bad riding throw light on WHY there is bad riding, so that it can be improved?

In my line of work, people want to put "spec limits" without investing in improving the product. What that creates is a bunch of "off-quality" material that collects in a warehouse but does not really fix anything.

There are alternatives that would be more rider-horse friendly than a rule. If the report comes across as being against a rule change, perhaps it is because there may be other potential alternative courses of action to reduce "bad riding" at its source. Both the USEF and USDF are member services organizations. All the report intended to do was to raise those points on how to best serve their members.

As stated before, an offer to assist the USDF and the USEF with data analysis was made, first in Dec07 and again in March08. The offer is still on the table.

About 1 person-month was spent on the score analysis. At the going rate of $1000/day consulting, that's about a $20,000 piece of work if the analysis had to be paid for. Two PVDA volunteers donated their time to this effort.

It is not clear to me why a data-based analysis is causing such angst.

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot -- your knowledge is of meager and unsatisfactory kind. ---" Lord Kelvin (1824-1907).
http://www.stataxis.com/interrater.htm

Touchstone Farm

Apr. 13, 2008, 06:35 PM

pluvinel -- excellent quote: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot -- your knowledge is of meager and unsatisfactory kind. ---" Lord Kelvin (1824-1907).

Of course, there is "bad riding." The point as others have so eloquently stated, is that a rule should be based on data not anecdotes. I have a hard time understanding why 3% of the rides (as pointed out in the data) should be driving a change that affects 97% of the rest of the riders and 100% of all of us since whatever tracking method is set up will cost the membership something. And I am not clear how this rule will improve riding overall. It also doesn't address the warm-up ring (IF this was truly about the welfare of the horse -- the warm-up ring is where you see the worst! And by riders who will be grandfathered in and who will continue teaching their students their methods.)

Our GMO state board (and our local chapter) will be discussing the report at our next meeting, so we appreciate the efforts that were taken to provide us with some information which was not forthcoming from the DC...

PennyRidge

Apr. 13, 2008, 07:33 PM

pluvinel asked:
Why?

I've already explained why. It's propaganda: prop-a-gan-da n. 1. Any widespread scheme or effort to spread or promote an idea, opinion, or course of action in order to help or do damage to a cause, person, etc.

The report is meant to lead people down a path to a certain conclusion. I hate to keep repeating myself. It's clear that you don't see it the same way I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And the geek in me would say "show me the money"...eg., quantify for me how much and how bad is it....and WHO is doing "it".

Sadly, there is NO geek running through my veins. (I wish I had some.) And, I must be honest, when you start in with the geek speak...my eyes glaze over.

I'm more compelled by what I see with my eyes at the shows and no statistics can change that.

Yes, I would love it if judges would feel free to judge without fear of losing their jobs. Yes, I would love it if judging were more consistent by the judges. Yes, I would love it if riders would actually believe what the scores reflected.

The reality is...none of those three things will become reality. Judges ARE in jeopardy when they are hard on riders who ride very poorly. I don't think this will change. Show management will always be aware of the consequences of hiring the "unpopular judges" and their bottom dollar is usually going to influence who they hire.

And because judges are human, and judging dressage is quite subjective, there will most likely always be a lack of consistency with the scoring.

Most poor riders who are out there showing are NOT going to be happy with getting "nailed" by judges, and before they will ever admit they have a problem with their riding, they will seek the "Santa Claus" judges or continue to make excuses.

It is not clear to me why a data-based analysis is causing such angst.

I don't think it IS causing much angst at all. However, there DID seem to be a small amount of angst with a very few people here who seemed bothered by the fact that their GMO hadn't shared the report with their membership.

I was simply responding to this concern. I wanted to put in my two cents that I don't think it IS necessary that GMO officials share the data report and the conclusions that came with it. It is not an official report from the USEF or USDF but I guarantee you that many people will think it is. They will not understand that two (or three if you count Rebecca) individuals decided to do this on their own and that their interpretation of the data was highly influenced by their own agenda...which is to stop performance standards from taking place.

claire

Apr. 13, 2008, 07:38 PM

We've already had discussion here after a recent horse show that people are starting to open their eyes to the fact that there IS indeed a problem with bad riding and that horses are getting the raw end of the deal.
And I believe the "bad riding" at the said show received scores in the 60's and was done by a judge and a trainer in the warm-up ring...both of whom would be grandfathered in and not addressed by any qualification standard.

So, even if the "data" didn't show that there is a problem because of the interpretation of the score statistics...that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem!
Exactly, but if the DC had followed their own "best practice" directives on rule proposals, and had actually done some statistical research into the perceived "problem" before deciding on a "solution" or rule proposal...we might be having a more productive discussion on viable solutions to address the real "core issues".

In addition, it would be interesting to hear and discuss alternate interpretations of the data analysis. Have alternate interpretations of this data analysis been put forward and been made public?

And reality is reality. Horses are being hurt by those who are riding above their skill level.

Until you can point to clinical studies and data supporting this statement, this is simply a statement of opinion.

ShotenStar

Apr. 13, 2008, 07:40 PM

I don't think it IS causing much angst at all. However, there DID seem to be a small amount of angst with a very few people here who seemed bothered by the fact that their GMO hadn't shared the report with their membership.

I was simply responding to this concern. I wanted to put in my two cents that I don't think it IS necessary that GMO officials share the data report and the conclusions that came with it. It is not an official report from the USEF or USDF but I guarantee you that many people will think it is. They will not understand that two (or three if you count Rebecca) individuals decided to do this on their own and that their interpretation of the data was highly influenced by their own agenda...which is to stop performance standards from taking place.

Your two cents are always welcome.

And our agenda is to stop poorly conceived, unsupported by data performance standards from taking place. A poorly conceived standard has the potential to do more damage than no standard at all. If the DC comes up with something that makes sense and fits a specific problem statement, we'll line up with them ... after we run the analysis ... ;)

*star*

pluvinel

Apr. 13, 2008, 08:05 PM

.....In addition, it would be interesting to hear and discuss alternate interpretations of the data analysis. Have alternate interpretations of this data analysis been put forward and been made public?

Anyone who wants a copy of the raw data, please contact one of the authors. It is about a 2MB Excel file.

If you don't have statistical tools and would like to "ask a question" of the data, just ask. Send ShotenStar a PM and we will try to oblige.

claire

Apr. 13, 2008, 08:16 PM

Yes, I would love it if judges would feel free to judge without fear of losing their jobs. Yes, I would love it if judging were more consistent by the judges. Yes, I would love it if riders would actually believe what the scores reflected.

The reality is...none of those three things will become reality. Judges ARE in jeopardy when they are hard on riders who ride very poorly. I don't think this will change. Show management will always be aware of the consequences of hiring the "unpopular judges" and their bottom dollar is usually going to influence who they hire.

And because judges are human, and judging dressage is quite subjective, there will most likely always be a lack of consistency with the scoring.

Most poor riders who are out there showing are NOT going to be happy with getting "nailed" by judges, and before they will ever admit they have a problem with their riding, they will seek the "Santa Claus" judges or continue to make excuses.

I am having difficulty following your reasoning here.
If this is all true, what is the point of going to the expense of having a qualification standard?

You believe that judges will never be consistant or give out the "hard scores", yet you feel that we should have qualification standards with scores determined by these same judges?

And that even if some judges start handing out the "hard scores", the "bad riders" will simply seek out the "Santa Claus" judges?

And show managers are only concerned with the $$$-bottom line so will only hire "Santa Claus"judges?

Under these circumstances, a qualification rule is going to raise the standard of riding how?

According to what you are saying, it seems like it will only raise the scores for the current standard of riding.

claire

Apr. 13, 2008, 08:28 PM

ShotenStar

Apr. 13, 2008, 10:34 PM

If I may answer.

There have been comments in several places, both public and private, that suggest that the three of us who did the analysis and wrote the report 'crafted' the report to indicate only our preferred results. In order to help people understand that the analysis was straight forward and proceeded from the data to the conclusions, we are more than happy to offer people copies of the Excel spreadsheet we used. From that they can run any analysis they might want to satisfy their own intellectual itch.

Or, if they do not have access to a suitable software tool and skills, just ask and we will attempt to answer to the best of our ability.

*star*

pluvinel

Apr. 14, 2008, 07:23 AM

pluvinel,

I don't have an alternate interpretations of your data analysis. Just trying to follow along here...I thought Penny Ridge said that there were
alternate interpretations? By whom? Have they been made public? :confused:

Claire, in your post #35, your conclusion about rasing SCORES without improving riding is at the crux of the question being debated.
I am having difficulty following your reasoning here.

If this is all true, what is the point of going to the expense of having a qualification standard?

You believe that judges will never be consistant or give out the "hard scores", yet you feel that we should have qualification standards with scores determined by these same judges?

And that even if some judges start handing out the "hard scores", the "bad riders" will simply seek out the "Santa Claus" judges?

And show managers are only concerned with the $$$-bottom line so will only hire "Santa Claus"judges?

Under these circumstances, a qualification rule is going to raise the standard of riding how?

According to what you are saying, it seems like it will only raise the scores for the current standard of riding.

As ShotenStar mentions, people have (not so subtly) accused the authors of mis-representing the data of the conclusions it leads one to make. The offer to provide the raw data file is made in the interest of open, transparent dialog.

We did our best in the time frame allowed with the available data provided. We welcome other sets of eyes. The 3 authors are used to having "peer review" of their work and would welcome any dialog on any alternative findings.

rebecca yount

Apr. 14, 2008, 07:31 AM

PennyRidge, welcome to the bulletin board. I am assuming you joined in order to participate in this particular discussion regarding the rule change proposal.

You said:

"Sadly, there is NO geek running through my veins. (I wish I had some.) And, I must be honest, when you start in with the geek speak...my eyes glaze over.

I'm more compelled by what I see with my eyes at the shows and no statistics can change that."

There will be problems if people try to make decisions, particularly ones that will have far-reaching consequences for a large group of people (in this case, all dressage competitors), based on the above kind of thinking. For responsible decision-making that will be most likely to have only intendend consequences, and that will solve a particular problem, decision-makers MUST consider data. To not do so is irresponsible and will result in unintended, and possibly damaging, consequences. Responsible decision-makers CANNOT let their "eyes glaze over". Productive decision-making and problem-solving follows objective review of real data, and is not based on blurry, "glazed-over", emotion-laden thinking resulting from subjective observation of a few isolated examples.

So, PennyRidge, your statement "And reality is reality. Horses are being hurt by those who are riding above their skill level." is NOT really reality. It is your subjective opinion based on a few (possibly not even by you) observations. There were over 100,000 dressage rides in USEF licensed shows last competition year. Would you pick a cancer treatment based on a one-shot case study? Probably not. Or at least I hope not. Solutions to problems should be based on examination of a wide range of possiblities and on objective evidence that the proposed solution is the best choice. That is why research takes place.

In the case of the rule change proposal, we have the information needed to examine the problem and the solution in a responsible, objective way. And that is what we feel needs to be done.

Many of the difficulties in our society today exist because people are "compelled by what I see with my eyes" and don't bother to validate what they THINK they are observing and possible reasons for and solutions to it. And there is ALREADY a system in place to address what you "see with your eyes". I think the resources of the DC (which are really your and my resources) would be better spent in addressing the perceived problem from that perspective.

Finally, here is a comment from the PVDA President, in response to the concerns that PVDA is somehow spreading "propaganda":

"Rebecca, you should comment on the referendum point of the PVDA website. We had set it up that way because I had thought we would have received the new proposal by now and would have changed the link. Have you heard any word when the new proposal is coming? I have not."

rebecca yount

Apr. 14, 2008, 07:50 AM

EnjoyTheRide--the Dressage Committee is voting on a proposal this week, but whatever the Rule Change Proposal ends up being will not be voted on by the USEF BoD, and therefore will not be adopted as a rule change, before January 2009.

I would have liked to have "official" information from an "official" spokesperson on the USEF Dressage Committee. That has not been forthcoming--and no official spokesperson has been identified by the DC. However, I offer the following excerpt from an email I received this morning. I have been asked to keep the source confidential--however I am absolutely confident that this is correct information:

"The USEF DC will discuss and vote on the proposal this week. This is our first meeting since January. As you may know USEF rules don't allow for its committees to have e-mail votes. It must be in person or conference call. The rule makes sense but it can slow things down.

Once the DC approves a proposal it will be released for feedback from the dressage community. The eventual and actual rule change proposal is submitted by September for inclusion in the USEF RCP booklet. It them comes up for approval along with all the other RCP in the booklet at the January, 2009 USEF BoD meeting.

I hope this answers your question. "

So stay tuned. Rebecca

Ja Da Dee

Apr. 14, 2008, 09:02 AM

Thank you for the feedback.

Not every region / GMO is being as forthcoming in passing along the data .... an odd reaction to my mind, since data is data and informed decisions are made by examining data.

*star* aka Mary

Yep, we haven't heard a peep out of my GMO regarding the performance standards. they answered my question when I sent an e-mail originally, that's been it. I was forwarded a discussion about putting some information about it in the newsletter, but they decided not to. Nothing that I could find on the website, or in the meeting minutes either.

flshgordon

Apr. 14, 2008, 10:24 AM

PennyRidge I guess I'm still kind of mystified at your statements about the horses really being hurt?

I would like to have it pointed out to me how this is fact? Just because someone sees bad riding (I see riding all the time that I would consider bad), and horses being ridden badly in double bridles and riders clearly above their level, HOW IS THAT HURTING THE HORSES in an extreme sense of the word? Were the horses that were victims of said bad riding flipped over? beaten? Permanently or temporarily injured? Because to me, THOSE are things that fit the definition of hurt.....not incorrect riding. Would you have every child that ever pulled on a school horse's face for lack of knowledge "Abusive"? Because I don't see how by your arguments that anything mentioned here is actually "hurting" the horse in a physical sense of the word.

I'm not saying it's never happened, but if someone can produce statistical data that shows that the so called "bad riding" is not as widespread as the USEF/USDF claims it is (and in fact is but a small fraction of the total rides at each show), then why on earth should we support any proposal for major changes?

I kind of glaze over at statistics and math as well, but even to me it is plain that the problem has been exaggerated by those on the DC who want the changes.

And I still don't get the comments about people being so upset about getting 3s and 4s. Sure they will be upset but so what? I would be upset too, but if I deserved it (and we ALL know when we do), I would suck it up and practice harder. I'm not sure why people think there would be a great revolt against such scoring.

PineTreeFarm

Apr. 14, 2008, 11:36 AM

PennyRidge

If you are seeing so much abuse at shows why don't you simply file a charge with the steward each time you witness it?

pluvinel

Apr. 16, 2008, 06:19 PM

PennyRidge wrote
Sadly, there is NO geek running through my veins. (I wish I had some.) And, I must be honest, when you start in with the geek speak...my eyes glaze over. I'm more compelled by what I see with my eyes at the shows and no statistics can change that.

Yes, I would love it if judges would feel free to judge without fear of losing their jobs. Yes, I would love it if judging were more consistent by the judges. Yes, I would love it if riders would actually believe what the scores reflected.

The reality is...none of those three things will become reality. Judges ARE in jeopardy when they are hard on riders who ride very poorly. I don't think this will change. Show management will always be aware of the consequences of hiring the "unpopular judges" and their bottom dollar is usually going to influence who they hire.

I have been troubled by the above statements, but did not know how to address this. I am sure that PennyRidge is not alone in this thinking.

If the judges are "afraid of losing their jobs"….if the judges are "not consistent"…if the judges are in "jeopardy" when they judge appropriately, then the judging scale is so flawed there is no point in having a formal competition.

If PennyRidge truly feels that way, then perhaps we should hang it all up and do away with "competitive dressage." We can just all go watch Cavalia or Medieval Times to be compelled by the emotion of the performance. Perhaps the equestrian art should becomes just that......a performance art where the audience is judge.

HOWEVER......if we choose to have a competitive sport, staffed with human judges, then there is an obligation to utilize all appropriate tools that are available to help the judges discharge their job as fairly and as well as can be done.

There are robust, well-documented scientific tools to allow accurate measurement of human performance that is evaluated subjectively by human observers/judges. This is not rocket science.

The exercise of doing the statistical analysis was to demonstrate how these tools can be utilized to help improve dressage.