Craig may have a point----

[denny]

But maybe for a different reason.

I`d like to see the upper levels fix their own house, acknowledge openly that they have both an image problem and a real problem, take whatever steps necessary to prevent rotational falls, even if it involves what some call "dumbing down", so that eventing ceases to be one of the most dangerous sports.

BUT----IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN---if they remain in denial, then, in order to prevent the several hundred upper level riders from messing up the sport for the thousands of the rest of us, I`d cut them loose.

Give them to the USEF to do with as it sees fit, and let the USEA administer the sport for the huge bottom of the pyramid, the "other" 25,000 riders.

I fervently hope this "Civil War" can be prevented, and I think it can be.

But I don`t have much trust at all for either the IOC or the FEI to do the right thing, and I`m not sure whether David can swing the USEF into clearer thinking.

I think he can, but we need to be ready if months go by, and there are no fundamental changes, to save the rest of our sport.

[RunForIt]

Amen, Denny. Put the problem in the laps of the ones who need to address the problem.

And then...do what needs to be done if they don't look themsleves in the mirror. Some fences are too hard to ride down to and jump. Those fences are not all out on XC courses.

Will be very difficult to run events without volunteers.

[LexInVA]

I think we should just get 50 volunteers together with some shovels, dig a big pit, and have some fun with the USEF. Sparta style. :D

[subk]

The upper levels will not be fixed unless UL professional recognize that they ARE in fact the problem. Nor will things improve until the govening bodies recognzed that fact too. I think we are a long, long way from either.

They are patting themselves on the back because the novice rider, who gets bounced out of the tack when their green bean shys at a jump judge's floppy hat, can no longer continue on course when it will do exactly NOTHING to address our current Problem. I really don't know how much more the LL amateurs are willing to take on the chin while listening to those individuals who exactly fit the profile of the riders who are putting this sport at risk intimate that if we fix things at the amatuer/lower levels all will be well. It bites.

[flutie1]

"Give them to the USEF to do with as it sees fit, and let the USEA administer the sport for the huge bottom of the pyramid, the "other" 25,000 riders."

Interesting premise and even more interesting math. How do you get 25,000 riders out of an organization whose membership hovers around 14,000?

[LexInVA]

I think he was just throwing around 50K to make his point. Note that I have absolutely no idea what the membership numbers are myself. It's not uncommon for someone to use a large but rather inaccurate number to represent a significant quantity when making a general statement. For example..

"My girlfriend has too many shoes."
"Oh yeah? How many does she have?"
"At least 3000 pairs or so. She wants a bigger closet now."

[RunForIt]

The upper levels will not be fixed unless UL professional recognize that they ARE in fact the problem. Nor will things improve until the govening bodies recognzed that fact too. I think we are a long, long way from either. me too - who can we ask or EXPECT to address this fact?

I really don't know how much more the LL amateurs are willing to take on the chin while listening to those individuals who exactly fit the profile of the riders who are putting this sport at risk intimate that if we fix things at the amatuer/lower levels all will be well. It bites.

here lie the problems. I intend to ask the hard questions - and these are the questions to be asked - and I'll ask them in venues that are hard to conceal.

[denny]

25,000 is the number that usually gets bandied about when people are taking a stab at guessing how many riders in No. America think of themselves as eventers.
It is about double the USEA membership.

For years, at clinics, I made a point of asking "How many of you belong to USEA?"
In places like the Radnor Hunt Club, it might be somewhat more than half, in more outlying regions, almost always fewer than half.

So maybe it`s 25,000, maybe 21,000, but we do know that in 2007 about 200 ran in at least one advanced event, and 48 ran at Rolex.

Sure, it`s anyone`s guess. Doesn`t matter. Close enough for government work.

[tlw]

Denny: we have a saying around here for situations like this: "why don't we just put the skunk on the table?" I think you have, and very eloquently.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I really don't think this would be a solution either. I don't think this sport is big enough, popular enough or easy enough to organize to support a split like described by Denny OR Craig. I think it would lead to an end of the sport as a whole. I do not think the LLs stand without the ULs and vice versa. But this is just my opinion.

Personally, I still don't think there has been enough research done to say that this sport is any more or less dangerous than it always has been. Not sure the data is available to even do that research. Sure there are riders at the ULs lacking in skills....there always have been....and to be honest, there are some damn good riders with substantial skills as well. However, with the internet we are all more aware of the dangers and the accidents when they happen. But regardless of whether or not the sport is more dangerous.....we should still, and continually strive to minimize those dangers while still preserving what we can of the heart of this sport.

This to me means no rash decisions or rules or changes with out understanding all the issues...and thinking through the consequences.

And while I do agree that most of the deaths have been at the ULs....there are some pretty major injuries that do happen at the lower levels. No, not always talked about on these BBs...but they do happen. And no, they are not as often as at the ULs...but that is to be expected....the LLs are easier, as they should be.

I personally have seen changes at the events that I have attended...both good and bad. And have little doubt that I will continue to see changes...both good and bad. I just hope that forums like this BB do more to come up with good solutions and less to create more issues.

[silver2]

I really don't think this would be a solution either. I don't think this sport is big enough, popular enough or easy enough to organize to support a split like described by Denny OR Craig.
And I think the split is underway and has been for a while. There are a huge number of unrecognized events that run BN, N and T and are well attended and well organized. Especially once you leave those small areas of the East Coast where eventing is most popular and events are most likely to be run under USEA rules.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

And I think the split is underway and has been for a while. There are a huge number of unrecognized events that run BN, N and T and are well attended and well organized. Especially once you leave those small areas of the East Coast where eventing is most popular and events are most likely to be run under USEA rules.

I agree to a point. Yes there is already a split to a point. Unrec. events have been around for a very very long time. Pony clubs and and other clubs and local groups been holding them since before I was born (which is a long time)....I think this is why there is no need to create two formal tracks or change the focus of the USEA. I also suspect that there are even MORE unrec. events here on the East coast...at least I can easily think of at least two a month spring-fall within 2 hours of me. I see no need to split off the USEA to just run LL events or to try and more formally organize the events that are currently run as unrec. events. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of that proposal.

ETA: It really isn't a split. In fact....LLs being included with the USEA is relatively new within the life of the sport. Wasn't Training the lowest level 15-20 years ago? I think BN was only included in the last 10 years?

[Firefox]

Personally, I still don't think there has been enough research done to say that this sport is any more or less dangerous than it always has been. Not sure the data is available to even do that research. Sure there are riders at the ULs lacking in skills....there always have been....and to be honest, there are some damn good riders with substantial skills as well. However, with the internet we are all more aware of the dangers and the accidents when they happen. But regardless of whether or not the sport is more dangerous.....we should still, and continually strive to minimize those dangers while still preserving what we can of the heart of this sport.

This to me means no rash decisions or rules or changes with out understanding all the issues...and thinking through the consequences.

I agree!! lets get the data and make intelligent decisions and rules that make sense not knee jerk reactions!!

[deltawave]

Let the "elite" have their own tracks at their own shows on their own dates. All of their students and clients will be at their OWN shows with their own horses, having a good time. Who is going to pay their way and volunteer at shows where there are 12 "elite" people riding? Not us Smurfs--we're busy that weekend. :D

[Snapdragon]

Let the "elite" have their own tracks at their own shows on their own dates. All of their students and clients will be at their OWN shows with their own horses, having a good time. Who is going to pay their way and volunteer at shows where there are 12 "elite" people riding? Not us Smurfs--we're busy that weekend. :D

This was one of my thoughts about Craig's letter, and I think I asked this early on: What is the advantage to the levels being bifurcated (I'm not really sure what kind of separation he means)? I'm sure Craig has a reason; I just can't think of what it might be. Whether they like it or not, and really I think most ULRs get a kick out of seeing their LLR students learn and do well, it is a symbiotic (my big word for the day) relationship that mostly would be severed under the type of bifurcation that Deltawave suggests.

And that just doesn't seem like it would serve the ULR or the LLR well.

His last paragraph made sense to me (about having the proper qualifications to move up), but the rest of the letter I didn't get.

Can someone enlighten me?

[eqsiu]

Exactly. When most of the eventers are at training and below, we don't need them to keep our part of the sport going.

And let's face it. Even if we "dumb it down" a bit the upper levels are still way out of reach for most of us. Why should we cater to the highest common denominator?

[eqsiu]

25,000 is the number that usually gets bandied about when people are taking a stab at guessing how many riders in No. America think of themselves as eventers.
It is about double the USEA membership.



Good point. I am not a member because I am not competing now, but I still consider myself to be an eventer.

[Invested1]

It will be interesting to see how the UL events run with little to no volunteers to JJ/scribe/etc.... :winkgrin:

[Invested1]

Close enough for government work.

HEY! I represent that!
heh. :D

[RoeVee]

I agree w/ Silver2 - I think the split is already underway. In Colorado, we have VERY few events that run Intermediate or Advanced. Most of the recognized shows only go to Prelim. We have one fabulous facility that could easily run Intermediate but she doesn't run it because she doesn't like the UL attitude.

Interestingly enough, at the Area IX meeting there was talk of changing the schedule to 'accomodate' the UL rider schedules - most of the organizers effected said 'no', they would not change to accomodate less than 1% of the riders.

I think the split is well underway.

[RAyers]

As an ULR in Colorado, I have to ask, outside the COHP, who else could run Intermediate in Colorado? We have NO Advanced at all.

No, the schedule should not cater to ULR, however, the Young Rider schedule tends to follow the ULR schedules so for Area IX to have an effective YR program, they must adjust to accommodate the YR needs to qualify for NAYRC. Thus, the split you see in Colorado is as much the fault of organizers who refuse to change to support Young Riders. It has nothing to do with ULRs wanting special treatment. There are so few of us we just go out of state and we recognize that we need to support the LLRs and levels (hence why we bring horses or volunteer at those events when we can).

Reed


I agree w/ Silver2 - I think the split is already underway. In Colorado, we have VERY few events that run Intermediate or Advanced. Most of the recognized shows only go to Prelim. We have one fabulous facility that could easily run Intermediate but she doesn't run it because she doesn't like the UL attitude.

Interestingly enough, at the Area IX meeting there was talk of changing the schedule to 'accomodate' the UL rider schedules - most of the organizers effected said 'no', they would not change to accomodate less than 1% of the riders.

I think the split is well underway.

[eqsiu]

I agree w/ Silver2 - I think the split is already underway. In Colorado, we have VERY few events that run Intermediate or Advanced. Most of the recognized shows only go to Prelim. We have one fabulous facility that could easily run Intermediate but she doesn't run it because she doesn't like the UL attitude...most of the organizers effected said 'no', they would not change to accomodate less than 1% of the riders.



Technically, it is not worth the time/money/effort for events to offer intermediate in less populous areas because they don't have enough riders to justify it all. Around here even prelim only gets 5-10 riders, so why would events offer intermediate? I don't think it's about accomodating the ULR or dealing with attitudes and whatnot. It's just not practical overall.

I don't really think a true split will happen. The sport won't survive. But I certainly think that since most events/eventers are lower level we need to govern for them first and foremost. Not only would that support the greatest number of riders, but it is the base upon which the upper levels are built. We need trickle up, not trickle down.

[ideayoda]

Isnt part of the problem at the very beginning? Yes, people copy winners....to be sure...and that includes (lack of) equitation, how they teach horses to 'clean and jerk' jumping (vs even bascules/etc).

Perhaps a 'show'/event should be more 'training', progressive exposure to types of combinations, etc. Teach 'trainers'/coaches/riders HOW and WHY to use combinations, or, HOW to put various 'questions' to horses/riders as just plain poles/etc on different topographies (like Treverious used to do), or, WHY dressage tests/figures affect line in jumping. I see several (bigtime locals) with severely overflexed horses on the flat, sawing their horses into that frame; over tempo stadium; and hanging on them while galloping xcountry (and blaming that on their 'fitness'). But they win, they are copied, and they pass on their (suspect) 'skills'.

Just tossing out some off the wall idea(s). Perhaps there should be a kind of equitation division, or something like a skating pre-test where he riders have to show they can ride individual fences and be scored on how they present them (or why they would choose to use that type of fence for their particular horses need). Those skills are all but gone, and when Denny/Jimmy/etc (and his generation) goes, his perceptions will be lost if they are not WELL passed on. There is a reason that those analytical skills have faded, the remedy starts with IN DEPTH education.

[fooler]

Isnt part of the problem at the very beginning? Yes, people copy winners....to be sure...and that includes (lack of) equitation, how they teach horses to 'clean and jerk' jumping (vs even bascules/etc).

Perhaps a 'show'/event should be more 'training', progressive exposure to types of combinations, etc. Teach 'trainers'/coaches/riders HOW and WHY to use combinations, or, HOW to put various 'questions' to horses/riders as just plain poles/etc on different topographies (like Treverious used to do), or, WHY dressage tests/figures affect line in jumping. I see several (bigtime locals) with severely overflexed horses on the flat, sawing their horses into that frame; over tempo stadium; and hanging on them while galloping xcountry (and blaming that on their 'fitness'). But they win, they are copied, and they pass on their (suspect) 'skills'.

Just tossing out some off the wall idea(s). Perhaps there should be a kind of equitation division, or something like a skating pre-test where he riders have to show they can ride individual fences and be scored on how they present them (or why they would choose to use that type of fence for their particular horses need). Those skills are all but gone, and when Denny/Jimmy/etc (and his generation) goes, his perceptions will be lost if they are not WELL passed on. There is a reason that those analytical skills have faded, the remedy starts with IN DEPTH education.

Instead of building a new layer of 'eventing' competition why don't we instead encourage competitors to cross-train. Just like Denny/Jimmy/Plumb etc. Go to dressage shows, go to Hunter shows, go to endurance competitions - stop going to HT's every or every other weekend. That is part of the problem. Too many, not all, of the current eventers are just going to events or training for events. They have not removed the blinders to see other disciplines and in some cases they don't really enjoy the ride!
Granted land access is at a premium - but it is so seldom that I hear events talk about the trail ride they took or the dressage/hunter show they attended. Or even talk about joining a hunt.
When we look at the team members from the 60's-mid90's, look at their background. There were fewer horse trials, so they rode, and did well, in different disciplines. All of which improved their Eventing. Remember Eventing is 3 different disciplines in one competition - we should learn from those in the other disciplines, just don't drink the kool-aid yet. . . .

[BarnBrat]

The FEI and USEF are going to ruin this sport, if they haven't already. They are motivated by money and politics. They are running the sport to meet the needs of the professional upper level riders, who are for the most part motivated by money and politics. And I'll just come right out and say it, the welfare of the horses, and of the sport, takes a back seat. I don't think they have made this choice consciously. But when you look at the big picture, that is the story it tells. And honestly, how could we expect them to do anything else? This is their livelihood, and making a living is going to be their priority.

Splitting from the USEF/FEI is not about separating ourselves from the ULR's. Its about POWER. It's about gaining the ability to run the sport for the majority instead of the minority. Right now we are powerless to influence the direction of this sport, which is ridiculous. We can come up with all the solutions and good ideas in the world but we do not have the power to do anything with them.

Now, the big question is how the hell would we go about 'succeeding from the union'? The USEF/FEI is going to do everything in their power to keep us under their roof. And since they have all the power and we have none it makes things a bit problematic. I remember reading on a thread that it would actually be AGAINST THE LAW, for the USEA to operate independently of the USEF/FEI. Hmm...I'm off to find that thread.

[ideayoda]

IS the fei ruining the (eventing) sport? We can all argue about the demise of the long format, etc. But the fact is that (general) dressage methodology de jour (for dressage per se) ignores the horses balance (ie deep/hyperflexion, etc). For dressage alone, this is not problematic....hideous maybe, the roman forums of movement perhaps. But use this methodology as a basis for jumping efforts/relaxation/etc and you have a REAL problem. So, yes we can blame the 'reign' of Eric Lette in the FEI for allowing Uphoff/AvG for coming to any level of success. But who do we blame the suspect clean and jerk technique (which started in the late 80s) over stadium on? Perhaps it follows from the crestrelease methods (?). Perhaps what is happening today is just a cumulative effect of all those things.

And our national body (usef/usea) is our representative part of the international body (fei). If you dont like what is happening, contact the fei tell them what you think. All that said, the main thrust is to 'globalize' right now, which means the common denominator will drop. And the education (????).

[riderboy]

Ya know, what frosts my buns is really the ego of some of the ULR's. I know one needs a certain cockiness and confidence to ride at those levels but a few cross the border into Clueless, USA. I still have huge respect for the ULR's but the total selfishness and self absorption some show is appalling.

[eventmom]

Golly, these last few posts are SO discouraging:eek::eek:
My kid wants to be part of the future of the sport:eek:
Why?:eek::eek::eek:
I HATE globalization and and power trips. I believe, as a rule, most eventers do. It speaks to the very nature of the sport.

Why are we putting up with this?

[riderboy]

Oh no, I think change is an inevitable part of any sport and do NOT be discouraged. Things will work out and we will have a better, stronger and safer sport .

[rivenoak]

Technically, it is not worth the time/money/effort for events to offer intermediate in less populous areas because they don't have enough riders to justify it all.

Coconino I & II have 4 Intermediate rides each. At this point...I still have entries to process for II, so here's hoping.

I think Coco. I has just a few more Prelim rides than that; Coco. II is better.
:no:
Is it worth it to the organizers? Probably not, but there's goodwill, pride, and the hope of next year.

[eqsiu]

Is it worth it to the organizers? Probably not, but there's goodwill, pride, and the hope of next year.

It's nice to see that some will do it just because. :yes:

I suspect that the local event here will add Intermediate as soon as the owners daughters get there. As good a reason as any I suppose.

[vineyridge]

Denny, why do you have confidence in D O'C? Hasn't he shown himself to be a typical ULR with the ULR mindset that you deplore? I keep thinking of him as a USET trojan horse in the AHSA ranks at the time of the merger.

I do think you have come up with a wise alternative when you suggest turning over the ULRs to the USET/USEF and letting the USEA control the rest of the sport in the interests of the ground roots.

[denny]

When the then AHSA/USAEq was forced into a merger with the then USET, a lot of USET mindset accompanied the merger.

By which I mean an emphasis on winning international teams, as per the original USET charter.

The president of the now USEF can only do so much. He/she has many diverse and often competing constituencies to attempt to satisfy, and this is made harder by the old USET tendency to focus on the needs of the elite few, sometimes at the expense of the rank and file many.

I say give David time, but not forever. I think he hates what`s going on with these falls as much as anyone, but, can he turn the Queen Mary that is the USEF? Which, I think, needed something like five miles of open ocean, not exactly a speedy process.

[RAyers]

I say give David time, but not forever. I think he hates what`s going on with these falls as much as anyone, but, can he turn the Queen Mary that is the USEF? Which, I think, needed something like five miles of open ocean, not exactly a speedy process.

Not on topic but this reminds me of a sayng I use about unbroke horses and broken steering in tractors that can be applied here. The USEF (and any large body of people) has the turning radius of a hot air ballon.

[vineyridge]

OT, but as I remember the merger, D O'C was Alan Balch's VP at the AHSA/USAEq during that time. The USET despised Alan Balch, and after the USOC directed a merger rather than a victory, both AB and A Leone (prez of the USET) agreed to step aside. AB did, and D O'C took over the top spot, worked the merger, and then became the prez of the merged orgs. A Leone never did step aside.

Since D O'C was so intimately involved with how things were going to function after the merger, and since the USET mindset seems to have prevailed at USEF, I figure he didn't fight too hard against the USET power grab. That's why I think of him as a Trojan Horse during his time with the AHSA.

[arnika]

I remember reading on a thread that it would actually be AGAINST THE LAW, for the USEA to operate independently of the USEF/FEI.

I may be wrong here but I believe it would be against the IOC/FEI rules for the USEA to hold national or international competitions. To secede, eventers would most likely have to start a comparable organization (I can't imagine USEF would let us use their org. name) and the competitions couldn't be used to pick international squads. Which wouldn't be a problem since we don't do those anyway. :shrug:

After all, when the FEI started giving the American endurance competitions grief, they just resigned their top events from the FEI approved list and continued to hold them anyway. There wasn't any huge disruption, the riders just basically did what they wanted to do and it's worked out fine. Those competitions are still just as popular, if not more so, and are considered some of the best in the world. It wouldn't be difficult to do the same.

I have loyalty to the sport of eventing, not to the letters U S E A or U S E F. I will join and support whatever organization and events support my daughters and I as valued competitors. That's really all I want.

[RunForIt]

originally posted by arnika: have loyalty to the sport of eventing, not to the letters U S E A or U S E F. I will join and support whatever organization and events support my daughters and I as valued competitors. That's really all I want.

I would only revise in this way: have loyalty to the sport of eventing, not to the letters U S E A or U S E F. I will join and support whatever organization and events support my horses, daughters, and I as valued competitors. That's really all I want.

Well, maybe my daughters to ride! :D :cool:

[LexInVA]

When the then AHSA/USAEq was forced into a merger with the then USET, a lot of USET mindset accompanied the merger.

By which I mean an emphasis on winning international teams, as per the original USET charter.

The president of the now USEF can only do so much. He/she has many diverse and often competing constituencies to attempt to satisfy, and this is made harder by the old USET tendency to focus on the needs of the elite few, sometimes at the expense of the rank and file many.

I say give David time, but not forever. I think he hates what`s going on with these falls as much as anyone, but, can he turn the Queen Mary that is the USEF? Which, I think, needed something like five miles of open ocean, not exactly a speedy process.

This is one of those rare occasions where I will throw myself in front of the Denny train and disagree with you. :lol: DOC has been an instrument of the USET supporters for a very very long time and he will continue to fill that role until he retires. He's done their bidding and been richly rewarded for it. Does that make him a bad guy? No not really. He just knew which hand was holding the better treats. We cannot look to him for change because he has rarely (if ever) demonstrated a capacity to act outside of the will of the people who have kept him for so long. What we need is an organization and leadership which does not follow the mantra of "International glory at any cost!".

[flyingtails]

The upper levels will not be fixed unless UL professional recognize that they ARE in fact the problem. Nor will things improve until the govening bodies recognzed that fact too. I think we are a long, long way from either.

They are patting themselves on the back because the novice rider, who gets bounced out of the tack when their green bean shys at a jump judge's floppy hat, can no longer continue on course when it will do exactly NOTHING to address our current Problem. I really don't know how much more the LL amateurs are willing to take on the chin while listening to those individuals who exactly fit the profile of the riders who are putting this sport at risk intimate that if we fix things at the amatuer/lower levels all will be well. It bites.

BRAVO! Well said! Thank you thank you thank you!

[vineyridge]

I just read in USA Today that French Cycling is cutting its major events free of the international cycling federation. Seems that many sports are facing dissatisfaction with their international governing bodies.

[gooddirt]

...because the novice rider, who gets bounced out of the tack when their green bean shys at a jump judge's floppy hat, can no longer continue on course ....


Falls resulting in elimination must be related to jumping.

BTW, this is good because it helps eliminate a huge pitfall - having to determine if riders who fall are concussed or not.