Statement from Dressage Cmt Posted on USEF website re Perf Standards

[ShotenStar]

http://www.usef.org/Contentpage2.aspx?id=dressage

Text:
Dressage Performance Standards Proposal Information

The USEF Dressage Committee met on July 1 & 2, 2008. Included in this meeting was discussion of the USEF Dressage Performance Standards proposal. This discussion included a review of compiled results of the on-line survey (received by June 15, 2008) which was developed to gather feedback from USEF and USDF members. These results showed that a clear majority of respondents expressed support for the idea of having competition performance standards for the sport. In comments received as part of the survey, several important concerns regarding the proposal were expressed, such as program costs to USEF, USDF, and members; access for riders in parts of the U.S. offering few shows; and recognition of good riding on modest horses. As a result, the Dressage Committee has formulated new ideas to address these concerns, and will discuss these additions to the proposal in the near future with the USDF Executive Board and various breed affiliates in the near future. An update will be released when general agreement is reached.


*star*

[Valentina_32926]

"These results showed that a clear majority of respondents expressed support for the idea of having competition performance standards for the sport."

Not that I've ever heard - would like to see their statistics on # respondents versus in favor/opposed. I think they're seeing what they want to see.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Well, the survey questions were biased. The way that the questions were drafted, there was a built in assumption that the respondent was in favor of a qualifying rule and just permitted suggestions about what the content of the rule should be.

I didn't expect anything any different from them.:no:

[Dressage Art]

There was a clear question: do you support Q.P. or do not support Q.P. - that was a "yes" or "no" answer. USEF claims that strong majority of USEF members answered "yes" to that question.

Do you think that there is a chance that USEF would lie about the results of the survey?

[ShotenStar]

There was a clear question: do you support Q.P. or do not support Q.P. - that was a "yes" or "no" answer. USEF claims that strong majority of USEF members answered "yes" to that question.

Do you think that there is a chance that USEF would lie about the results of the survey?

No, I do not think they would lie.

However ....

... the survey was so poorly constructed that I believe they missed out on collecting more / more useful information.

I also believe that many of those who voted 'in favor' may have been voting from an emotional perspective, rather than a logical, data-based one.

Be that as it may, we now need to wait for the next iteration of the proposal ... and then engage in a dialog again. While the process has not been pretty, I do feel it has been productive: the second version was better than the first, and the third is more likely to address the concerns raised by the membership.

*star*

[BaroquePony]

I am not a paying member at the moment or I would have voted against it.

I would suspect there are many more like me for a number of reasons.

[Eclectic Horseman]

I am sure that they know-via the registration number of the respondents, how many of those who responded "yes" in favor are grandfathered in so that the rule would be inapplicable to them.

I think that would be an interesting statistic because those respondents would have a built in conflict of interest.

I would also like to see the statistics on breed shown correlated with the responses. As I recall, they did ask what breed horse the respondent primarily showed. Since the new statement says there was concern about good riders on "modest" horses (however they came up with that term...I am picturing the horses blushing in humiliation :lol::lol:) so my guess is that those who show breeds not typically bred for dressage expressed some well-founded concerns.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by Eclectic Horseman:

"modest" horses (however they came up with that term...I am picturing the horses blushing in humiliation :lol::lol:)

:lol:

I heard that it was difficult to find the survey on the web site. Not user friendly. That, and that it was very biased.

Edit to ad: I am not sure that it was presented to all paying members in a manner that made it easy to participate. Was it?

[atlatl]

There was a clear question: do you support Q.P. or do not support Q.P. - that was a "yes" or "no" answer. USEF claims that strong majority of USEF members answered "yes" to that question.

Do you think that there is a chance that USEF would lie about the results of the survey?

I don't quite remember that question, but hey there's a lot I don't remember these days.

Anyway, I just emailed USEF and asked for a copy of the survey.

I'm quite surprised by the "clear majority" statement as all the chatter I've seen/heard was against the proposal but then I'm sure I don't see everything on the planet. It would be interesting to at least know the number of survey respondents and what percentage that was of the USEF dressage membership.

[BaroquePony]

I doesn't sound like a proper survey in how the questions were set up, actually. Who actually took the survey, stratified random sample or all members, one or the other. A lot of people don't fill out surveys anyway even if they are sent.

[BaroquePony]

From my experience in the real world of dressage and from what I have seen on the COTH BB, I certainly question what is going on.

[Derid]

Had USEF felt they had a responsibility to be open about the results of the survey, they would have provided to the membership tallies of the responses to each question, including those that filled out the survey, but chose not to answer all the questions and a list of the comments.

If USEF didn't wish to use up space on their precious web site, a pdf file which could be downloaded from the site could have been made available to the membership.

USEF might have even acknowledged that some of the questions were biased, that their survey mechanism locked part of the membership out of the survey, and that perhaps some additional thought might improve communication between governing bodies and the paying membership prior to formalizing new standards of competition. But, no nothing.....

Do I think they are dishonest? I'm beginning to.............and I guess USDF will just go along, get along.......and the tail wags the dog.

[Rhiannonjk]

I took the survey in the first day or two that it was out, so I don't remember much, but wasn't there something at the end where you could make a comment about the survey itself?

I think a lot of people were against the requirements originally presented, but not entirely opposed to having qualification requirements in general.

[sm]

I took the survey in the first day or two that it was out, so I don't remember much, but wasn't there something at the end where you could make a comment about the survey itself?

There was an add'l comment section at the end, not a specific place to discuss the quality of the survey. I used it to clarify my earlier choices, where the options posed were all leading in one direction and did not cover all the normal answer options.

What I would have rather done was skip over those questions, but the survey indicated one must answer to move on. Of course, when they did that type of multiple choice, they should have also had a ballot box "none of the above."

I think they do have a little better picture after reviewing the survey results, although granted they squandered an opportunity to do an overall better job of it. The press release wordage doesn't bother me, I'm interested in their next revision.

[canyonoak]

Here is the direct link:

http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/breedsDisciplines/discipline/allDressage/PerformanceStandards.aspx.

Typical of this committee and this National Federation that the statement is buried umpteen clicks away from the front page.

Typical of all of them to claim a majority of support when there has been no majority of support among most of the regional meetings.

Typical of them to make a silly, bland, useless, unfocused statement which hopes that all the nay-sayers will just...go....away.

Typical of them to still not deal with the major issues raised by countless respondees to this rather biased survey.

"Modest" horses indeed!

well, at least this latest statement remains true to the tone and prejudice that has been the hallmark of this proposal from day one.

[Bellfleur]

I am pretty sure my dressage association published that most of our members were against the standards. My memory is not what it used to be either though.

I guess I should check. I think we have a fairly large organization as these things go.

Can other people here go back and check with their regions to see what their results were? That way would have a good idea what each region thought?? Maybe?????

[tartanfarm]

I posted in the wrong thread earlier but the point I wanted to make was the wording
it says USEF and USDF members, so I read it as all USEF members could take the survey, not just the dressage riders

as it was written, for someone who knows nothing about dressage,a qualification rule might sound sensible

So possibly the other disciplines in the USEF could weigh the outcome of this survey.

[rebecca yount]

Bellefleur, which is your region? Please email me at dryount@yahoo.com so we can communicate between organizations--several large GMOs are opposed to the Rule Change. Which is your GMO? Thanks rebecca