Flutie's column on Organizer Rights in Eventing Magazine

[Bensmom]

My magazine was hot out of the post office box this afternoon and I have been flipping though, reading the best bits first (so sue me, I used to read front to back, but now I'm becoming old and will do it my way! :lol: ) and went right to Flutie's column.

Her topic this month is organizer rights and all of it is a good read, and her wish list items are particularly interesting. A very well written call for an official return to play rule following serious injury and a call to rewrite the rule allowing competitions to refuse entries for additional reasons other than already in the rule.

Well done and presented in a non-partisan way that hopefully will focus the discussion to the issues so ably raised. :yes:

And, as an aside, I was amused to see that the column sported an Editor's Response concerning the ammies in divisions with pros point. :)

In any event, well written and well reasoned.

Now, how would such a policy be drafted and how would the rule be effectively amended to protect all parties involved?

Discuss. :D

Libby (Which parts did Gobi write?!)

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Your mail is faster than mine, but return to play rules and the right to refuse entries sound like fine ideas to me. Look forward to reading it!

[S A McKee]

Your mail is faster than mine, but return to play rules and the right to refuse entries sound like fine ideas to me. Look forward to reading it!

Refusing entries is a little scary.
USEF's bylaws say:

Bylaw 702 – Opportunity to Participate
Section 1. Fair notice and an opportunity for a hearing shall be accorded to
any amateur athlete, rider, driver, handler, vaulter, longeur, owner, lessee, agent or trainer, riding coach or driving coach, coach, trainer, manager, administrator or official before the Federation may declare such individual ineligible to participate in any amateur athletic competition. Any hearing conducted hereunder shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw 701 and Federation Rule VI.

USOC, the Ted Stevens Act all have prohibitions on preventing athletes from competing.

Just my opinion but refusing entries on other than a specific qualification system for a level opens the organizer to discriminination issues.

I don't have the magazine so I'd like to know under what grounds entries could be refused.

[Bensmom]

Ok, the actual rule already has grounds for refusing entries, but very limited. Currently it reads:

GR914.1 Competition may refuse any entry of an exhibitor or the participation of any agent, trainer, rider, driver or handler who has shown an objectionable attitude or behavior at a Licensed Competition which management is able to substantiate.

Flutie proposes an amendment to the rule which would also give the organizer the ability to refuse an entry if the rider has been given dangerous riding penalties incurred at a recent previous competition, if the rider is violating the return to play rule if adopted as discussed, and a chronic "bad pay" participant (i.e. multiple dishonored checks)

I'm an administrative attorney who deals extensively with rules and my brain is fried from attending the Building Code Administrators Board meeting today, so I toss this out for discussion amongst yourselves. :) How can such a rule be drafted to protect both Organizers and Riders?

Libby

[Gnep]

As a business owner I have the right to refuse service to anybody, for what ever reason I choose, except race and sex, but if I do not like your face, your hair do, your behavior, your health condition, or what ever I can tell you to take a hike.
I do not have to explain myself.
My place, my business, period.

And I figure a organizer should have the same right, his/her place, his/her business.

For some odd reason I have very nice customers and the guys down the road wooooooow, I know because when they are closed I get their customers for a day or 2.

Flutie you hit it spot on, I was part of the X-C Crew at the Young Riders, and next to everyday, I had to replace, or repare decoration or brushing on jumps, it gets old after 3 days, especialy agrevating the trash colection on X-C after the walks.

It was written with a beautiful sense for humor, thanks flutie

[snoopy]

As a business owner I have the right to refuse service to anybody, for what ever reason I choose, except race and sex, but if I do not like your face, your hair do, your behavior, your health condition, or what ever I can tell you to take a hike.
I do not have to explain myself.
My place, my business, period.

And I figure a organizer should have the same right, his/her place, his/her business.

For some odd reason I have very nice customers and the guys down the road wooooooow, I know because when they are closed I get their customers for a day or 2.

Flutie you hit it spot on, I was part of the X-C Crew at the Young Riders, and next to everyday, I had to replace, or repare decoration or brushing on jumps, it gets old after 3 days, especialy agrevating the trash colection on X-C after the walks.

It was written with a beautiful sense for humor, thanks flutie


an event is not exactly one's own buisness though....when membership to an organization is involved. I hear what you are saying but I think it is not as clear cut as "no shirt, no shoes, no service"

[S A McKee]

Ok, the actual rule already has grounds for refusing entries, but very limited. Currently it reads:

GR914.1 Competition may refuse any entry of an exhibitor or the participation of any agent, trainer, rider, driver or handler who has shown an objectionable attitude or behavior at a Licensed Competition which management is able to substantiate.

Flutie proposes an amendment to the rule which would also give the organizer the ability to refuse an entry if the rider has been given dangerous riding penalties incurred at a recent previous competition, if the rider is violating the return to play rule if adopted as discussed, and a chronic "bad pay" participant (i.e. multiple dishonored checks)



Yes, the rule you mentioned is part of the general rules and applies to all USEF recognized competitions. It's very specific and I've only seen it used once. In that case the exhibitor sued the show and won. Put the show out of business permanently.
If entries should be refused for dangerous riding then that should be a USEF rules that says 'if you receive dangerous riding penalties,(yellow card, red card etc), you are suspended for x days'. Otherwise you are leaving it up to an organizer with the possibility of penalties being applied differently depending on the relationship with the exhibitor.
If the rider is a chronic bad pay there is already a remedy in place. The organizer simply reports the exhibitors for bounced checks. USEF suspends them till they pay up. If you look at the current USEF suspension list a lot of the names on that list are for bad checks.
Big difference between acting in accordance with an organization's rules and an individual organizer acting on a whim. Comply with an organization's rules and you have some proptection. Act on your own and you will be sued.

And Gnep
" but if I do not like your face, your hair do, your behavior, your health condition, or what ever I can tell you to take a hike."
I'd like to see you get away with telling a customer you don't like their face as grounds to refuse service.

[Fence2Fence]

I read the article last night, and agree that that the organizer should have more power to reject entries based on previous riding penalties and bounced checks and subsequent lack of prompt follow up of the rider to correct the situation.

In all this talk about responsibility, relying on USEF to suspend a rider for bouncing the check, is 'passing on' the responsibility. I think a rule written along the lines of, if a rider's check bounces, and the payment is not resolved within 15 days (or whatever time frame), the organizer has the ability to reject the entry at the next horse trial. Limitations can be written so that the ability to reject an entry is not open ended.

And I'm all for allowing an organizer the ability to reject an entry where dangerous riding penalties are incurred within the last six months. Talk about a way to really give the dangerous riding penalties a solid punch. For people who are willing to shrug off the penalties, I think this would help get the message across.

And it blows my mind that people would harrass the organizer to get into the event two days prior...good grief!

Just my $.02.

[S A McKee]

In all this talk about responsibility, relying on USEF to suspend a rider for bouncing the check, is 'passing on' the responsibility. I think a rule written along the lines of, if a rider's check bounces, and the payment is not resolved within 15 days (or whatever time frame), the organizer has the ability to reject the entry at the next horse trial. Limitations can be written so that the ability to reject an entry is not open ended.


Responsibility for rules enforcement lies with the USEF, not the organizer.
Everyone is protected through a set of standard procedures that are applied to all parties.
What's the problem with using the existing bad check procedure? That results in the guilty party not competing anywhere till they pay up.
Once you deviate from standards you open the door for discrimination and all the nasty law suits that go along with that.

[flutie1]

Responsibility for rules enforcement lies with the USEF, not the organizer.
Everyone is protected through a set of standard procedures that are applied to all parties.
What's the problem with using the existing bad check procedure? That results in the guilty party not competing anywhere till they pay up.
Once you deviate from standards you open the door for discrimination and all the nasty law suits that go along with that.

Just responding to the above notation - the current rule about bounced checks is an extremely cumbersome one to follow up on. I know. I've done it. This is the reason that in the Omnibus for the event I organize, it's stated "bounced check, entry will be returned."

[groom]

This is the reason that in the Omnibus for the event I organize, it's stated "bounced check, entry will be returned."


Can you not also state : idiots/arseholes*, entry will be returned?

I fully support a business owner's right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason other than race or sex. Stupidy should not be a not a protected status.

[Fence2Fence]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post, but let me try again:

Set window for rider to resolve bounced check. Say 30 days. If resolved within 30 days, organizer cannot refuse entry.

If not resolved within 30 days, organizer of that horse trial can refuse the entry in the organizer's next horse trial, but can only refuse the entry once. This would prevent an Organizer from targetting someone, but if the Rider was a chronic offender, the Organizer would have enough power to refuse the entry the next time. A different organizer cannot refuse entry just because they heard the Rider bounced a check.

Does this cover everything? Probably not, but I think a clear and appropriate rule can be written.

[Jazzy Lady]

Up here you can refuse entries for whatever reason. Doesn't happen very often, but every once in a while.

Perhaps if you don't like the person and they don't have a tracking number (snail mail) you can just "lose" the entry :rolleyes: :p

[flutie1]

Up here you can refuse entries for whatever reason. Doesn't happen very often, but every once in a while.

Perhaps if you don't like the person and they don't have a tracking number (snail mail) you can just "lose" the entry :rolleyes: :p

Not with online entries (worse luck).

Seriously, I guess my status as a troublemaker is confirmed when USEA feels compelled to publish a disclaimer after my column. Yay!!!

Flutie

[RAyers]

And Gnep
" but if I do not like your face, your hair do, your behavior, your health condition, or what ever I can tell you to take a hike."
I'd like to see you get away with telling a customer you don't like their face as grounds to refuse service.

You obviously have not met Gnep. He has. :) All I can say is that if flutie's ideas go through, I'll never be able to enter any event again. ;)

Reed

[flutie1]

You obviously have not met Gnep. He has. :) All I can say is that if flutie's ideas go through, I'll never be able to enter any event again. ;)

Reed

Sure you will. the Sumos would have my head on a block if we banned you from Maui Jim!

[flightinstructor]

I am generally a fan of Flutie's responses and I agree with much of the column, but I think that the article gives the impression (true or not) that the organizers feel that they are there for the competitors, not the other way around. Those of us who have been on that side of things certainly understand where that feeling may come from, but if we are to grow our sport it needs to be the other way around. Providing good customer service and making everyone feel welcome and included is how to make this sport grow and continue. The attitude that you will take what division I put you in and like it is not the way to make people feel included. Competitors deserve to be placed in appropriate divisions. Also, you can't expect competitors to treat an organizer with respect if they are not treated with equal respect. The best way to change behavior is to provide a positive example.

[flutie1]

"... Also, you can't expect competitors to treat an organizer with respect if they are not treated with equal respect. The best way to change behavior is to provide a positive example."

No argument here. I believe we have to learn to respect each other. I'll treat you with as much respect as you treat me.
Fair enough?

Flutie
__________________

[pegasusmom]

Just responding to the above notation - the current rule about bounced checks is an extremely cumbersome one to follow up on. I know. I've done it. This is the reason that in the Omnibus for the event I organize, it's stated "bounced check, entry will be returned."


I am up to my armpits with two of them right now, and little hope of recovery of funds - both are for BN rides which USEF has little or no interest in.

I am with Flutie on "Respect Road" - it is a two way street.

[S A McKee]

I am up to my armpits with two of them right now, and little hope of recovery of funds - both are for BN rides which USEF has little or no interest in.

I am with Flutie on "Respect Road" - it is a two way street.

I hope you file all the paperwork with USEF. That will result in a suspension and other organizers will not have the same problem.

[S A McKee]

Sure you will. the Sumos would have my head on a block if we banned you from Maui Jim!

Well you've helped make my point.
You know Reed so there is no danger of having his entries refused.
You don't know me.
If I enter your event and you decide you don't like my last name or maybe I have dreds you seem to be saying it's OK to discriminate using standards that your federation doesn't support.
If you do refuse my entries surely you realuze that USEF or USEA aren't going to support you if you are sued?

[flutie1]

"If you do refuse my entries surely you realuze that USEF or USEA aren't going to support you if you are sued?"

And you've helped make my point!
For the sake of argument - I hypothetically return an entry of someone that conventional wisdom would agree is a potential liability to the event/landowner/sport/self/horse etc. I can document this. I am sued. I am not protected.

I stand by my belief that an organizer should have the right to refuse an entry with cause - and your examples hardly constitute "cause" do they?

[flutie1]

Pegasusmom - you have a PM.

[Old Time Rider]

It is a privilege to be allowed to compete. This 'right of entitlement' because we pay our dues to the USEA therefore we should get in regardless if we write bad checks, behave badly, etc. The organizers do a whole lot more work and worrying than what is visible on 'show days'. Most of the organizers I've meet are happy to accept your entry and take your money and if you don't get in because the event fills are very apologetical (sp?). I don't believe a name or hairdo or your colors (where is the fashion police at events?) would get you banned. But using the words 'if you are sued' sends up a red flag.

[Gnep]

Just the arguments and discusion of the riders against " the right of the organizer to refuse service" shows how much a need for this rule change exists.
If Reed is protected by the Sumos and Trees than the question should not be is this favorism but it should be what did he do to have Sumos and Trees as his protectors.

The Ami vers Pro that can only happen if the Ami is to stupid to fill out a very simple form, all it takes the ability to count to three, if one can not count to three well one rides against a Pro.
When I say that I, in my busines use the the right to refuse service for what ever reason, except race and sex, than it does not mean that I throw blindly customers out. If my customers behave to common standards than I will do what ever possible to provide them with the best service possible and that is what every organizer will do.

One can turn it around, I as an rider will not go to shows that I do not like, for what ever reason, I can not be forced to have to enter a show in my Area, that I do not like, instead of going to a show out side my Area, which I like.
I can choose, I think organizers should have that right to.

[Ajierene]

Just the arguments and discusion of the riders against " the right of the organizer to refuse service" shows how much a need for this rule change exists.
If Reed is protected by the Sumos and Trees than the question should not be is this favorism but it should be what did he do to have Sumos and Trees as his protectors.

You have some very valid points. The caution is - what did Reed do? Did Reed give lots of money? Did Reed grow up with the organizers? Are Reed, Sumos and Trees part of the same elitist clique?

While I am sure none of these are the case, it is the caution when refusing entries. Gnep can toss people out of the store that are unsavory and they go to another store.

The problem with the show is - what if that is the only venue in the area to qualify for young rider, the next level, etc. Maybe not the only venue, but being refused into that venue may be greatly detrimental to the individual going farther in the sport.

There is also the caution that someone uses his influence on the organizers to convince them not to allow person B into the show because that is his biggest competition and he doesn't want that competition.

This is the caution for a blanket 'right of refusal'. There has to be checks in place for any unsavory organizers. I know people like to think that all event organizers are saints, but they are only people.

[Fence2Fence]

Just the arguments and discusion of the riders against " the right of the organizer to refuse service" shows how much a need for this rule change exists.

No kidding!

Bouncing checks and not remedying the situation in a quick manner is a form of theft.

If I visit a friend's house, throw trash down, act like a jerk, steal from them, how could a reasonable person expect to be invited back?

Right of refusal rule shouldn't be open ended, but as I've mentioned before there's a way to make it fair to both parties. Going to a competition isn't a 'right' if you cannot behave in a sportsmanlike manner.

[Gnep]

No organizers are not saints, absolutely not, I have certain shows I did go once and than never again, because either they are badly organized, have shitty stadium or X-C or the organizer and their staf are just plain jerks.
I can make that choise, as a customer.

The argument that the organizers unconditional right to refuse service, might provoke preventing qualifications or clanish mafia type favorism is rather naive, because it is already possible, lost entries, or not complet entries and a unregistered snail mail reminder that never arives etc. etc.. If anybody does not believe that secretaries or organizer have Elephant brains and memories when it comes to undesirable riders, well naive is an understatement.
But in order to keep those unwanted away they have to use every trick in the book, which is not good and mostly that is not good enough, they should be able to put on the entrie return to sender.

If in my business somebody bounces a check, it goes straight to the DA and a copy (enlarged ) gets posted in my busines on the wall of shame.

If I were an organizer I would post them on my website, The Wall of Shame, Name, Adress, USEA and USEF number and the check would go straight to the DA, fraud.

[fooler]

Quote from Pegasusmon: I am up to my armpits with two of them right now, and little hope of recovery of funds - both are for BN rides which USEF has little or no interest in.

I hope you file all the paperwork with USEF. That will result in a suspension and other organizers will not have the same problem.

FYI USEF and USET membership is not required at BN level. Non-USET members can pay a non-member fee to ride at each event. Sooooooo the USEF will have little or no impact on the these competitors.

[retreadeventer]

By USET I assume you mean USEA - Eventing Associaton, not the team.

Well then let's require USEA membership at BN. Can organizers require that on their own any how?
And let's pass bad check rules for USEA. Would that help w/ BN, N, T?

[Bensmom]

I am out of town camping with no internet service -- I had to drive into the closest town to get cell service to cancel my plane reservations for tomorrow, which gives me the chance to jump in here.

It is clear that there are some USEF rules already in place that sort of cover these subjects, but the point of Flutie's column is that what is in place now Is Not Working Well.

What I'd like to get from all the good minds here, is suggestions for how you would craft rules to cover the issues Flutie brought up. USEA will need some rules to cover the lower levels and USEF doesn't have much impact on BN, as raised by pegasusmom.

Now, if we wanted to propose changes as Flutie has suggested, how could you do it or is it totally unworkable?

libby (back to camping in August with the trailer A/C having died this afternoon. Ugh)

[Gnep]

considering what a major pain in the ass it is to recover or get payed for a bad check, time, attorney, forms to be filled out and so on and so on, most of the time it aint worth it.
Under 500 not worth it, till it is finished around 20 hours and the whole process just is so agravating, ruins your day.

[deltawave]

The problem with the show is - what if that is the only venue in the area to qualify for young rider, the next level, etc. Maybe not the only venue, but being refused into that venue may be greatly detrimental to the individual going farther in the sport.

And the other side of the coin is, what if the only venue in the area ceases to hold shows because the organizer gets discouraged and frustrated enough to pack it in? That's far more detrimental to all of us.

[flutie1]

And the other side of the coin is, what if the only venue in the area ceases to hold shows because the organizer gets discouraged and frustrated enough to pack it in? That's far more detrimental to all of us.

Thank you Ma'am!!!!
Deltawave rocks!!!!

[BigRuss1996]

first....I think membership should be a requirement at ALL levels ...why should it bewaved because you are going BN?
Second..... can you not just wait list the persons in question? .... My my how fast those events fill up...ha ha ha

[ksbadger]

And the other side of the coin is, what if the only venue in the area ceases to hold shows because the organizer gets discouraged and frustrated enough to pack it in? That's far more detrimental to all of us.

Funnily enough that was my thoughts entirely after I read Flutie's column. We have few enough venues in a lot of the country that we can afford to lose any. The ease with which some comments in this thread include the word "sue" would further make me wish for a change in rules to allow an organizer to refuse an entry for good & reasonable cause. In our Area, the majority of events are run either by relatively small barns (where it can be a considerable fraction of annual income) or amateur organizations - neither of which could withstand a law suit especially one where "vindication" (or vindictivenes) was the object. In Kansas we only have to look south to our neighboring Area to see what the effect of loss of venue is - near devastation.

[pegasusmom]

Pegasusmom - you have a PM.


Got it. Big Jim and I thank you! :D

[fooler]

By USET I assume you mean USEA - Eventing Associaton, not the team.

Well then let's require USEA membership at BN. Can organizers require that on their own any how?
And let's pass bad check rules for USEA. Would that help w/ BN, N, T?


Yup - I meant USEA. Agree that USEA membership should be required at BN, no non-membership fees allowed.

IMO - If enough folks do not want to be USEA members for BN, then it should lose USEA recognition. And we return to Novice being the lowest recognized level. Lest you think I am dissing BN, I AM NOT! I consider BN to be a great entry level competition and have competed at this level. I do question whether it belongs strickly to unofficial events or to official events. Going back to rider education vs rider competition. If Novice were the lowest recognized level - how would that affect your preparation? Just a thought.

[flightinstructor]

"No argument here. I believe we have to learn to respect each other. I'll treat you with as much respect as you treat me.
Fair enough?"

To me good customer service (and a welcoming attitude) is "I'll treat you with respect until you prove otherwise." A matter of semantics maybe, but a big difference in attitude. Customers (or competitors) deserve our best unless they prove they don't deserve it, not once they do.

I totally agree that it is the right of the organizer to refuse entries.

I also believe that it is the duty of the organizing association (USEA) to police organizers for making arbitrary and unjust decisions. In a perfect world "good" organizers would retain recognized status and "bad" organizers would not.

The problem is that there are few enough people (gluttons for punishment) willing to organize events that the organizing association (and market forces) do not force them to provide good customer service. There is a secretary/scheduler/organizer in Area II that I like as person, but hate as a scheduler, but if I want to compete regularly I have to deal with. This person regularly has only has junior and open divisions for BEGINNER NOVICE and NOVICE! I feel that they make decisions based ease of scheduling and the scheduling concerns of multi-ride professionals. If there were viable options I would go elsewhere, but there aren't. Amateurs deserve their own divisions if at all possible. It isn't fair to always compete against professionals when trying to qualify for AEC's.

My point is that many organizers appear to take for granted that the riders will always be there regardless of the quality of customer service provided. This attitude will work for now, but it will slowly erode the base of support that keeps our sport going. We need to sell our sport. The last thing we need is an adversarial relationship between the riders, the organizers, and the governing body. Statements like "Also, please don't whine at me because you got placed in the same division as a gold medalist. The chances are that I sincerely won't give much of a damn!" draw a line between competitors and organizers. They do not help the sport in any way and only make newcomers feel unwelcome. If you were an non-eventer, say a hunter rider who has clearly defined divisions, and read that sentence, would you feel welcome?

Riding in an event is not a god given right, it is privilege, but with the wrong attitude by the organizing body and the organizers it will become a privilege to nothing.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

We need to sell our sport. The last thing we need is an adversarial relationship between the riders, the organizers, and the governing body.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect the two sentences above may directly contradict each other.

I am less and less convinced we need to - or should - sell our sport. Sure we need new people in all the ranks - but eventing is such a great sport, new people find us (heck, "us" was new at some point) like moths to a flame.

Growth is not the be all and end all! I would say a healthy sport is. I wonder, the two riders who stiffed Pegasusmom, how tied in to the sport are they? Maybe all their best friends are eventers, or they have evented through Training on another horse, but I would think it's a lot easier to stiff someone you have fewer ties to. Doesn't affect you to have your name posted on the cash register if you're from out of town, so to speak...

I'm rambling a bit, and perhaps digressing - and sad because my copy of "Eventing" still hasn't shown in my mailbox - but I think too much growth too fast can leave both organizers and competitors feeling adrift and in need of more "rights"...

[Badger]

Regarding the bounced checks, it is not exactly a leap to say that writing a bad check is objectionable behavior at a licensed competition. There is time to deposit checks and see what clears between closing date and the event...if the money doesn't clear, the entry isn't accepted and the organizer can turn down check writer's future entry as well (or perhaps tell the dilequent to get a good check in on opening day in the future if they want an entry considered).

GR914.1 Competition may refuse any entry of an exhibitor or the participation of any agent, trainer, rider, driver or handler who has shown an objectionable attitude or behavior at a Licensed Competition which management is able to substantiate.

What am I missing that keeps the current rule from covering the bad funds scenario?