USEF Watch List 2009-Irony..............

[nature]

http://www.usef.org/documents/disciplines/eventing/EventingWatchList.pdf

The USEF is instituting a watch list. If a rider is riding dangerously, they will be put on a list and watched. What is interesting is who is doing the watching.............


Reporting agents: Report a rider

R USEF official
FEI C or I official
Any level 4 ICP
Any rider in the last 12 years that has represented the USA


Notifying Agents: Notify the rider that they are on watch

Intermediate and below: Derek DiGrazia, Phillip Dutton, Mike Huber, Karen O Conner, Amy Tryon, Mark Weissbecker

Advanced: Captain Mark Phillips


Maybe it is me, but I see some irony in the notifying list...................

[LexInVA]

Irony? More like....random coincidence! :lol:

[nature]

deleted

[whoacorwin]

Is this a joke?

Please tell me it is , cause if it is not this sport is destined to failure

[nature]

Check out the link

http://www.usef.org/documents/disciplines/eventing/EventingWatchList.pdf

[joharavhf]

If I ride like C-R-A-P at BN, I can be notified by some really cool eventing person and maybe they'll offer their services to me??? :D

[Auburn]

The watch list was brought up by CMP at the Safety Summit in June.

I believe that he said the watch list had been tried, with success, in England. At that time, I don't remember many folks disagreeing with his proposal.

Anyone else who was at the Summit care to chime in?

[tuppysmom]

I was at the safety summit and this subject was discussed at length.

[JER]

Hilarious.

The idea of the Watch List is a good one. But I thought the 'reporting' would only be done by USEF licensed officials. They are licensed by the USEF to perform certain functions to ensure events run according to USEF rules.

But ICP instructors as 'Reporting Agents'? The ICP is a USEA program and the Watch List appears to fall under the provenance of the USEF. An ICP instructor is not a USEF licensed official. (What are the consequences to an ICP instructor who reports someone unfairly/abusively? Do they lose their certification? Whose rules are they bound to and why?) Perhaps someone who knows more about these legalities than me -- any lawyer, especially Bensmom, could say how this would actually work.

But riders as 'Reporting Agents'? Your fellow competitors -- but a select group of them -- as Reporting Agents? There's a bit of a conflict of interest in that.

[tulkas]

People seem to love using the word irony while having no understanding of its meaning.

Why don't you check out the requirements for earning ICP level 4 status, before you whinge about their qualification to judge your ability?

tulkas

[JER]

Why don't you check out the requirements for earning ICP level 4 status, before you whinge about their qualification to judge your ability?


I wasn't whinging and I didn't say anything about their qualifications and/or abilities. (I rode with a level 4/ICP Faculty member for many years.)

My comments/questions were all about legal issues and enforcement as an ICP instructor has no USEF license, is not an organizer and may have conflicts of interest with regard to their coaching services (to other competitors). If the USEF doesn't come to the party prepared for a lawsuit or two, the organization has forgotten the circumstances from which it sprung.

There may be answers to this; I can't imagine they didn't run this by lawyers.

[flypony74]

This seems way too subjective...

[jpalisades]

Does anyone know if USEF has released an actual definition of 'dangerous riding'?

It would be nice to have a set of standards in front of us to know what is and is not considered to be dangerous.

I hope everyone, officals and 4ICPs, will be fair to those of us with green horses! I hope that a buck and the rare rear will be okay, otherwise two of my OTTBs will be doing only unreg. events;) until they can handle warm-up areas better.

[Glenbaer]

Does anyone know if USEF has released an actual definition of 'dangerous riding'?

No, they're treating it like pornography; they know it when they see it. This is all quite fascinating, although I have a more appropriate eight-letter word for it (begins with a "b," ends with a "t").

Anyway, it's more interesting that reporting agents include individuals who have represented the US in the past 12 years. Why 12? Just a nice arbitrary number? If they went to 16 years, it would include Mike Plumb, who believes that no one knows how to ride anyway, particularly current upper-level riders, so it would cause an interesting snake-pit effect.

Oh, much more interesting... 1996 (the first Olympics in this specific twelve-year period) was also the first Olympics for which CMP was the USET chef d'equipe, marking a change in the political power and structure of eventing in the United States. Hmm...

[Janet]

Does anyone know if USEF has released an actual definition of 'dangerous riding'?

It would be nice to have a set of standards in front of us to know what is and is not considered to be dangerous.

I hope everyone, officals and 4ICPs, will be fair to those of us with green horses! I hope that a buck and the rare rear will be okay, otherwise two of my OTTBs will be doing only unreg. events;) until they can handle warm-up areas better.

Yes, Dangerous riding is defined in EV111
EV111 Dangerous Riding
1. Any competitor who rides in such a way as to constitute a hazard to the safety or wellbeing
of the competitor, horse, other competitors, their horses, spectators, or others will
penalized accordingly.
2. Any act or series of actions that in the opinion of the Ground Jury can be defined as
dangerous riding shall be penalized by 25 penalties or elimination and/or the issuance of a
Warning Card, at the discretion of the Ground Jury.
3. If such actions are reported, the Ground Jury shall decide if there is a case to be
answered. If an individual member of the Ground Jury observes such actions, he may eliminate
or penalize the competitor forthwith on his own authority. There is no appeal against a
Ground Jury decision.
4. The Ground Jury and the Technical Delegate have the authority to stop a rider on the
cross country course for dangerous riding, riding an exhausted horse, excessive pressing of
a tired horse, riding an obviously lame horse, excessive use of the whip and/or spurs or riding
in an unsafe way.
5. The President of the Ground Jury may, in addition, designate one or several deputies
(i.e. Eventing Officials up to the level for which they are licensed and not in an official function
at the Event, any Level 3 or 4 USEA ICP Instructor or any rider who has represented
the USA in a World Championship, Olympic Games, or Pan American Games) for the Cross
Country to advise the Ground Jury regarding any action described in 1 or 4 (above).
Deputies and obstacle judges will be provided with a red flag to be waved at the rider, at the
direction of Ground Jury, to stop the rider if the situation continues or if the infringement of
the above is deemed to be serious. EC 7/21/08 Effective immediately

The part in italics is the part that was passed in July 08.

Note that the list of people who can advise the GJ about stopping a horse on course for dangerous riding is pretty much the same as the people who can now report someone for the Watch list.

Bold added for emphasis.

[tx3dayeventer]

No, they're treating it like pornography; they know it when they see it. This is all quite fascinating, although I have a more appropriate eight-letter word for it (begins with a "b," ends with a "t").

Anyway, it's more interesting that reporting agents include individuals who have represented the US in the past 12 years. Why 12? Just a nice arbitrary number? If they went to 16 years, it would include Mike Plumb, who believes that no one knows how to ride anyway, particularly current upper-level riders, so it would cause an interesting snake-pit effect.

Oh, much more interesting... 1996 (the first Olympics in this specific twelve-year period) was also the first Olympics for which CMP was the USET chef d'equipe, marking a change in the political power and structure of eventing in the United States. Hmm...

very interesting indeed. hmmmm :confused:

[Glenbaer]

Yes, Dangerous riding is defined in EV111



Janet, I understand that there is actually a rule, but the rule remains extremely subjective and open to interpretation. There is no specific guideline by which to determine "dangerous" riding, particularly when it comes with such consequences. One's view of dangerous riding varies immensely from another individual opinion, and there is too great of a consequence of being put on the watch list for this discrepancy to exist.

When the people who have CAUSED this heightened awareness and witch hunt of dangerous riding in eventing are the ones who are REPORTING the dangerous riding, two questions come to mind: 1) What gives them the right to be the reporting agents? ; and 2) Who guards the guards??

[Janet]

Janet, I understand that there is actually a rule, but the rule remains extremely subjective and open to interpretation.
Oh, I definitely agree that it is subjective and open to interpretation. But that is NOT the same as "There is no definition".

While I DO agree that some more specificity would be useful, "dangerous riding" IS inherently subjective. Several times on this board we have attempted to come up with objective criteria for "dangerous riding". But for every criterion that is "obviously dangerous" to one group of people. someone comes up with a counterexample where the same criterion is NOT dangerous.

Look at what happened when they defined specifics for abuse. We all know of cases that meet the definition of "abuse" that are not abusive, and conversely, things that ARE abusive that aren't covered by the specific criteria. (I am no objecting to the abuse rule, just pointing out that specific criteria don't completely solve the problem).

Rather than putting specifics in the rule itself, I think we need a supporting document (or even better a video) giving examples of what is, or is not, considered dangerous.

[Janet]

When the people who have CAUSED this heightened awareness and witch hunt of dangerous riding in eventing are the ones who are REPORTING the dangerous riding, two questions come to mind: 1) What gives them the right to be the reporting agents? ; and 2) Who guards the guards??
Yes, I agreee with this concern. Not sure the best way to counter it, though.

Guidelines (outside the rule book, but publicly available) would help.

Or needing two separate people to report- that would address the case of an ICP trainer "reporting" people to build his/her client base. Or a former team rider wanting to reduce competition at an upcoming competition.

But it wouldn't help with the dangerous upper level rider that no one wants to publicly complain about.

[bambam]

I think calling it a witch hunt is a bit of an exaggeration.
I agree it would be better if 2 or more reports were required before a rider is placed on the list and I think it should be limited to USEF officials but the bottom line is that being on the watch list has no concrete negative effects. The purpose as it was explained at the June meeting is to be a wake up call to the rider and put officials on notice at events where these riders will be competing so they can be a little more vigilent about observing their riding so they can be pulled up if, and only if, they demonstrate dangerous riding at that event- if they are not riding dangerously at that event, then there is no consequence.
I think fears about other riders sabotaging their competition by reporting them or people getting "blacklisted" based solely on their being on the watch list (which won't be public anyway) are baseless. The point about the guards guarding the guards and the ULR that no one wants to publicly complain about are valid but have been addressed to some degree because who made the report is not public and USEF officials are not riders and so are not guards guarding the guards. I don't think it is possible to eliminate all the weaknesses in the idea but that does not mean we should scrap the idea.
It is a decent idea and whether it is successful will depnd on the execution which we have yet to see. As another poster said, the watch list has been very successful in the UK.

edited to add- I just saw the USEF is actually requiring some consequence unlike BE in the ICP madnated instruction- I think that part is BS but I also am not a fan of anything mandatory associated with ICP

[Gnep]

Any Level 4 ???????????

That is a joke, because I know some Level 4s that have yellow cards for dangerous riding and they could report?

And than that list, one just rotated his horse in an exquisit manner of quality riding and horsemanship and the other one got convicted for animal abuse.

I am realy impressed.

I just wonder how does one get on that list of experts, flip a horse, abuse one, anybody around that can explain this to me.

[Janet]

"It takes one to know one"???
Any Level 4 ???????????

That is a joke, because I know some Level 4s that have yellow cards for dangerous riding and they could report?

And than that list, one just rotated his horse in an exquisit manner of quality riding and horsemanship and the other one got convicted for animal abuse.

I am realy impressed.

I just wonder how does one get on that list of experts, flip a horse, abuse one, anybody around that can explain this to me.

[Jealoushe]

ya

seriously

I don't get it

[Kanga]

We obviously have the "Little Boys Club" at work here!

What on earth are they thinking that 2 Days with an ICP Level 4 Instructor is going to improve their dangerous riding. This sounds like a money maker to me with those on the Level 4 list(of which a few of them aren't the best horsemen or women).

This whole ICP thing and now the Watch List needs an OVERHAUL!!!!

GNEP, I'm with you here.

[flutie1]

What bothers me are the logistics.

I see Rider X who i consider to be riding dangerously at Competition Y. I then have to rat that rider out to one of the selected "callers" (for want of a better word) who, if this takes place in the less chic parts of the country, isn't present at Competition Y. I've had experience trying to get hold of an ULR such as those listed. Three days later, (with luck and if I haven't decided To Hell With It by then), we finally connect. The "caller" then calls the dangerous rider - maybe that day, maybe three, maybe five, maybe ten, maybe never - days later. The immediacy is gone.

I loved the idea when Leslie described it at the Safety Summit. It works in Great Britain because there is one designated caller which is possible because of the size of the country. In the U.S.? Not so much ......

[RAyers]

This means folks need to event out west where those big ICP instructors and high falutin' officials rarely come!

I bet I make that list in 2 event next year!

;)

Reed

[curlykarot]

So you might not know that you made it to the watch list until days after the event where your dangerous riding occured? Nobody says anything to you until you get a call from KOC or AT or PD? Why don't they just have you meet with the TD for that show after dangerous riding has been observed?


What bothers me are the logistics.

I see Rider X who i consider to be riding dangerously at Competition Y. I then have to rat that rider out to one of the selected "callers" (for want of a better word) who, if this takes place in the less chic parts of the country, isn't present at Competition Y. I've had experience trying to get hold of an ULR such as those listed. Three days later, (with luck and if I haven't decided To Hell With It by then), we finally connect. The "caller" then calls the dangerous rider - maybe that day, maybe three, maybe five, maybe ten, maybe never - days later. The immediacy is gone.

I loved the idea when Leslie described it at the Safety Summit. It works in Great Britain because there is one designated caller which is possible because of the size of the country. In the U.S.? Not so much ......

[bambam]

So you might not know that you made it to the watch list until days after the event where your dangerous riding occured? Nobody says anything to you until you get a call from KOC or AT or PD? Why don't they just have you meet with the TD for that show after dangerous riding has been observed?
I think the reason the TD does not do it (at least as it was presented at the summit as how it works in the UK) is an ULR who gets a call saying you are dangerous from KOC is going to take it much more seriously than from a TD at an event (I have seen the lack of regard with which some of our BNTs hold the TDs). I think the time delay is less of an issue because if you read the press release, this is supposed to be for a "pattern" of DR and not a single instance of it.

I am not sure I agree that the size of the country makes a difference- I think the size of the BE membership and USEA membership are not that different and frankly when you are talking the upper levels, if I had to make a guess I would bet the UK has more than we do (heck these people have a waiting list and run a lottery to get into Badminton even with 3 times as many entrants as Rolex). And in the UK, Yogi makes all the calls. This is not meant to be a large list and IIRC, the figure that was thrown around in June was less than 20 people on the UK list. Maybe CMP is not a phone person and doesn;t want to make all the calls himself :winkgrin:

[pinkroyal]

does mike huber fit into those qualifications?

[2LaZ2race]

Why don't they just make the list public like rider suspension for drug use or what not? I feel like that would not only deter people more but it would stop the rumor mill.

[Gnep]

Ring
Ring
Ring

Hello

My I speak with Mr ...., this is KOC calling
You are speaking to him.
Mr ....., I am calling because you have been put on the watch list for dangerous riding.
Have I ? Why ?
You were observed, running a horse towards a jump, you had lost your reins and any steering, but you still had your spurs in and leaning out of balance far backwards, but still without considering how dangerous this approach towards a jump is you kept on going, just sheer luck and the ability of your horse prevented a serious crash, you were observed to do the same at a nother jump, after which a Level 4 instructor, who is a member of the TEAM, took your name down for dangerous riding.

Oh hu, mmmmm I don not understand Miss, I have seen your self doing that, especialy at your first run out in HK and Phlip Dutton did the same thing. So why is me doing that dangerous riding.

Mr ...., this style of riding is copy righted of The Members of the Short and Long List and naturally of all Members of the National Team.
If you start using our style of riding, or any NON MEMBER, than this endangers our livelyhood.

Just think about it, what would our sponsors say. We are Eventing and if you by copying our style of riding look as US, YOU SIR endanger our financial future, than YOU SIR are a bad example for OUR SPORT, a Danger.
That habit of Dangerous Riding has to stop
If you are caught again violating OUR COPY RIGHT, than YOU SIR will be suspended.
If I can be of any help, riding lessons, horse sale, please let me know, anything I can do to prevent you from going down the wrong path. We Eventers have to stand to gether, United, for the good of My Sport.
Well, have a nice evening, and don't hesitate to come to my next clinic about dangerous riding.
Good Night
Klick

[asterix]

wow, gnep, you've outdone yourself this time. This one's a keeper!

[tx3dayeventer]

Ring
Ring
Ring

Hello

My I speak with Mr ...., this is KOC calling
You are speaking to him.
Mr ....., I am calling because you have been put on the watch list for dangerous riding.
Have I ? Why ?
You were observed, running a horse towards a jump, you had lost your reins and any steering, but you still had your spurs in and leaning out of balance far backwards, but still without considering how dangerous this approach towards a jump is you kept on going, just sheer luck and the ability of your horse prevented a serious crash, you were observed to do the same at a nother jump, after which a Level 4 instructor, who is a member of the TEAM, took your name down for dangerous riding.

Oh hu, mmmmm I don not understand Miss, I have seen your self doing that, especialy at your first run out in HK and Phlip Dutton did the same thing. So why is me doing that dangerous riding.

Mr ...., this style of riding is copy righted of The Members of the Short and Long List and naturally of all Members of the National Team.
If you start using our style of riding, or any NON MEMBER, than this endangers our livelyhood.

Just think about it, what would our sponsors say. We are Eventing and if you by copying our style of riding look as US, YOU SIR endanger our financial future, than YOU SIR are a bad example for OUR SPORT, a Danger.
That habit of Dangerous Riding has to stop
If you are caught again violating OUR COPY RIGHT, than YOU SIR will be suspended.
If I can be of any help, riding lessons, horse sale, please let me know, anything I can do to prevent you from going down the wrong path. We Eventers have to stand to gether, United, for the good of My Sport.
Well, have a nice evening, and don't hesitate to come to my next clinic about dangerous riding.
Good Night
Klick

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[bambam]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
good one gnep

[BigRuss1996]

OMG...LMAO!!...I almost peed myself... ha ha ha ha


Ring
Ring
Ring

Hello

My I speak with Mr ...., this is KOC calling
You are speaking to him.
Mr ....., I am calling because you have been put on the watch list for dangerous riding.
Have I ? Why ?
You were observed, running a horse towards a jump, you had lost your reins and any steering, but you still had your spurs in and leaning out of balance far backwards, but still without considering how dangerous this approach towards a jump is you kept on going, just sheer luck and the ability of your horse prevented a serious crash, you were observed to do the same at a nother jump, after which a Level 4 instructor, who is a member of the TEAM, took your name down for dangerous riding.

Oh hu, mmmmm I don not understand Miss, I have seen your self doing that, especialy at your first run out in HK and Phlip Dutton did the same thing. So why is me doing that dangerous riding.

Mr ...., this style of riding is copy righted of The Members of the Short and Long List and naturally of all Members of the National Team.
If you start using our style of riding, or any NON MEMBER, than this endangers our livelyhood.

Just think about it, what would our sponsors say. We are Eventing and if you by copying our style of riding look as US, YOU SIR endanger our financial future, than YOU SIR are a bad example for OUR SPORT, a Danger.
That habit of Dangerous Riding has to stop
If you are caught again violating OUR COPY RIGHT, than YOU SIR will be suspended.
If I can be of any help, riding lessons, horse sale, please let me know, anything I can do to prevent you from going down the wrong path. We Eventers have to stand to gether, United, for the good of My Sport.
Well, have a nice evening, and don't hesitate to come to my next clinic about dangerous riding.
Good Night
Klick

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by Gnep:

Ring
Ring
Ring

Hello

My I speak with Mr ...., this is KOC calling
You are speaking to him.
Mr ....., I am calling because you have been put on the watch list for dangerous riding.
Have I ? Why ?
You were observed, running a horse towards a jump, you had lost your reins and any steering, but you still had your spurs in and leaning out of balance far backwards, but still without considering how dangerous this approach towards a jump is you kept on going, just sheer luck and the ability of your horse prevented a serious crash, you were observed to do the same at a nother jump, after which a Level 4 instructor, who is a member of the TEAM, took your name down for dangerous riding.

Oh hu, mmmmm I don not understand Miss, I have seen your self doing that, especialy at your first run out in HK and Phlip Dutton did the same thing. So why is me doing that dangerous riding.

Mr ...., this style of riding is copy righted of The Members of the Short and Long List and naturally of all Members of the National Team.
If you start using our style of riding, or any NON MEMBER, than this endangers our livelyhood.

Just think about it, what would our sponsors say. We are Eventing and if you by copying our style of riding look as US, YOU SIR endanger our financial future, than YOU SIR are a bad example for OUR SPORT, a Danger.
That habit of Dangerous Riding has to stop
If you are caught again violating OUR COPY RIGHT, than YOU SIR will be suspended.
If I can be of any help, riding lessons, horse sale, please let me know, anything I can do to prevent you from going down the wrong path. We Eventers have to stand to gether, United, for the good of My Sport.
Well, have a nice evening, and don't hesitate to come to my next clinic about dangerous riding.
Good Night
Klick

:lol: OMG, laughing so hard I was crying. Whew.

[RoeVee]

holy cow - that is seriously funny, but not in the haha kinda way. That will seriously be the response!!!

The list of the 'callers' is ridiculous. And then for CMP to call the Advanced riders - really? - that has already worked out so well for us. So well, in fact, that is the reason why we have this Watch List.

unbelievable. :confused:

[retreadeventer]

No, they're treating it like pornography; they know it when they see it. This is all quite fascinating, although I have a more appropriate eight-letter word for it (begins with a "b," ends with a "t").

Anyway, it's more interesting that reporting agents include individuals who have represented the US in the past 12 years. Why 12? Just a nice arbitrary number? If they went to 16 years, it would include Mike Plumb, who believes that no one knows how to ride anyway, particularly current upper-level riders, so it would cause an interesting snake-pit effect.

Oh, much more interesting... 1996 (the first Olympics in this specific twelve-year period) was also the first Olympics for which CMP was the USET chef d'equipe, marking a change in the political power and structure of eventing in the United States. Hmm...

I LOFF you. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Gnep - you've outdone yourself. A PERFECT synopsis - I cannot wait for next season and all the excitement this ought to generate! YES! ROFL!
Bullsh@t, bullsh@t, bullsh@t

[tuppysmom]

And they say that Germans have no sense of humor!!!!

[snoopy]

Ring
Ring
Ring

Hello

My I speak with Mr ...., this is KOC calling
You are speaking to him.
Mr ....., I am calling because you have been put on the watch list for dangerous riding.
Have I ? Why ?
You were observed, running a horse towards a jump, you had lost your reins and any steering, but you still had your spurs in and leaning out of balance far backwards, but still without considering how dangerous this approach towards a jump is you kept on going, just sheer luck and the ability of your horse prevented a serious crash, you were observed to do the same at a nother jump, after which a Level 4 instructor, who is a member of the TEAM, took your name down for dangerous riding.

Oh hu, mmmmm I don not understand Miss, I have seen your self doing that, especialy at your first run out in HK and Phlip Dutton did the same thing. So why is me doing that dangerous riding.

Mr ...., this style of riding is copy righted of The Members of the Short and Long List and naturally of all Members of the National Team.
If you start using our style of riding, or any NON MEMBER, than this endangers our livelyhood.

Just think about it, what would our sponsors say. We are Eventing and if you by copying our style of riding look as US, YOU SIR endanger our financial future, than YOU SIR are a bad example for OUR SPORT, a Danger.
That habit of Dangerous Riding has to stop
If you are caught again violating OUR COPY RIGHT, than YOU SIR will be suspended.
If I can be of any help, riding lessons, horse sale, please let me know, anything I can do to prevent you from going down the wrong path. We Eventers have to stand to gether, United, for the good of My Sport.
Well, have a nice evening, and don't hesitate to come to my next clinic about dangerous riding.
Good Night
Klick



CLASSIC!!!:lol:
I have actually down loaded this little gem so that it does not get lost in a cyber space bin.


Getränke auf mich für diese ein!

[Gnep]

Tuppysmom,
It is a rather sad humor, from a rather sad Eventer. Now we have the Homeland Security Office of Eventing. We got the snitches apointed, that will decide who goes on the list.
The Country I come from we had twice systems like this and they created the Gestapo and the Vopo and Stasi ( that were the guys that created the cage in the East ).

The system installed is extremly bad, who decides, the Officials, the former and current Team Member, the 4th level instructors.
All part of the nomenklautur, the who is who, who controls the whos is who, the top honcho of the who is who.
I call that CORUPTION and DICTATORSHIP, by a very small group of people. If I see Phliping D ride like an idiot, I have to trust his friends to put him on the list, it aint going to happen.

Now in my favoured past time I am geting controlled, judged, without jury, than informed by a Horse Abuser, A rider that takes horses to the very absolut edge of their limits, a guy that does acxactly for what I got judged and condemt and I got put on that list by people who have yellow cards for dangerous riding, because they got Level 4, before that happens, I find a differant sport for me and my horses.

If a guy like Mike calls me, well I would hear him out, but I would tell him, what I do with my horses and the way I ride is none of his business, and I would ask him to tell me who put me on that list, and if he would not answer that question I would hang up.

I Evented all my live for the fun, the freedom to take my horses and my live into my hand when I entered the start box, my decision, my FREEDOM and that is what I pay for.

I do not pay to have the freedom of my decisions to betaken away by anybody, especial by a Corupt System of self protecting bunch of people.

Its time for a nother CHANGE

[starboard]

The blatant ignorance on this thread is incomprehensible.

[GotSpots]

Riding dangerously isn't missing once at a fence - it occurs when there is a pattern or consistent issue that appears to be a systematic problem. If you make a mistake out there, I don't think you're going to end up on the list, nor do I think one bad jump makes you dangerous. The idea behind it (at least as it was explained at the safety summit) is that it is intended to be a check on the Oh Dear God riders, the ones we have all seen with a consistent substantial, dangerous issue in their riding.

Honestly, I'm not actually sure where all the vitriol is coming from. Frankly, if I was doing something dangerous out there, I'd want to know about it, because I suspect that I likely don't have a clue some days. And I'd want to know about it with a conversation from someone who saw it and is knowledgeable, and would have that conversation in a private manner intended to educate, not humiliate, rather than hearing from Jane Pony Club mom who thinks that everything faster than 375 mpm is out of control fast.

I value it when KOC, or another ULR happened to see my go and says something about it, good or bad, because I learn from it. Was I embarrassed this summer when KOC saw me try to take a flyer to a big oxer only to have my horse pat the ground and add up? Sure. "Boy that's a kind horse" isn't really a compliment. But it lead to a pretty good conversation about where to take the tug and how to better set up the jump. No, it wouldn't have gotten me on the dangerous riding list - but it was a helpful teaching moment, and grateful she knows me and my coach well enough to say something.

I don't pretend that the folks on the list are perfect, nor do I think the ICP is the end all and be all. I'm sure they've all - every one of them - made a mistake that had serious consequences. But if they are keeping an eye out to try to give me the benefit of learning from their experiences, well, heck, I'm not too proud to appreciate it.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by starboard:

The blatant ignorance on this thread is incomprehensible.

I don't know who this is aimed at, but I see a lot of extremely intelligent, albeit cynical and sarcastic, wisdom on this thread, including Glenbaer and Gnep.

I am German also. I have recently been "attacked" by a local horse trainer (supposed eventer) for being too strict about safety. And that was after we took my new pony (that I had just purchased from her) for a trail ride after sharing a bottle of wine and not wearing helmets and I was wearing sneakers because I forgot my friggin' boots. At least I remembered to bring my saddle and I had ridden the pony before so I felt like I knew him well enough.

Edit to ad:

My reference to being German had to do with my feeling that this is getting to be like the Gestapo. There is a huge Conflict of Interest built into this as it stands right now. I am sick of the politics. They are ruining a sport that is immensly challenging.

Originally posted by flutie1:

What bothers me are the logistics.

I see Rider X who i consider to be riding dangerously at Competition Y. I then have to rat that rider out to one of the selected "callers" (for want of a better word) who, if this takes place in the less chic parts of the country, isn't present at Competition Y. I've had experience trying to get hold of an ULR such as those listed. Three days later, (with luck and if I haven't decided To Hell With It by then), we finally connect. The "caller" then calls the dangerous rider - maybe that day, maybe three, maybe five, maybe ten, maybe never - days later. The immediacy is gone.

I loved the idea when Leslie described it at the Safety Summit. It works in Great Britain because there is one designated caller which is possible because of the size of the country. In the U.S.? Not so much ......

[Nomini]

USEA better be careful with this, dangerous riding can be way too subjective. A few years ago I finished a prelim xc course and some lady came up to me right after I got my pony to a walk and flipped out on me because she thought I had been riding "dangerously". It was a very "twisty" xc course that I used to my advantage by cutting corners. I didn't even make the time by about 15 seconds, and I didn't have a single fence that was from a bad spot or that my horse hadn't jumped. She had no case, other than the fact that in order to run at prelim speeds my pony's legs look like they are moving a mile a minute. If she had gotten her way, I would have gotten 25 penalties and would have been on this list. None of the xc judges or the TD agreed with her.

If this idea follows through, I wonder how many people will end up in this same situation...

[FairWeather]

subjective? HA!
Got to any local official 'schooling day' at an XC course in the area--you are taking your life into your hands. Half of the people should be removed from their horses and beaten with a bag of hammers and their horses sent to therapy.
Can we have some folks watching schooling days please?

I'm guessing it's kinda like porn.

[Gnep]

Ring
Ring
Ring

Jup !

This is AT, I am calling on behalf of the USEF, how are you this evening.

Hey AT how ist it going, I am fantastic. Whats up. You are selling Christmas Cards ?

No.

Well Lady would have been the wrong number. Do you want to donate to the 3TD ?
No ?
So what can I do for you.

Well, hm this is kinde difficult. You have been put on the dangerous riding list.
And I am the West Coast Rep to call you.

Dangerous riding list ? How come, I don't know why. Who did that.

Well I am not to disclose who put you on the list.

Why, well we are worried that that could produce some unwanted reactions toward that person.

Ok I get that, but what is he reason for me beeing on the list.

The Observer, a level 4 and or Team Member and or former Team mener and or official, noticed that your horse was not right after 15c. But you kept on going and took a serious chance, you prest on. You had a rather wild jump at 16.

Yes 16 was ugly, but the rest was just perfect, I never noticed that anything was wrong with her, even at cool down, next day she was a little skidish at her left rear. I trotted her out for three people, 2 could not see anything, one said she was slighly stiff in the fetlock ( a level 4 ), I scratched.
I am sorry but I never felt a thing during X-C, she was fine after 6 weeks, twisted fetlock.

So what is the big deal.

The big deal, you should have known that your horse was injured, she jumped 16 like shit, barely made it.
Yes 16 was a real rough one.

You should have pulled up, checked your horse and than retired.

But she felt alright after 16 and we finished clear with some time penalties.

You not only endangered your horse and your self by your insensetive lack of feeling for what was going on with your horse, but it shows a serious lack of horsemanship and understanding of your responsebility, to protect first your horse and your self at all times.
Do you understand what could have happend if your horses injury could have gotten worse and you and your horse would have crashed into the next jump.

Uhuha, yes that would have been terrible, I could not forgive myself.

So you understand why I am calling ?

Hmmmmmm, not realy. You did that yourself and the horse had to be killed, sorry humanly destroyed, but still killed. And you wipped the Guy already 9 jumps from home after the jumps to make him go, and than when he hobbled around you put the spurs into him and made him go for the next jump, three legged, and you did not feel anything, as I did, thats what you said and KOC, DOC, The Captain former Royal Consort, testified they did not feel it when their horses got injured, even Kevin was on your side ?
I am sorry, very sorry, that I did not feel a thing and thought 16 was just a shitty jump, but she is alive, heeled and the usual bitch. Yours is dead.
So why am I an the list.

You have to understand, that there is a huge differance between people like you and me, do you know the the Orwell Novice, Animal Farm, well, all Animals are the same, shall we call it equal, like Eventers. I like Equal very much, sounds like you and me, but you, a middle level rider, are not ME.
You are not like ME a level 4, a Member of the Team, you have not competed at 4 star and you have no idea, because of your lack of qualifications, what it means and takes, hard work I tell you, to run an injured horse unnoticed to its death.
You have to be qualified, Level 4 to do that and a Member of the TEAM.
This my dear Sir is the differance, all pigs are EQUAL, but some are more Equal.
That is the reason of my call. You are not to copy the riding style of the US National Team, that is a copy right violation, that belongs to the USEF, USET, licensed by the FEI, we hold the rights to it.
You abuse your horse, endanger your horse, especialy without noticing it, you ride a crippled horse to the finish, withot noticing it, you are violating the copy right of the US- Team, USEF, USEA, USET and FEI.
And that can not be tolerated, because if YOU SIR behave or copy us you become a danger to the sport, that is dangerous riding.

I hope you understand, that if everybody rides like The Team, that would undermine the uniqueness of US and that would cost us all those wonderfull sposors and OUR lively hood.
That can not be tolerated, to kill a horse needs hard work, and I worked for it and I deserve the qualifikation, I am level 4, a membr of the TEAM, Olympics, WEG, I earned may way, thats what it takes to not feel a thing.
So Sir please do not do it again, take this advice from a expert.

Oh by the way, I have a clinic coming up in you area, How to ride a crippled horse towards the last jump without feeling a thing, I would realy love to see ya, it will shorten your suspension, you will get 10 credits for every hour you attend.
You could reduce your suspension in one weekend by 3 weeks.
And last not least Kevin, your legal advisor in horse abuse, KOC, DOC and the EX Royal Consort as witnes. A all in one, get 4 for one, what a deal, especialy in to days times.

I hope to see you at my clinic, have a pleasant day.

klick

[tx3dayeventer]

you keep one-uping yourself :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[2LaZ2race]

aaaahhh geeez! lets see how long it takes for the Team Tryon supporters to get here :mad:

:lol:

[Kanga]

GNEP-

Seriously, you need to write for all the magazines. Where have you been?? Someone needs to send this to the USEF & USEA, so they understand how many of us feel!!

Keep it coming...

[Toadie's mom]

subjective? HA!
Got to any local official 'schooling day' at an XC course in the area--you are taking your life into your hands. Half of the people should be removed from their horses and beaten with a bag of hammers and their horses sent to therapy.
Can we have some folks watching schooling days please?

I'm guessing it's kinda like porn.

HERE HERE !!!!!!

Is there a time limit on the reporting? Can I report one of the "team members" for abuse 4yrs later? Not that I kept my mouth shut at the time, but I only reported it to the farm owner where the abuse took place, and to the owner of the horse that the abuse was inflicted upon. Maybe CMP should hear about it.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

I have been to enough events where the ring goes silent when a certain rider enters, or people shake their heads when someone flies by XC, but there hasn't really been a structure other than prayer to address the situation. We all have some Hail Marys, but even a course full of them doesn't necessarily equal DR.

Everyone IS watching some of us all of the time, and all of us at least occasionally. Why NOT make a structure where random ladies on the course can't report us, but experienced instructors and officials can enlist someone to speak with us? If I have a fluke bad day, and Mark Weissbecker calls me that evening, hopefully I'm not shocked. But if I am shocked, at least now I know that I caused concern, and why. If it's a fluke, fine. If it happens again, maybe it's a trend, and soemthing I really do need to address.

Sure, I'm not an ULR, am just riding Prelim and below, I don't think anyone has accused me of being the eventing devil incarnate - but safety is a culture, and this initiative seems like one of many steps that can be taken to further that culture. Maybe warning me, and all the other "me's" out there at the lower levels, won't save any lives - but who knows, and as part of an overall effort to increase safety, this seems like a fine step.
'

Gnep, I wasn't at Fair Hill, but I'm thinking in your first riff (or somewhere in there) you were alleging that because of Phillip's flip on course he is an unsuitable caller?? DO I have that right? Are you saying only people with flawless records could be suitable for the task? Or that no-one is flawless, so no one should do it? Or that really Phillip should be on the watch list? What system do you propose for addressing ongoing borderline dangerous riding? Who do you respect enough to listen to?

[denny]

This tremendous wave of cynicism should have been forseen by the USEF. If the upper levels really decided to increase safety, they could do so. That they do not creates the first round of cynical response.

The second round of negative response comes because at least two of the "reporters", between them, have had 4 horses die in competition, and another recently had a highly publicized rotational fall. It`s the "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome, as Gnep so eloquently states it.

This rather un-thought-out plan by the USEF only increases the perception of a divide between the lower and upper levels, which, of course, the USEF denies even exists.

[pegasusmom]

subjective? HA!
Got to any local official 'schooling day' at an XC course in the area--you are taking your life into your hands. Half of the people should be removed from their horses and beaten with a bag of hammers and their horses sent to therapy.
Can we have some folks watching schooling days please?

I'm guessing it's kinda like porn.

Guess I'll be watching porn tomorrow. Oh boy.

[Gnep]

Jeannette,
No I was not at Fair Hill and yes I am as everybody else not without fault, I am the sum of may mistakes.
But what I am pointing out, who are they, to call me, who are they to to put my name on that Stasi list, just because they have ridden for the TEAM, have a Level 4, are paid officials by the organizer.
The same official that denied any changes on course, that turned down the rider rep request to remove a extremly dangerous combination, the official that stands at the finish line, scared like hell, interviewing the riders, how did it jump, that official decides, the Level 4 that told his student that she has to let it rip like crazy the first jumps and watches how his student crashes, destroying a solid jump bejond repair, the Level 4 with yellow cards decides.
Those are your new judges.

But who is their judges? the same as above.

If people have a problem with somebodies riding, they should go to the Ground Jury and the Ground Jury should take the 30 minutes out of their coffe break and sit that person down and chew them out, yellow card them, red card them, but at least give them a chance to respond, defend themself.
Have it out in open, this is a democratic system, transparent.

If you acuse somebody, than do it straight into his face, look that person into the eyes, have the f....... guts to confront that person.

Not behind their back and than have somebody call them, so they know Big Brother is watching you.

If you sit in the glass house, don't throw with rocks

[Glenbaer]

Gnep, incredible, absolutely incredible (and unfortunately, so incredibly true). And thank you, BaroquePony, for your kind words. Me, sarcastic? Occasionally. Cynical? Nah, just experienced. :cool:

Jeannette, I don't believe it is necessarily reporting dangerous riding in and of itself that is the concern. It is the specific individuals and their choice actions, as well as the intricate network, irony, and "small world" syndrome connecting each of them. It is not simply, "okay, you were riding dangerously today, shape up" (Mark W. can say that on the side to you if he wants). This is, "okay, you were riding dangerously, we self-appointed individuals now say that you are bound by these restrictions, even if you disagree with our own techniques and have no respect for us as riders/trainers, and pretty soon, you will be required to ride with our self-appointed ICP instructors." Gnep's posts couldn't be more accurate. :yes:

Denny, I agree; someone, somewhere should have had the foresight to predict this, and for all we know, they did. However, they acted in such a way, for whichever political and self-preserving reasons, that got us where we are today. Saying that there is "a divide" between upper and lower levels implies that there is an organized dichotomy garnering attitude and vitriol, as opposed to the actual happenings of a disarrayed stage of pandemonium. Someone, somewhere, now needs to fix these problems, and send eventing in a better direction.

Along with the ironic (yes, I mean ironic) connections within all of this, one prevalent factor is the lack of transparency within the national governing bodies. This topic has been bantered around for quite some time, but it is becoming more, and more, and more of an issue (if you don't want to hear about it, don't read the rest of this post). It is significant enough when information is kept quiet without actively trying to hide it; it's a greater issue when information is purposefully kept secret from individuals in a national organization.

The information on the USEF document posted in post #1 says that the Reporting Agents will not be identified to the reported rider (Gnep did a wonderful job illustrating this in his second dialogue, post #47). If dangerous riding is such an issue, why can't the rider know which Reporting Agent reported them? Fear of retribution on the reporter? Well, if there was clearly dangerous riding, and the Reporting Agent sincerely had an issue with what occurred, and we are all together as a membership to keep everyone safe, there is NO REASON for anonymity.

Interestingly enough, I have recently learned that one cannot express concerns to the national bodies and departments within them, particularly ICP, without fully disclosing name and contact information. Any concern/critique/comment/complaint that is done anonymously is immediately discarded (Sue Hershey said this directly to me on 9/20/08). There is certainly justification in requiring identification; trouble can easily ensue when anonymous claims are jostled about. However, because the concerns expressed to the governing body are typically not listened to ANYWAY, one who expresses thoughts with names attached is only damning and/or blackballing oneself. (Many people know my position on ICP; after my initial posts in September, I had practically innumerable individuals contact me, saying they hadn't come forward for these exact retribution reasons.)

This is a control mechanism common in utopian/dictatorship societies. Regular members of the "society" can only speak out if information is FULLY disclosed, yet "the powers that be" will do whatever they damn well please. Because individuals will be afraid to disclose their name for fear of retribution, they will not speak out, and the governing entities increase their control. As several others on this thread have posted, gestapo is a good metaphor; I'm also seeing shades of McCarthyism and "utopian society." (Andrew and I were both Russian majors/minors in college... too much direct cultural and literary illustration of utopian society has been pushed down our throats to not have flashing lights go off when we see it occurring in modern organizations.)

Extreme paranoia? Unfortunately, it's not. (For another example, I refer you to my first post on this thread, #14). This is happening, and I have the names, dates, witnesses, and conversation details with people such as Sue Hershey, Robin Walker, Duncan MacRae, as well as numerous TDs and BNTs over the past seven months that fully support the occurrences and attitudes within USEA, never mind USEF. I fully appreciate those with rose-colored glasses who think eventing governance is a happy place right now, but unfortunately, that is not what is going on behind the scenes. I have found from my interactions that there appears to be a mystery throughout the USEA membership of "don't piss anyone off, don't disagree with the governance, everything will be fine." Eventing needs good, transformational leadership, and it needs someone somewhere to speak out about what is going on.

[Glenbaer]

subjective? HA!
Got to any local official 'schooling day' at an XC course in the area--you are taking your life into your hands. Half of the people should be removed from their horses and beaten with a bag of hammers and their horses sent to therapy. Can we have some folks watching schooling days please?
I'm guessing it's kinda like porn.


Fully agree with you, Fairweather. But it is that subjective; one person's chipmunk is another person's chains and whips.

For what it's worth, my definition of dangerous riding goes far beyond galloping too fast into a combination with a related distance or pushing a tired and/or lame horse. Dangerous, in my opinion, is an integral part of today's eventing, with riders religiously getting ahead of the horse, being too out of shape to safely navigate a course, incessantly relying more on horses' mouths in twisted wire elevators than their own balance, and repeatedly and endlessly getting more in their horses' ways than helping them out or remaining safe.

This goes back to the idea of "do your schooling at home." Many people don't have the XC courses available to regularly school, but the ideas, principles, techniques, and proper balance are things that should be schooled at home over stadium fences if possible, or at least on the flat. Walking out onto a very impressive course like Carolina Horse Park is NOT the time to be learning how to set up for a fence, or slip your reins, or catch yourself if you do lose balance going down a large drop.

I regularly see competitors at the mid-levels of eventing who I believe should not be permitted to ride around a 2'6" hunter course, yet their instructors (ICP Level 4, even!) are telling them to start thinking about moving up. But then again, I'm just a lowly instructor without ICP aspirations, so what do I know?

[FairWeather]

With all due respect, if your chipmunk cannot steer, cannot observe the laws of the land, cannot avoid jumping from two strides out, and cannot avoid running into me, kindly keep him home? :winkgrin:

[Jealoushe]

The only reason I have a shred of hope for our sport is because there are still people (like some on this board), who share the same opinion as me - that all this is bullocks!!!

Riders who have interest in the sport should NOT be the ones calling people out. They should train specific individuals and give them specific rules to follow when making decisions.

[mbarrett]

If the USEA is that concerned about dangerous riding, they need to set up a series of clinics across the United States that TEACHES people how to ride correctly in a cross country situation. If you want people to ride better, you have to teach them.

Not everyone has access to a good coach, trainer or xc schooling site. I think it is the responsibility of the USEA to organize, staff and educate the folks who want to do eventing in a clinic situation. Clinics like this should not be left up to event organizers to put on. They need to be offered all over the country, not just the east or Florida, where the eventers are.

Also, if someone is put on the dangerous riding list, they must be required to attend one of these clinics to LEARN how to ride better on a cross country course. (Kind of like going to driving school if you've had too many tickets and want to retain your drivers license.)

It erks me that the USEA is willing to tell you you are riding dangerously, but they aren't WILLING to TEACH you how to ride better. They should take the educational part very seriously.

[BigRuss1996]

I have to disagree here..... being educated for the sport you are CHOOSING to participate in is your responsibility as a rider(and your responsibility to your horse). It is not the job of the governing bodies (they don't like being called TPTB) to handhold you and make sure you are getting proper training. One would hope that anyone wanting to get into any sport (especially a high risk sport) would try to educate themselves. If you can't get the proper training because of where you live then maybe you need to travel to where you can get it or maybe consider a different sport.

As for the people doing the notifying...I would assume they all volunteered for those positions as with everything our governing bodies do we don't seem to appoint for these committees based on any real criteria it is a volunteer thing and the same people volunteer it seems.
I do not think that any riders/trainers (level 4 or not) should be involved in the dangerous riding process ....who reports them and who calls them if they are riding questionably.... that would be interesting. Also what is the standard for dangerous riding if there even is one. I also do agree the person reporting the DR should not be annonymous.



If the USEA is that concerned about dangerous riding, they need to set up a series of clinics across the United States that TEACHES people how to ride correctly in a cross country situation. If you want people to ride better, you have to teach them.

Not everyone has access to a good coach, trainer or xc schooling site. I think it is the responsibility of the USEA to organize, staff and educate the folks who want to do eventing in a clinic situation. Clinics like this should not be left up to event organizers to put on. They need to be offered all over the country, not just the east or Florida, where the eventers are.

Also, if someone is put on the dangerous riding list, they must be required to attend one of these clinics to LEARN how to ride better on a cross country course. (Kind of like going to driving school if you've had too many tickets and want to retain your drivers license.)

It erks me that the USEA is willing to tell you you are riding dangerously, but they aren't WILLING to TEACH you how to ride better. They should take the educational part very seriously.

[tuppysmom]

mbarrett, that was the idea behind the "safe riding clinics" that USEA proposed. That idea received about the same response as the watch list idea.

[RAyers]

... Gnep, I wasn't at Fair Hill, but I'm thinking in your first riff (or somewhere in there) you were alleging that because of Phillip's flip on course he is an unsuitable caller?? DO I have that right? Are you saying only people with flawless records could be suitable for the task? Or that no-one is flawless, so no one should do it? Or that really Phillip should be on the watch list? What system do you propose for addressing ongoing borderline dangerous riding? Who do you respect enough to listen to?



What I suspect Gnep is saying, if you choose to throw stones... You have to admit, it appears hypocritical that certain folks chosen to be "watchdogs" have also been accused/investigated/convicted for cheating and abuse. So, we are holding them up as gatekeepers of our sport? As another poster mentioned, "Who guards the guards?"

I absolutely agree that if a person is accused of riding recklessly, they have EVERY right to confront their accuser. There should be NO anonymity in this system. If the reporting person is so good, they should have no fear about being identified.

NOW, if the watch list was compromised based on a records review at the end of the year (provided TDs would file written reports) that makes WAY more sense. A data driven system, not a perception driven system.

Reed

[bambam]

The problem with taking away anonymity is the resulting hesitancy to speak up. If this list is going to get at the prelim and up riders that are scary but because of who they are or who they train with, are not spoken to when they put in cringe-inducing ride after cringe-inducing ride, it has to be anonymous or it is no different than the current system where event officials don't red or yellow flag certain people at all or soon enough on course because of who they are (yes, they should but that is another discussion and topic). I personally think a few of the bad crashes in the last few years have fallen into this category and hopefully this system can help address that. At P and up, there are a small number of riders that scare people every damn time they go out on course- this list is directed at them, not the people who sometimes take a flyer or make a misjudgment now and then because that group includes every single eventer out there.
Simply offering them education is not going to do it because they do not think they need it- but maybe just maybe if KOC calls them to tell them that they need to rethink their riding, they may rethink that- they might not, but they may. That is the theory in the UK and it has panned out that way- why not give it a chance here to pan out and be successful as the UK list is?
As I said before, I think this is an idea that has a lot of positive potential even though I do not agree with every aspect of how it is set up right now. I think it is self-defeating to shoot down ideas simply because they "could" be abused or be useless without seeing if they are in practice. It is almost impossible to create any kind of system that is not capable of being abused or mis-used particularly one necessarily involving subjective judgment-- and this is no exception. I, however, would like to give eventers the benefit of the doubt here and if this system ends up being problematic, I will be the first one in line campaigning to end the program. This, however, is one of the few plans that has come out to address problems at the ULs where the most serious problems are and I, along with every single person who voiced an opinion on it in Lexington in June, think we should try it.

[Legatus]

The problem with taking away anonymity is the resulting hesitancy to speak up. If this list is going to get at the prelim and up riders that are scary but because of who they are or who they train with, are not spoken to when they put in cringe-inducing ride after cringe-inducing ride, it has to be anonymous or it is no different than the current system where event officials don't red or yellow flag certain people at all or soon enough on course because of who they are (yes, they should but that is another discussion and topic).

Alright, I have stolen the computer from Andrea who was in the process of writing a philosophical argument about anonymity versus full disclosure--but I stole it and won't let her hit submit.

If people are scared by full disclosure (remember in our penal system you have the right to face your accuser), then I say, "grow a pair." By and large we're responsible adults. I really don't care if someone is scared to confront another. Suck it up and deal with it.

I personally have no problem standing in front of Karen, Phillip, Darren, Amy, or Laine and telling them that I think they were riding poorly. I'm not scared, why should someone with more clout (i.e., ICP level 4, team member, or USEF official) be afraid to do the same? If you're willing to make a judgement call that could greatly impact someone's riding career/future, you had better have the intestinal fortitude to stand behind the claim.

ETA: Seriously, if you're too afraid to confront someone, then call me and I'll do it for you. I would much rather police ourselves then let USEF get involved more.

[PhoenixFarm]

Far be it from me to interrupt a good bout of cynicism, but . . .

I guess I don't get what it is they're supposed to do. Do I think this iteration of the watch list is perfect? No. Do I like the involvement of the ICP? NO! But, how else are we going to deal with the the issues that have been discussed ad nauseum here. Every single person who watched Laine ride over the last five years said the same thing--she rides too fast and is an accident looking for a place to happen. Did anyone do anything? No, because the thought was, what could they do? It's none of my business.

Would being on this watch list have stopped her from the ride she gave that horse at the Flower basket? Maybe, maybe not, but at minimum we as a sport would have had had a better answer when asked (as I was by a newer student after Rolex) "Well, if everyone knew she was riding dangerously, why didn't anyone say anything?" (And I'm not trying to drag up the Laine thing again, but her name is the one that kept coming up when discussing the watch list).

This makes it our business, and gives us an outlet. I know more ULR than I do officials. If I see something CONSISTENTLY scary, I'm going to approach one and mention it. Maybe the net effect will be zero. But, maybe, just maybe it will help.

And while I would like to state AGAIN, that the involvement of ICP instructors should be REMOVED from this process, as far as the team riders or ULR or what have you, of course no one is perfect and every single one of the has an incident that should have gotten them on a watch list at some point in their careers, but they've got to pick SOMEBODY, and it was clear at the safety summit no one wanted to the be the lone bad guy.

The big unknown for me, which will make or break this process, is if the folks involved with it have the cajones to police their own. In other words, pretty easy to call a prelim level ammy and say they don't know how to balance a horse. A bit harder to call a fellow professional at the advanced level. The equality exhibited by those naming the list will be very interesting to observe.

The watch list needs work for sure, but frankly it's the only idea out of the safety summit that I had any interest or confidence in.

[Legatus]

The big unknown for me, which will make or break this process, is if the folks involved with it have the cajones to police their own. In other words, pretty easy to call a prelim level ammy and say they don't know how to balance a horse. A bit harder to call a fellow professional at the advanced level.

Heather, looks like we posted at the exact same time... call me and I'll do it. :yes:

[pegasusmom]

If the USEA is that concerned about dangerous riding, they need to set up a series of clinics across the United States that TEACHES people how to ride correctly in a cross country situation. If you want people to ride better, you have to teach them.


It erks me that the USEA is willing to tell you you are riding dangerously, but they aren't WILLING to TEACH you how to ride better. They should take the educational part very seriously.

USEA Safe XC Riding Clinic, December 20th, 9:00-11:00 am at the Carolina Horse Park with Clinicians Robert Costello and Holly Hepp. Free for auditors. Please go to www.carolinahorsepark.com (http://www.carolinahorsepark.com) for further details.

[bambam]

Legatus- you may not have a problem speaking up but you are in the minority and telling people to grow a pair and thinking that is an actual productive route is unrealistic. Most people won't speak up and we have to deal with how people actually are and telling people they need to be more assertive is not going to make it so.

[RAyers]

...It is almost impossible to create any kind of system that is not capable of being abused or mis-used particularly one necessarily involving subjective judgment-- and this is no exception. I, however, would like to give eventers the benefit of the doubt here and if this system ends up being problematic, I will be the first one in line campaigning to end the program. This, however, is one of the few plans that has come out to address problems at the ULs where the most serious problems are and I, along with every single person who voiced an opinion on it in Lexington in June, think we should try it.


So why not use a MORE OBJECTIVE system of records review to look for patterns in riders. Use the rider records and TD reports from competitions and develop a REAL data backed system. Hospitals use it for doctors. The judicial system uses it for repeat offenders. Why not do that here?

In single instances during competition, it is up to the course officials, not spectators, trainers, or random observers. If a rider is noted it goes into their record which then at the end of the year becomes a DOCUMENTED case that can substantiate a case for or against a rider.

Reed

[bambam]

The big unknown for me, which will make or break this process, is if the folks involved with it have the cajones to police their own. In other words, pretty easy to call a prelim level ammy and say they don't know how to balance a horse. A bit harder to call a fellow professional at the advanced level. The equality exhibited by those naming the list will be very interesting to observe.

I agree with this completely

[RAyers]

You all realize that just like pornography, if a rider has enough willingness, they will take the USEF to court given that, as seen here, safe riding is subjective. While I am sure the USEF has run this by the attorneys, hell there are plenty that already work there, I can see a scenario where a rider who feels wronged will challenge their "suspension" or "observation" based on their right to work (so this will really be used against amateurs?). And since there will be NO real documented patterns, as implied by the presented statement, they will win.

The pornography industry is alive and well and growing in the world as I am sure "unsafe riding will be."

Reed

[bambam]

Reed- I don't disagree with that in a general sense but I think calling what you are describing "objective" is a misnomer, because the bottom line is it will always be someone's (whether official or former team member) subejctive judgment about what is dangerous and what is not.
If what you are talking about is requiring multiple reports of dangerous riding, recording those and when it gets to "x" number of a certain type there are consequences, then I support that. One of the things I do not like about this list in its current iteration is that it appears that on the basis of one report from one of the named people without investigation, you can be put on the list. I think there needs to be either more than 1 report required by more than 1 reporter or there needs to be some type of follow-up/inquiry/etc before a person is put on the list. I don't think it needs to be or should be only a year-end summary report that results in action.
If you are talking about something more involved then recording and reporting incidents of observed dangerous riding, can you please expand on what you mean? I am not sure what "patterns" we can be looking for that would show up on paper other than reports of "this rider looked scary/out of control/excessively fast/etc. There is not necessarily a correlation betweem dangerous riding and jumping faults since through luck and saintly/talented horses, these people often get around clean- which perpetuates the problem of them not thinking there is a problem with their riding.
I think the problem with only having officials be responsible for reporting a dangerous riding incident is that these officials already have that power and are clearly not comfortable using against certain ULRs and their students and so it may be beneficial to have ULRs do a little self-policing. I tend to think the problem with having the ULRs able to report people is that they won't report on one of their own and not that they will over-report but we will see I guess.

[bambam]

they will win.

Reed
I seriously doubt that

[RAyers]

If what you are talking about is requiring multiple reports of dangerous riding, recording those and when it gets to "x" number of a certain type there are consequences, then I support that. One of the things I do not like about this list in its current iteration is that it appears that on the basis of one report from one of the named people without investigation, you can be put on the list. I think there needs to be either more than 1 report required by more than 1 reporter or there needs to be some type of follow-up/inquiry/etc before a person is put on the list. I don't think it needs to be or should be only a year-end summary report that results in action.


Yes. That is what I am talking about.

As for year-end, how else would you propose to define if a rider has a problem? 1 competition? 2? 3? 10? The best and most OBJECTIVE way is to create year-end statistics for each rider. Otherwise you are in the situation you don't like.

As for winning, I disagree. All it takes is the ability to prove that this list prevents a person from making a living and at the same time showing that there is NO objective component to what makes a rider safe or unsafe and you render the USEF case moot. Hence why this list also has the potential to be more against amateurs than pros.

[bambam]

I think waiting until year end is unnecessary- if they have 8 reported incidents by July (or using your idea, 6 reports by officials at events of dangerous riding), then why not call them then? You want to talk about a liability problem, it will be when USEA has a documented record of multiple dangerous riding incidents that it did nothing about and the junior who has been scarring the crap out of people gets seriously hurt after 10 months of bad reports but a week before some year end summary is due. Mommy and daddy will be quicker to sue over little Suzy Q getting hurt than any listed pro. I think we are better off setting an "x" number of dangerous riding incidents in any 12 month period triggering being put on the list rather than waiting until the end of the year regardless of how many incidents have been observed and reported in that calendar year.
How does being on the watch list "prevent" a person from making a living? The answer is, it does not. At a certain point, it requires them to take a couple of lessons in order to continue - that is not prevention. As I said, I don't disagree that it should take more than 1 reported, uninvestigated report to put someone on the list but I think the consequences are mild enough and the fact that those consequences don't kick in until there is significantly more than 1 report make winning a lawsuit on that pretty unlikely (although defending meritless suits is ridiculously expensive).

[mbarrett]

BigRuss, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still believe that educational opportunities need to be offered by the USEA. Once again, not everyone has the same access to trainers, coaches, and xc courses that others may have.

PegsasMom, great there's a xc clinic in the south. When is the one is Illinois????????? Or Iowa, or Nebraska, or Minnesota, Or Missouri?........

[poltroon]

does mike huber fit into those qualifications?

He is a Level IV ICP, so yes.

The list is here:
http://useventing.com/education.php?section=instructors&id=34

[RAyers]

I think waiting until year end is unnecessary- if they have 8 reported incidents by July (or using your idea, 6 reports by officials at events of dangerous riding), then why not call them then?

Because you will then have folks like me who still subscribe to the less than 6 upper level outtings a year to save the horse. We will be able to get around the system at least for 2 years if you only go on an annual basis. A year end review must also be included.

Reed

[yellow rose]

BigRuss, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still believe that educational opportunities need to be offered by the USEA. Once again, not everyone has the same access to trainers, coaches, and xc courses that others may have.

PegsasMom, great there's a xc clinic in the south. When is the one is Illinois????????? Or Iowa, or Nebraska, or Minnesota, Or Missouri?........

there was one in michigan in august. about 3 hrs from chicago. highly publicized on the usea website. sorry you missed it.

[bambam]

Because you will then have folks like me who still subscribe to the less than 6 upper level outtings a year to save the horse. We will be able to get around the system at least for 2 years if you only go on an annual basis. A year end review must also be included.

Reed
Oh- I think I was misunderstanding you. I picked 8 out of the air, I actually think it should be less than that. But regardless of the number, I like the idea of the year end review in addition to monitoring on a continuing basis and calling them before year end if the number and severity of the incidents warrants it. That will keep those UL riders who conserve their horses in check . . . both of you;)

[mbarrett]

yellow rose, I'm glad there was a clinic in Michigan. However, I don't live in Chicago. I am MUCH further west. Many, many hours west. I live in the world of pleasure horses and barrel horses.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

I have serious misgivings about Bobby Costello teaching "safe riding." This is the man that rides without a helmet regularly, allows his students to jump without helmets, has allegedly galloped through the foundation without a helmet. But he's ICP Level 4, so it's okay.

I think the safe riding clinic is a good idea--just not with questionably safe riders/instructors.

Andy, not to get into a "He says X, He says y" match, but you and Andrea have alleged this about Bobby before, and my direct experience with him has found him very safety minded, from tack checks and progressions of exercises to the all important query he made at one point to me when I was thinking of moving up , "What's your hurry? Do you really think he's ready??"

Anyhow, so I asked him, and his answer agrees with what I have seen - he never jumps without helmet, and always requires ASTM helmets on students jumping. I didn't ask about hacking at any gait in the Foundation, but certainly can if that is the key point which makes or breaks a safety record.


I don't so much care if you care for or respect Bobby, or anyone else for that matter, but I am finding myself cranky lately feeling like the line between cynicism and total nay-saying has been erased on this board. I'm pretty sure I haven't met the perfect person yet, but I'm positive there can't be as many anti-christs in one sport as this board would allege...

[Jealoushe]

I still don't even get how they are supposed to watch out for this while they are showing multiple horses all day...

[LexInVA]

I still don't even get how they are supposed to watch out for this while they are showing multiple horses all day...

I believe the idea is that someone informs them through various channels. It looks to be a somewhat thinly veiled attempt at saying "Hey look, we are out there protecting you!" but as you say, they are in their own little world so it won't likely be THEM watching your ass. Once someone gets flagged by the USEA after being reported one too many times, one of the BNRs will step in and then they will talk to you. That seems the only logical way it will work.

[Jealoushe]

So if someone themselves is a BNR, NOT one mentioned previously, they are supposed to say....um ok?

I can see it happening more like... "you're not the boss of me!!! I've won more CCI's then YOU have!"

[TuxWink]

I guess I am confused because I already assumed someone was out there watching for "dangerous riding" and "horse abuse" - the TD. I haven't shown since 2006, but even then I saw people being "spoken to" for dangerous riding (going too fast) and abuse. In fact, one of the cases I didn't see was written up as a violation in USEF magazine - I believe it was for spurring and pulling on the mouth of a horse after elimination. I only happened to know that these people were "spoken to" because I happened to be standing nearby and saw both the incident and the conversation. Since every jumping round is usually videotaped in recognized competition, I see no reason why anyone couldn't tell the TD they saw something dangerous, have the TD review the evidence, and then speak to the person right then and there if they feel it merited a conversation. I don't see why it matters who reports the incident or what level they ride at or teach at.

[LexInVA]

So if someone themselves is a BNR, NOT one mentioned previously, they are supposed to say....um ok?

I can see it happening more like... "you're not the boss of me!!! I've won more CCI's then YOU have!"

Now that's where it gets interesting. Will they come down on BNR who is King/Queen of Area (whatever) or is this just going to be one of those surgical tools that they use for some sinister purpose? I can certainly spell out several scenarios where such a tool could be abused for specific purposes. I suppose a more interesting question to pose is whether or not they will use it on their darlings like "she who shall not be named". Perhaps this will turn into some sort of planned event where they make sweeping claims of nearly absolute safe riding above whatever level suits them and that the levels below have 24359872435098247 instances of unsafe riding being documented.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Andy - years ago I used to ride with Wendy Olson Lewis in that very field which she shared with Bobby. I always wore a helmet, as I imagine did all her students, but it makes me positive that people jump in there who are not Bobby's responsibility. Who knows. I'm certainly not there monitoring. I've seen some pretty scary riding at Tamarack that I don't dream of holding Denny accountable for.

If we're going to start posting comments instructors have made privately in our hearing, I'm positive we could get quite the lively thread going! I'm not going there, though! I'm all for productive discussion, and can't wait to hear about the event you and Andrea are working on! That sounds like a great positive action!

[pegasusmom]

BigRuss, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still believe that educational opportunities need to be offered by the USEA. Once again, not everyone has the same access to trainers, coaches, and xc courses that others may have.

PegsasMom, great there's a xc clinic in the south. When is the one is Illinois????????? Or Iowa, or Nebraska, or Minnesota, Or Missouri?........

Can't answer that as I am only responsible for the one here at CHP. Have you asked USEA? If not, and if you feel strongly that USEA needs to step up to the plate more, then please do so.

[JER]

Every single person who watched Laine ride over the last five years said the same thing--she rides too fast and is an accident looking for a place to happen. Did anyone do anything? No, because the thought was, what could they do? It's none of my business.

Would being on this watch list have stopped her from the ride she gave that horse at the Flower basket? Maybe, maybe not, but at minimum we as a sport would have had had a better answer when asked (as I was by a newer student after Rolex) "Well, if everyone knew she was riding dangerously, why didn't anyone say anything?"


Ah. But the reality of the Laine situation was very different.

Despite Laine's reputation for (and public displays of) dangerous riding, her name was making its way onto all kinds of lists -- like the developing rider list and the winter training list.

Her dangerous riding was being condoned and, in fact, REWARDED by the people-who-have-now-appointed-themselves-in-charge-of-policing-the-rest-of-us.

[Legatus]

Jeannette, fair enough. I understand that it's hard to always control a farm, especially for many of the eventers in So. Pines that are only there seasonally. You're spot on--who knows who I saw. I'll admit the possibility that he was not supervising.

Not to hijack the thread, but the planning is going well, albeit still in preliminary stages. If you know of anyone who will invest in a thirty-acre parcel, let me know. :cool:

[Gnep]

If somebody rides dangerously, give that person instantly the yellow card, and put him/her on the watch list.
But do it right away, at the show and give the person the ability to respond, not behind the back, not with a secret accuser.

I piss somebody off and than what a little pay back and Mike calls me and I do not have the ability to defend myself against that secret accuser, you want to ruin smomebodies reputation, a competitor, put him/her on the list.
Easiest thing in the world.

Ang if anybody wants me to beleave that any of the BNs will ever show up on that list, well Santa Claus is coming through the chimney, pffffffffffffffffff

[JER]

If somebody rides dangerously, give that person instantly the yellow card, and put him/her on the watch list.
But do it right away, at the show and give the person the ability to respond, not behind the back, not with a secret accuser.


+1

Yellow and red cards in other sports are done out in the open and with immediate review. (Video review in some sports.)

Dangerous riding should be discussed on the spot, with all accusing parties and accused parties present. As TuxWink pointed out, if this is done correctly, there shouldn't really be a need for a Watch List.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

The thing I see, that I HOPE this system might help with, is some riders who pretty consistently turn in clean rides but there are clearly huge holes in their education, so they may truly believe they are safe. It's the grey areas of DR, or the areas most like pornography. And hey, they probably aren't going to kill horses, but that doesn't mean they are safe.

To my mind, being put on the watch list and spoken to is a far smaller penalty than 25 points. Or I shouldn't say "smaller" because I'm hoping it will be meaningful - but as a wake-up call, not an immediate "penalty." Maybe someone wins, or is in the ribbons with their hail mary ride, but if they are really scaring knowledgable bystanders? I would rather know ASAP, and have time to address the issue.

Yeah, having Amy and possibly Karen as callers might not have been the least cynicism inpiring choices, but if I were chosing the list I would be looking for active riders and a geographic spread, so chances would be good that people on the watcher list might be at the events we potential watchees are at...

Will this effort, if it works perfectly, save eventing, or make it "safe?" No, but it seems like a worthwhile part of a whole. I don't know how much ULR's are already saying "Shit, that was a scary round you just turned in!" to each other, but i think encouraging a culture where there is precedent for speaking up when you see a scary round -well, that can't hurt!

[NMK]

Someone explain this to me because I'm not getting it.


Ring ring

Hello this is KOC I'm looking for XXX.
This is XXX.
It was reported that you rode dangerously at xx event two weeks ago.
What was dangerous about it?
I heard you were going too fast.
Well, my horse jumps better that way.
But you were xxx under the time, with penalties.
I meant to do that. I am moving up next week at xxx event.
Oh, I see. Well, the TD said you were out of control.
Huh? In what way?
Well, I wasn't there so I don't know.

Game over. Most of the dangerous riders I know live in denial anyhow.

[LexInVA]

Pornography and Eventing in the same thread. Does it get any better? :lol:

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

maybe someone could post pics?? :)

[Miss C]

Forgive me if this has been addressed, but as I read the document, if you are on the list at, say, Novice, you would have to complete 6 more Novices to get off the list. But, you could also do 1 or 2 Novice, move up to Training, and have a nice run (or two, or three, or four nice runs) at Training...but you'd still be on the Watch List, right? I'm not saying there should be a prohibition against Watch List people moving up, but 6 HTs at the same level seems a bit excessive. And as it appears also to apply to the horse/rider combination, what happens if the horse gets injured or sold? Does the rider still stay on the list?

[Hannahsmom]

Competing SIX times before getting off the watch list? Wow, in today's economy the poor eventer that goes to 2-4 events a year is going to be on that list a long time. :D I guess since it's a USEF rule this only applies to USEF competitions? (Prelim and above?)

And the two days of coaching from an ICP level IV instructor? Is that kind of like taking the driving course after a DUI? What if you don't have a Level IV instructor to take from in your area? I guess all the dangerous riders must live in areas with a plethora of ICP instructors.

Oh well, I'm not competing much, if at all, anyway. But when I do, I'll make sure to trot all my fences. :lol: The problem with these kind of blanket rules, like others have pointed out, is that in an area as huge and diverse as the US, the actual implementation details get pretty shakey. Although I'm all about "trying something" and improving it as you go, I usually have a clear set of requirements and have tested it through a multitude of scenarios. Hopefully this is the sort of thinking that went into this proposal?

[NeverTime]

To clarify, it isn't two lessons with a Level IV instructor, it's two lessons with a coach who is ICP-accredited for the level at which you compete. That makes the pool somewhat bigger for prelim riders, but still may be hard to find if you live in the hinterlands. (( On the other hand, even if you do live in the hinterlands, if eventing is important enough to you that you'll drive XX hours to get to a competition, hopefully saving your own hide is important enough to you that you'll drive the same amount for the requisite instruction.)

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I don't think this looks like such a bad idea. The folks who can judge and report dangerous riding make sense -- officials, certified instructors and current and former team members -- no one's going to like all those people, but it seems like that's about the strongest criteria that reasonably can be applied. And it looks as if this small number of "notifying agents" have been selected to ensure a consistent message is being communicated as this program first starts, and the list will be expanded after that. I'm guessing they've given this wee group of people a protocol lesson so all the phone calls sound the same.

As far as having to do six more competitions safely - that's a lot but not unreasonable, more like on the extra-extra safe side (which is what we want to be, no?). Whether you are someone who competes 12 times a year or 4 times a year, you probably shouldn't be in a big hurry to move up if you are riding poorly/dangerously, and being on the watch list won't preclude you from continuing to compete at your current level. (Actually, I don't see anything on that document that prevents you from moving up a level while you are on the watch list ... am I missing something?)

I guess I just have faith, misplaced though it may be, that this isn't going to be abused and people aren't going to be called out for one bad fence here or there.

[poltroon]

I think this thread might be more productive if people were more constructive about their concerns, and being more clear about how they would like to change the proposal.

For the most part, the part about how you get on the watch list doesn't concern me all that much. Your name goes to the office, who then does some investigation, and then maybe you end up on the watch list. But being on the watch list doesn't itself keep you from doing anything.

What I don't like is putting the onus on the rider to notify the office when they enter. It seems to me this can and should be handled behind the scenes, with organizers/TDs able to check the list before their event starts, and comparing that to their starter list.

I wonder what penalty they envision to enforce that provision.

I would also change it so that rather than the rider having to petition to be removed, that the various people "Watching" should make comments with respect to stay/remove and that removal should happen when those reports warrant it.

The system they lay out will rely on judgement. Used well, it could help. Used poorly, it will be terrible. But I don't see any way to do it that doesn't rely on people using judgement.

[poltroon]

To clarify, it isn't two lessons with a Level IV instructor, it's two lessons with a coach who is ICP-accredited for the level at which you compete. That makes the pool somewhat bigger for prelim riders, but still may be hard to find if you live in the hinterlands. (( On the other hand, even if you do live in the hinterlands, if eventing is important enough to you that you'll drive XX hours to get to a competition, hopefully saving your own hide is important enough to you that you'll drive the same amount for the requisite instruction.)

And, you only have to get that coaching if you get an additional bad report/investigation AFTER you've been notified that you're being Watched. It's not on a 'first infraction'.

[lstevenson]

I regularly see competitors at the mid-levels of eventing who I believe should not be permitted to ride around a 2'6" hunter course, yet their instructors (ICP Level 4, even!) are telling them to start thinking about moving up. But then again, I'm just a lowly instructor without ICP aspirations, so what do I know?


:yes: I agree with you Andrea, and I believe I even know who you are talking about.


I am all for dangerous riders and riders who are not ready for the level they are trying to compete at being put on a watch list. The problem is WHO is making the decision on each case. That is a very slippery slope, and is a huge responsibility. And I think that the ICP should have nothing to do with it.

[poltroon]

I think it would be appropriate to ask for an annual report on the program, with some metrics, that may help everyone see if the program is effective. The numbers that come to my mind are, for the calendar year:

- Number of reports received
- Number of riders added to the watch list
- Number of riders receiving subsequent report(s)
- Number of riders removed from the watch list

You could do this by level or simply as an aggregate.

What else would people want to know?

[annikak]

Ugh. ICP person that can put you on a list? Well, I know that I'd better never ride at a few events where I have spoken honestly about one particular ICP instructor- because Oh Dear God Me...did that come back and bite me in the A**. :eek::(The ICP program is NOT "there" yet, and still needs to weed out a bit. Once that happens, perhaps. Until then, there are a few that do not deserve to be considered ICP instructors. The program itself is political. Yes, I do believe in it, but...not putting my eggs in that basket just yet. We do need certification. But...we need good people to certify. Those are few and far between.

I am a no body. But what if you are an almost somebody, and some ICP person takes it upon themselves to "go after you". I can see it now- it will be a whole new example of disgusting politics we have to deal with. We have enough as a sport already.

Like the idea of a list- but needs some rethinking.

[NeverTime]

I get the impression that it would take more than one ICP instructor with a personal vendetta to get a rider put on this watch list.

I'm sure none of the folks involved are stupid, and all realize that almost anyone who gets one of these calls is going to be supremely pissed off, might threaten to sue, etc etc. So... I imagine that it will take way more than one person's opinion - more like the TD, multiple jump judges, spectators including instructors, etc to agree that your riding was dangerous before the next steps happen.

This is not all left in the hands of ICP instructors. They are one of many people who may, or may not, be involved in identifying dangerous riding.

[nirvana002]

I don't think everyone can have it both ways. Nor do I think anyone is looking to nail somebody on an isolated incident, although they can be tragic. I think if you are on a "watch list" chances are you should be and you should be happy that people are looking out for your best interest. Embarassing, maybe...but I am certain it is better than the alternative. There are simply too many riders that don't know what dangerous riding is. Everytime I am in the warm up and I listen to a coach tell their student that leaving a stride out is a good thing...I am sick..or when the horse stops because it couldn't add the stride safely and didn't want to turn over...and a coach yells to get after it for stopping... Not good. Maybe, it just saved the rider and it's own ass. IT IS THE RIDER'S JOB TO GET THE HORSE TO A GOOD DISTANCE. We are not perfect, nor are the horses, we both make mistakes...as do all partners...but learning from them and knowing what might be going wrong is key. I think if a watch list is done in an appropriate manner, to open the eyes of people who were otherwise unaware, it could be a great thing.

[nature]

Everytime I am in the warm up and I listen to a coach tell their student that leaving a stride out is a good thing...I am sick..or when the horse stops because it couldn't add the stride safely and didn't want to turn over...and a coach yells to get after it for stopping... Not good.

Maybe if we must have a rider watch list, what about an instructor/coach/trainer watch list. For the reason stated above by Nivava002? How long should we let a coach give bad advice before being put on a watch list.

What if the bad coaching is coming from an ICP instructor? Or a level 4 ICP instructor? Or a rider that has represented the US in the last 12 years?

[nirvana002]

Maybe if we must have a rider watch list, what about an instructor/coach/trainer watch list. For the reason stated above by Nivava002? How long should we let a coach give bad advice before being put on a watch list.

What if the bad coaching is coming from an ICP instructor? Or a level 4 ICP instructor? Or a rider that has represented the US in the last 12 years?

I couldn't agree with you more. I think there is a fine line here, that needs to end. Alot of the line is money. I do not agree that the ICP instructor list is or should be an end all be all.What is the solution? I just know that there are a lot of people who are fairly quick to judge rider's mistakes because they get to see those mistakes in the press. Those same riders are quite possibly making the same mistakes at the lower levels without even knowing they are making them, because they are getting away with them. That is a coaches job, for sure. Knowing is the first step to fixing the problem.

[caldreamer]

I don't think everyone can have it both ways. Nor do I think anyone is looking to nail somebody on an isolated incident, although they can be tragic. I think if you are on a "watch list" chances are you should be and you should be happy that people are looking out for your best interest. Embarassing, maybe...but I am certain it is better than the alternative. There are simply too many riders that don't know what dangerous riding is. Everytime I am in the warm up and I listen to a coach tell their student that leaving a stride out is a good thing...I am sick..or when the horse stops because it couldn't add the stride safely and didn't want to turn over...and a coach yells to get after it for stopping... Not good. Maybe, it just saved the rider and it's own ass. IT IS THE RIDER'S JOB TO GET THE HORSE TO A GOOD DISTANCE. We are not perfect, nor are the horses, we both make mistakes...as do all partners...but learning from them and knowing what might be going wrong is key. I think if a watch list is done in an appropriate manner, to open the eyes of people who were otherwise unaware, it could be a great thing.

Thankyou. Finally, someone who, albeit calmly and rationally (I know that's hard for a lot of you to understand) makes sense.

[snoopy]

Hey Jill

CLEAR your sodding inbox...I cannot reply!!!

[nirvana002]

Hey Jill

CLEAR your sodding inbox...I cannot reply!!!

yeah yeah...done!!!

[Gnep]

Nirvana,
I personaly have nothing against a watch list, great idea, but who are the people that put you on that list, who are the judges and who than judges the judges.

The system proposed, puts all the power into the hands of a single cast and they are the one who thought this thing up and who in the end will profit from it.
On top of it they will judge them self.

What do you call that, a Karibou Barn ?

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Gnep - who would you like to see as reporters? Who would you trust?

[nirvana002]

Nirvana,
I personaly have nothing against a watch list, great idea, but who are the people that put you on that list, who are the judges and who than judges the judges.

The system proposed, puts all the power into the hands of a single cast and they are the one who thought this thing up and who in the end will profit from it.
On top of it they will judge them self.

What do you call that, a Karibou Barn ?

I don't know where is the right place to start. I , for one, would respect all of the above on the list, should they think my riding or horse or a combination of both were dangerous. I DO NOT think anyone would single someone out for any reason other than saftey. Remember, everyone is on the same side...improving the sport. So, if you are called out for dangerous riding, why not ask why? If you know it was going wrong, why not say, shit...I rode really badly today..if it is a student, why not say, I may have not taught you that, but we need to re-school and re-group. If it is not about ribbons and it is about preserving a sport we love, why not? Humility is a great thing, in my experience. especially when you teach from your own humility.

[flypony74]

Of course, all this goes back to rider responsibility, or lack thereof.

[poltroon]

What if the bad coaching is coming from an ICP instructor? Or a level 4 ICP instructor? Or a rider that has represented the US in the last 12 years?

It is my sense that one of the purposes of the ICP program is to be able to give feedback within the coaching community, so that people have enough of a connection and enough experience critiquing each other that they would perhaps be more able to call up Coach Creamcheese and say, "Hey, that kid on the chestnut that you teach scared the %^&& out of us all this weekend."

The level 4s have gone through a fairly long process. That doesn't mean they won't make mistakes and won't have blind spots, but they should all have a fair amount of experience and maturity. That said, I am surprised to see Amy Tryon at Level 4, not because of Le Samurai, but simply because I wasn't aware she'd had many students and/or that she'd been coaching all that long.

[pwynnnorman]

This is slightly off the current bent of this thread, but I've been struggling with coming up with a way to express what I think.

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for greater transparency in decisionmaking, and with that, with greater involvement from the membership--or at least those who care enough to express opinions publicly. IMO, if you involve people in a debate, you insulate yourself from their criticism because you can show how they were part of your decisionmaking process.

You also get more ideas if you involve more people.

And I think if you involve people who care, you then can't turnaround and ignore them after you've made a decision. You have to report back and explain your decision...and through that explanation, those who care get to learn about practical things you had to take into account, like any reluctance there might have been from individuals to stick their necks out, criticize and potentially take away the pleasure, or even the very livelihood, of someone else--someone who might turn around and sue you for your decision.

No, I haven't a clue if that came up with this issue, but I'm sure there were similar issues which could help those who care understand the decisions that were made (even if they still don't agree with them). I also think those who care bring different perspectives that could be of value, if only a way were incorporated, consistently, to take stock of those perspectives. Huge marketing and PR boo-boos have been created by failing to do this.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Related to this, I've always wondered why jump judges -- who can epresent both an "ignorant" non-horsey public (a group whose perspectives are nevertheless very important) as well as educated horse people -- aren't utilized more effectively in data collection, including DR identification. No matter how little you know about the sport, if you've been bored to death by the last ten horses who went over your jump, but your heart was in your throat with that last one, you know something ain't right. And rare is the organizer who has no knowledgeable jump judges on course, especially at critical fences. Collectively, jump judges ARE a couple dozen people who exist at every single event and have -- no matter what their backgrounds -- valuable perspectives.

But we do nothing to involve them MORE. Who knows what reaching out to them could produce?

I'm not saying jump judges should, individually, report DR. (And I'm not saying organizers should give up their volunteer lists to USEA--I know that'd never happen.) But what if, for example, the design of jump score sheets and the TD (when briefing jump judges) encouraged them to note (in writing on their sheets) what they felt "might be" DR? THEN, if someone -- the TD, any official at that event, or even a more experienced jump judge -- wanted to report DR, there would be -- should be/could be -- a wealth of additional perspectives on score sheets to back them up. THEN it wouldn't matter who did the actual reporting...would it?

The fact is that jump judges, sure, can be pretty ignorant. But they aren't ALL ignorant. Indeed, jump judges represent, IMO, a very important segment of "those who care" -- just like those who post in this forum represent another segment. If I were being paid to do PR for this sport, I would spend a lot of time figuring out how to involve "those who care" in as many aspects of the sport as possible.

[nature]

Remember this?

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=166410&highlight=safety

Eventing magazine instructor article
Who has read the article on the instructor's symposium in the last Eventing magazine? Did anyone notice what was missing from the rider's going over XC jumps????
Even my nonhorsey husband immediately picked up on this one.
So we are all thinking safety right now - right????

or

This was the July/August issue, if that helps at all. Definitely ICP, unless these people typically group together to teach (eeek, that could be interesting.... ). Riders jumping in the foreground, with Karen, Mark, Phyllis, and pretty sure Robin, along with a couple others, standing in the background.

or

The issue has nothing to do with photos, layouts, or graphic design - the issue is there was an example set, for instructors, to have pupils jump XC without safety equipment!!!

The above are posts taken from the thread.

Look who is standing in the background according to the second post and what did they do to correct the problem of lack of safety equipment? And they are going to tell me I am riding dangerous? Is it only the chosen that are allowed to ride dangerously like who ever was in that clinic?

[Classic Melody]

While jump judging this fall, I saw a rider in OP get eliminated at a water complex for stops, only to continue to present her horse multiple times to the point that she was still in the water when the next rider came along. The JJ at that fence told her to give way, I radioed from the previous fence that the next rider was coming, the eliminated rider was nonplussed.

I certainly think she should have gotten a DR score for that little stunt, and perhaps she would have learned a lesson. Did she? Not according to the USEA competition records.

My point is that dangerous riding is subjective - except when it's not. "Failing to give way" or "continuing to present horse after elimination" I think should be listed as automatic DR. The more subjective DR, going too fast or getting multiple scary distances, is much much trickier. For that I have no answer, but I think a more specific definition of SOME examples of DR could be helpful.

[galwaybay]

Call me crazy but weren't there many threads/posts about wanting to improve the safety of this sport; were many wanting to so do something similar to GB about dangerous riding. So now you have what looks to be the establishment of a committee and watch for DR and many of you complain? You complain about certain riders being dangerous (which some seem to confuse dangerous for an unfortunate accident) and yet when the program is established you complain about the merits of it; will it be a witch-hunt (sometimes probably) - the thing is you cannot always have it both ways - there has to be a compromise somewhere in the middle. Most likely there are going to be some problems w/ this there always the what-if's, however, its not like there cannot be chances and adjustments made further down the road. At least it's a start.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I guess I just have faith, misplaced though it may be, that this isn't going to be abused and people aren't going to be called out for one bad fence here or there.


I think I agree with you. One bad ride might get a talking to by the TD or a DR penalty....I thought the point of the watch list was for more extensive and consistent bad/dangerous riding...not one instance of bad or dangerous riding. This is why it takes time to notify the rider...there needs to be a history of reports....just like a worker not doing a good job. One mistake, you talk to them, but repeated similar mistakes...well that obviously requires more than talking to since talking hasn't fixed the problem. I would expect the list to stay short....sure I see some bad riding and know that I've been guilty of it as well. Even the best in the world make mistakes. We are all human and our horses are not machines. I thought that the purpose of the watch list is to identify and hopefully force some help on riders who make more than the average mistake....who show consistent poor judgment. Not the random mistake.

As for the list of notify people....well they are all riders who on quick glance already volunteer time to the USEA and serve on one or more committees...and they must have agreed to do this. Boy that can't be a job that a lot of people are knocking down the door to do!

If this helps save one horse...or one rider...then I will think it is a good idea. I hope that it doesn't turn into a witch hunt etc. and think that it will need to be given some time to see how it works. If it turns into a witch hunt....well, you will see me in the jumper ring and fox hunting instead of eventing.

[TuxWink]

I just wanted to clarify that I don't have a problem at all with the concept of the "watch list." What I DO have a problem with is:

1. The people who are considered "qualified" to do the reporting under this system. I think ANYBODY should be able to approach the TD or other licensed official at the competition with a concern about anybody else. I think we need to leave the upper level riders / coaches out of it because I think this provides a major conflict of interest. Call me cynical, but I really don't think any of the small pool of upper level riders are going to call out their peers or their peers' students and put them on some sort of official "watch list."

2. This system is ALREADY in place. We have DR penalties. That goes onto your record with the USEA. It is easy to pull up a list of riders entered into a show and note anyone who has had DR penalties in the past. There is your initial "watch list" for the show. We just need a system of "further punishment" for repeat offenders. Second offense should be elimination, suspension for a period of time and maybe that "phone call" from an ICP instructor (if they are not already riding with one. ) :0 That is all we need. A follow-up to the dangerous riding penalties. Not a whole new system, once again presided over by the people who are in the most danger and have appeared to be the most resistant to change.

[snoopy]

I just wanted to clarify that I don't have a problem at all with the concept of the "watch list." What I DO have a problem with is:

1. The people who are considered "qualified" to do the reporting under this system. I think ANYBODY should be able to approach the TD or other licensed official at the competition with a concern about anybody else. I think we need to leave the upper level riders / coaches out of it because I think this provides a major conflict of interest. Call me cynical, but I really don't think any of the small pool of upper level riders are going to call out their peers or their peers' students and put them on some sort of official "watch list."

2. This system is ALREADY in place. We have DR penalties. That goes onto your record with the USEA. It is easy to pull up a list of riders entered into a show and note anyone who has had DR penalties in the past. There is your initial "watch list" for the show. We just need a system of "further punishment" for repeat offenders. Second offense should be elimination, suspension for a period of time and maybe that "phone call" from an ICP instructor (if they are not already riding with one. ) :0 That is all we need. A follow-up to the dangerous riding penalties. Not a whole new system, once again presided over by the people who are in the most danger and have appeared to be the most resistant to change.


:yes:

[VicarageVee]

were alleging that because of Phillip's flip on course he is an unsuitable caller?? DO I have that right? Are you saying only people with flawless records could be suitable for the task? Or that no-one is flawless, so no one should do it? Or that really Phillip should be on the watch list? What system do you propose for addressing ongoing borderline dangerous riding? Who do you respect enough to listen to?

Thank you.

I have no problem with my local level 4s making dangerous riding calls. I have no problem with a public and largely transparent watch list.

p.s. you do realize that a level 4 ICP instructor or team member can report one another, right? Anonymously? This is equitable.

[CandyHaasch]

I think it's not so much the riding that has become dangerous, it is the courses. I mean, the technical questions which are being demanded of horses are getting so extreme. (Skinnies that brush both your stirrup irons? Multiple multiple multiples?? And so forth.) I remember watching at Rolex one year where they asked the horses to jump a snake fence, built like a zig zag, back, and forth, back, and forth. Zig, and zag. About the sixth (or eighth, or whatever it was) repetition of this, you could just see these wonderful, good, game Eventing horses' eyes glaze over. "What? You want me to turn and jump this same fence, again??" That is when horses start making mistakes. It's senseless enough, all that we ask these noble creatures to do, without capitalizing on the senselessness of it. You can separate the sheep from the goats without having courses so extreme that competitors are tempted into dangerous riding, just to get round with a winning time.